Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Open Discussion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Open Discussion Discuss Rosen case at the General Forum; I hear that an independent judge OK'd the warrant for Rosen's records. Oh, looks like he did. Wonder what Rosen ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2013, 04:31 AM
Mikeyy's Avatar
EARTHLING
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 48,594
Thanks: 14,210
Thanked 14,206 Times in 10,298 Posts
Default Rosen case

I hear that an independent judge OK'd the warrant for Rosen's records. Oh, looks like he did. Wonder what Rosen was up to.


“After extensive deliberations, and after following all applicable laws, regulations and policies, the Department sought an appropriately tailored search warrant under the Privacy Protection Act,” said a department official, referring to a federal law that governs under what circumstances information can be subpoenaed from the news media. “And a federal magistrate judge made an independent finding that probable cause existed to approve the search warrant.”

DOJ confirms Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's emails - Open Channel
__________________
KARMA IS ONLY A BITCH IF YOU ARE
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2013, 09:00 AM
CindyB's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 2,807
Thanked 1,826 Times in 1,173 Posts
Default Re: Rosen case

How Prosecutors Fought to Keep Rosen's Warrant Secret : The New Yorker
Quote:
HOW PROSECUTORS FOUGHT TO KEEP ROSEN’S WARRANT SECRET

The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James Rosen’s private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time.

The new details are revealed in a court filing detailing a back and forth between the Justice Department and the federal judges who oversaw the request to search a Gmail account belonging to Rosen, a reporter for Fox News. A 2009 article Rosen had written about North Korea sparked an investigation; Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department adviser who allegedly leaked classified information to Rosen, insisted that the reporter should not be notified of the search and seizure of his e-mails, even after a lengthy delay.

E-mails, Machen wrote, “are commonly used by subjects or targets of the criminal investigation at issue, and the e-mail evidence derived from those compelled disclosures frequently forms the core of the Government’s evidence supporting criminal charges.”

He argued that disclosure of the search warrant would preclude the government from monitoring the account, should such a step become necessary in the investigation. Machen added that “some investigations are continued for many years because, while the evidence is not yet sufficient to bring charges, it is sufficient to have identified criminal subjects and/or criminal activity serious enough to justify continuation of the investigation.”

Machen insisted the investigation would be compromised if Rosen was informed of the warrant, and also asked the court to order Google not to notify Rosen that the company had handed over Rosen’s e-mails to the government. Rosen, according to recent reports, did not learn that the government seized his e-mail records until it was reported in the Washington Post last week.

The new details indicate that the government wanted the option to search Rosen’s e-mails repeatedly if the F.B.I. found further evidence implicating the reporter in what prosecutors argued was a conspiracy to commit espionage.

According to recently unsealed documents in the case, the Obama Justice Department sought an extensive amount of information from Rosen’s e-mail account. In addition to Rosen’s correspondence with Kim, the government wanted to know about Rosen’s contacts with other government officials, including “records or information relating to the Author’s communication with any other source or potential source of the information disclosed in the Article.”

The government, which accused Rosen of being an “aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator” in the Kim case, cast a wide net in its search of Rosen’s e-mail. Among other things, the search warrant requested access to:



—“Records or information related to Stephen Kim’s or the Author’s knowledge of laws, regulations, rules and/or procedures prohibiting the unauthorized disclosure of national defense or classified information.”

—“Any classified document, image, record, or information, and any communications concerning such documents, images, records, or information.”

—“Any document, image, record, or information concerning the national defense, including but not limited to documents, maps, plans, diagrams, guides, manuals, and other Department of Defense, U.S. military, and/or weapons material, as well as sources and methods of intelligence gathering, and any communications concerning such documents, images, records, or information.”

—“Records or information related to the state of mind of any individuals seeking the disclosure or receipt of classified, intelligence and/or national defense information.”



In addition, the Justice Department searched the account for any Internet services Rosen may have accessed and records of “data transfer volume,” suggesting the government was looking for evidence that Rosen downloaded large quantities of potentially classified information.

The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.

Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.

Rosen was not indicted in the case. Kim was indicted for making unauthorized disclosures of national defense information and for making false statements to F.B.I. agents about his contacts with Rosen.

Yesterday, hours after President Obama said, in a speech at National Defense University, that he had asked Attorney General Eric Holder to review the Justice Department’s policies concerning investigations of the media, NBC News reported that the warrant to search Rosen’s e-mail account was personally approved by Holder.
The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CindyB For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2013, 09:14 AM
Master
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,200
Thanks: 776
Thanked 659 Times in 408 Posts
Default Re: Rosen case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
I hear that an independent judge OK'd the warrant for Rosen's records. Oh, looks like he did. Wonder what Rosen was up to.


