
Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says - rubikscube
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18451142-holder-okd-search-warrant-for-fox-news-reporters-private-emails-official-says
======
Nrsolis
I supported Obama and worked for the campaign in 2008. I'm sad to see that
this administration has been _more_ aggressive in leak persecution than GWB.

I don't think there is anything wrong in pursuing illegal leaks of classified
information. I _DO_ think it's wrong to target bona fide journalists for
criminal prosecution based on their reporting. The optics of this kind of
thing are bad no matter how you look at it.

As a reporter, you're allowed to ask a question. You have no right to
information a source is legally required to withhold. That said, if _they_
violate that requirement, it's not your fault. Obtaining the private emails of
journalists is crossing a line. It makes it impossible for a journalist to
guarantee the safety of their sources.

I think Holder is on pretty thin ice here and generations of future
journalists are going to look at what happened and adjust their methods. As
citizens, we have a right to know what our government does even if it doesn't
want us to.

If a person with information decides to risk their freedom so that citizens
can be informed, that's their choice. Attacking the fifth estate will make
revolutionaries of us all.

~~~
jbooth
Yeah, I thought this was settled with the Pentagon Papers. But apparently
everyone changed their mind after Wikileaks, and without court oversight.

Can Fox News sue here? It seems like calling him a co-conspirator (aka
journalist) just to get the search warrant with no plans to charge him is
super fishy.

And even more puzzling than Holder's actions, why isn't Fox News trumpeting
this instead of Benghazi?

~~~
mtgx
There was an article on BI a few days ago saying how "Americans don't care"
about the AP spying (from a survey), and that they cared a lot more about IRS
and Benghazi.

But let's put things in context. The IRS scandal, and especially the Benghazi
one, have been trumpeted at least 10x more than the AP one. Maybe 100x more.
With such "awareness campaign" is it really a surprise most people responded
in the surveys with IRS or Benghazi?

So what this really means is that the _media_ themselves don't really care
about the AP spying - which is actually quite frightening, and a worse
situation than I thought. You'd think they would want to turn this into
another Watergate or something - but apparently not. Same for the Fox News
journalist.

These two stories would be reason enough to call for the impeachment of the
president in my book. I mean it threatens a core power in the society - the
press. The Benghazi story, and even the IRS one to "some" degree, are the real
distractions here.

~~~
jbooth
Yeah, I hate that circular logic. Americans drink more coke than pepsi, look
at the advertising budgets. You hammer something on prime time every night for
6 months and people will think it's a bigger deal than the story you don't.

There's not an actual scandal behind Benghazi. Literally none. They're
alleging a cover-up, "of what?", "they're covering it up!". That's the whole
story and somehow it's 6 months of airtime.

The IRS story is just bad CYA by the administrators there. Political groups
applying for charity status is in fact something that the IRS should be
auditing and cracking down on, regardless of political party, and there were a
lot of tea party groups applying for charity status -- The dept head was
actually a Bush appointee, they just weren't tactful enough about how they set
their filters to make it look more bipartisan.

This leak case, on the other hand, is actual erosion of press freedoms. And
the media (?!?!?!!) seem to care the least about it.

~~~
hga
Lying to everyone about Benghazi to maintain a narrative about terrorism prior
to the election satisfies most people's definition of a scandal. And for
_some_ reason the people on the ground, even in the country, were told to
stand down rather than attempt to help, something that no one can remember
ever happening before.

Really now, this is the first Ambassador killed in the line of duty in 33
years (previously under Carter, of course) and you're _sure_ there's nothing
suspect about it?!??!!!

Your claims about the IRS abuse completely fail, since no "progressive"
organizations suffered such abuse. One group even resubmitted their
application, just changing the name to include the word Green and sound
progressive, and it sailed through the process. And stonewalling !=
investigation, many groups were delayed for 3+ years, two election cycles, and
are still left hanging. Compare to many many other examples, like Obama's
Organizing for America -> Organizing for Action 501(c)(4).

You may have no problems with the heavy hand of the government suppressing
those you politically oppose, but I assure you the other side does, and as I
note elsewhere in this subthread this sort of thing has grave consequences.

~~~
hackinthebochs
And this is why they say to keep politics off of HN. None of your assertions
are backed up by fact. It's really disheartening to see this nonsense here.

~~~
hga
In other words, you have no basis to deny my words, so you want them banned on
this forum.

------
CodeCube
Well ... looks like it's time for every news organization to implement this:

<http://www.newyorker.com/strongbox/>

------
dllthomas
It sounds like there was an actual warrant in this case? Not a huge fan of the
actions taken here but it's not as horrendous as the end run around oversight
that the subpoenas entail.

~~~
adolph
I am not a lawyer, but my naive understanding of how it works is that a judge
(or magistrate, somesuch from judicial branch) "signs off" on a warrant to
authorize it. Maybe the article means that the AG approved requesting a
warrant from a judge?

~~~
conover
I seem to remember reading somewhere that there are extra procedures in the
Justice Department when issuing search warrants involving members of the
press. Namely, that the AG has to sign off personally. I'll see if I can find
a source.

Edit: Yes. The AG has to personally sign off on them.

"Justice Department regulations call for subpoenas for journalists’ phone
records to be undertaken as a last resort and narrowly focused, subject to the
attorney general’s personal signoff. Under normal circumstances, the
regulations call for notice and negotiations, giving the news organization a
chance to challenge the subpoena in court."

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/phone-records-of-
journa...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/phone-records-of-journalists-
of-the-associated-press-seized-by-us.html?pagewanted=all)

Double Edit: I guess that just references phone records. It's not clear if it
includes all types of summons.

------
dripton
It's not a real search warrant if the cops' boss's boss's boss signs it. A
real warrant needs to come from a judge.

------
rossjudson
Being a tea party member or a fox news contributor is starting to look like a
"get out of jail free" card.

------
pekk
This is part of an extremely strong partisan streak in HN's political postings
over the last year or two which I find irritating and inappropriate.

If I wanted right-wing skewed tech news, there is already Slashdot.

~~~
ianstallings
Slashdot is right wing? Bahahaha. That's funny. Did you know CmdrTaco actually
works for the Washington Post now? Not exactly the fortress of the right wing.
In fact, quite liberal. Some would say very liberal.

Anywho, this topic is about government abuse, regardless of party.

~~~
jbooth
Washington Post isn't liberal or conservative. It's beltway. If one party says
that the sky is yellow, and the other party says it's red, the Washington Post
will be there in all their wisdom to inform you that it's actually a shade of
orange, and they're the mature adults who can rise above partisanship and see
the truth.

~~~
hga
I wish that was still true, it was when I was living in the area 1991-2004.
But to me at least they've abandoned that position; that they still employ
Ezra Klein after his JournoList was exposed tells you all you need to know.
Heck, he and Josh Marshall were just observed going into the White House for a
private meeting and now they're saying the same things.

~~~
jbooth
You _wish_ that were true? It's fucking terrible.

Take a look at their front-page right now. Or tomorrow. The whole op/ed
section is filled with the same crap that every politician is talking about.
Strategically balanced so that they're acting as stenographer for both side's
media consultant.

