Breaking News: Law Enforcement Official Tells NBC That Eric Holder Personally Signed Warrant For James Rosens Emails (weapons, free speech)

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by Hadoken

"Free speech" does not apply to people who leak classified info intentionally. And in truth, it hasn't since the moment our classification system was first introduced.

Another leftist, that has proven someone guilty before anything that is actually proven?

From the link:

as a “possible co-conspirator”

[Chimuelojones]

Originally Posted by jimj

If I remember correctly they asserted a clear threat to either public safety or national security. I believe they also asserted he (Rosen) was a flight risk.

I don't remember, but I recall the warrant was to find a national security leak. I don't see a leak as a threat to public saftey...maybe national security...but no eminent threat.

[Hadoken]

Originally Posted by chucksnee

Another leftist, that has proven someone guilty before anything that is actually proven?

From the link:

And? The simple fact is, if you have access to classified info, and someone without a clearance and "need to know" starts harrassing you in an attempt to get you to release said info, you're supposed to report them so that they can be investigated. And again, that's been true for decades.

[HistorianDude]

If anybody had any doubt that this is "Old Army Soldier" / "Steve McGarret's" new sock puppet... here we go with the "Breaking News" threads again.

[WilliamSmyth]

Originally Posted by jimj

And then the judge apologized for doing it after finding out the facts of what he was told in order to issue said warrant (Rosen) were bogus.
How 'bout telling the WHOLE story?

The only apology I see from the Judge is that when the records of the warrant were unsealed there was no follow up to make sure that the information about the warrant was actually made available.

http://images.politico.com/global/20...enapolord.html

I haven't seen anything were the Judge said the original request for the warrant was wrong or improper.

[NHartphotog]

Originally Posted by florida.bob

The Dept of Justice has done nothing beyond what the Law allows. Some may not like the Law, but the solution is to change it, not whine about it.

When the only way to change it is to bring it to public attention, and punish the wrongdoer, then "whining about it" actually IS the solution.

[Hot_Handz]

Originally Posted by Chimuelojones

If you are correct then the Judge failed to practice good "Due Diligence".

Double speak for being complicit

[GWhopper]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

If anybody had any doubt that this is "Old Army Soldier" / "Steve McGarret's" new sock puppet... here we go with the "Breaking News" threads again.

You beat me to it!

[Dockside]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

And a a judge just said the DOJ was justified.

Regardless of your opinion of if a law is good or bad, it is still the law.

and please, if there was something there, the GOP would have jumped all over it. Arent you wondering why the GOP isnt focusing on this ???

The GOP has been slandered mercilessly by the MSM, why should they focus on it? I'm sitting back and loving this mess.

And who cares about the law and what might or might not be legal? The AG is a liar. And he's beating up on the MSM!! What could be better?

But just wait till someone thinks they can win a Pulitzer sticking it to Obama.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Hadoken

"Free speech" does not apply to people who leak classified info intentionally. And in truth, it hasn't since the moment our classification system was first introduced.

A reporter can't "leak" classified information. He can only report on what he has been told.