“After extensive deliberations, and after following all applicable laws, regulations and policies, the Department sought an appropriately tailored search warrant under the Privacy Protection Act,” said a department official, referring to a federal law that governs under what circumstances information can be subpoenaed from the news media. “And a federal magistrate judge made an independent finding that probable cause existed to approve the search warrant.”

DOJ confirms Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's emails - Open Channel
Probably journalizing.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2013, 09:22 AM
Mikeyy's Avatar
EARTHLING
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 48,594
Thanks: 14,210
Thanked 14,206 Times in 10,298 Posts
Default Re: Rosen case

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
Probably journalizing.
Judges don't give warrants for nothing.
__________________
KARMA IS ONLY A BITCH IF YOU ARE
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:15 AM
CindyB's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 2,807
Thanked 1,826 Times in 1,173 Posts
Default Re: Rosen case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
Judges don't give warrants for nothing.
Judges don't deny warrants for nothing either.

Two SEPARATE judges DENIED the Warrants.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:23 AM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,190
Thanks: 1,347
Thanked 23,835 Times in 14,718 Posts
Default Re: Rosen case

Quote:
Originally Posted by CindyB View Post
Judges don't deny warrants for nothing either.

Two SEPARATE judges DENIED the Warrants.
Correction...

Two judges told the DoJ to INFORM Rosen of the warrants...

Which they didn't...

The DoJ is trying to say that they told Rosen's EMPLOYERS, but that excuse doesn't pass the smell test...When the hell does the government NOT tell the person they're spying on and, instead, leave it up to the guy's bosses to tell him?????...

Also, it doesn't say HOW the warrants came about...Only a blind government-lover would accept "The judge signed it, so it MUST'VE been important." as if this administration doesn't lie through their teeth to get what they want...

Also, the article is based on a nameless Justice Department official...Funny how that's such an issue with Mikeyy on things that hurt the administration, but used with no question when it defends...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:27 AM
Mikeyy's Avatar
EARTHLING
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 48,594
Thanks: 14,210
Thanked 14,206 Times in 10,298 Posts
Default Re: Rosen case

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
Correction...

Two judges told the DoJ to INFORM Rosen of the warrants...

Which they didn't...

The DoJ is trying to say that they told Rosen's EMPLOYERS, but that excuse doesn't pass the smell test...When the hell does the government NOT tell the person they're spying on and, instead, leave it up to the guy's bosses to tell him?????...

Also, it doesn't say HOW the warrants came about...Only a blind government-lover would accept "The judge signed it, so it MUST'VE been important." as if this administration doesn't lie through their teeth to get what they want...

Also, the article is based on a nameless Justice Department official...Funny how that's such an issue with Mikeyy on things that hurt the administration, but used with no question when it defends...
What is it about Newscorp acknowledging they received the information do you not understand
__________________
KARMA IS ONLY A BITCH IF YOU ARE
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:37 AM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,190
Thanks: 1,347
Thanked 23,835 Times in 14,718 Posts
Default Re: Rosen case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
What is it about Newscorp acknowledging they received the information do you not understand
What is it about the DoJ spying on a journalist and never telling a journalist himself, but cowardly leaving that up to the journalist's employers instead?....

It's like the owner of a team firing the coach, but getting the second baseman to tell the coach he's fired instead of the owner himself...And then, of course, you're RELYING on the second baseman to do it...And if he doesn't, you blame HIM instead of the owner...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:43 AM
Mikeyy's Avatar
EARTHLING
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 48,594
Thanks: 14,210
Thanked 14,206 Times in 10,298 Posts
Default Re: Rosen case

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
What is it about the DoJ spying on a journalist and never telling a journalist himself, but cowardly leaving that up to the journalist's employers instead?....

It's like the owner of a team firing the coach, but getting the second baseman to tell the coach he's fired instead of the owner himself...And then, of course, you're RELYING on the second baseman to do it...And if he doesn't, you blame HIM instead of the owner...
Sorry but you are trying too hard. FOX news lied. You aren't helping their case.
__________________
KARMA IS ONLY A BITCH IF YOU ARE
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:54 AM
CindyB's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 2,807
Thanked 1,826 Times in 1,173 Posts
Default Re: Rosen case

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
Correction...

Two judges told the DoJ to INFORM Rosen of the warrants...

Which they didn't...

The DoJ is trying to say that they told Rosen's EMPLOYERS, but that excuse doesn't pass the smell test...When the hell does the government NOT tell the person they're spying on and, instead, leave it up to the guy's bosses to tell him?????...

Also, it doesn't say HOW the warrants came about...Only a blind government-lover would accept "The judge signed it, so it MUST'VE been important." as if this administration doesn't lie through their teeth to get what they want...

Also, the article is based on a nameless Justice Department official...Funny how that's such an issue with Mikeyy on things that hurt the administration, but used with no question when it defends...
Lol, you noticed that too.

Can anyone say --------------hypocrisy?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
case, rosen

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0