Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Department going after leakers! - Fox News
Fox News

Posted on 12/30/2005 7:26:42 AM PST by Pukin Dog

Just announced on Fox News, the Justice Department is going to investigate leaks pertaining to Goverment Wiretapping and Security programs.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: abouttime; absoultetreason; adiosmofo; bagthemthenhangthem; binladensbuds; cia; circularfiringsquad; deathpenalty; doj; dojprobe; doubleaughtspy; firingsquad; frogmarchwilson; heirsoftokyorose; heneededhangin; homelandsecurity; jamesrisen; leaks; letumfry; liberalstupidity; liberaltreason; nailemandjailem; nationalsecurity; newyorktimes; nsa; nyaljazeeratimes; patriotleak; prisonforrisen; reporterropetree; rockerfeller; sabateurs; scumstock2006; spying; thespywhoshaggedme; timesgoneinfiveyears; timetopaysulzberger; traitorjayrockefeler; traitormedia; traitorousbazturds; traitors; traitorsalad; traitortommydaschle; traitortots; tryagainsoros; turbindurbin; wheresthenoose; wolfpischer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 1,221-1,225 next last
To: zook
Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

zook: "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"


221 posted on 12/30/2005 8:06:27 AM PST by sheltonmac (QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

Comment #222 Removed by Moderator

To: All

1) Journalists are not guilty. They do not have security clearances and therefore cannot be guilty of releasing information they got due to their clearance. If a reporter receives a piece of paper in the mail with a SECRET stamp on it, he'll go to his editor and the editorial staff will make a decision on releasing it. The reporter himself has no clearance and therefore can't be guilty of releasing information obtained via his clearance.

2) In the above scenario it is likely that the guilty party, i.e., the person with the clearance who disclosed the information, provided the info with the SECRET stamp absent. The NYT did hold the story for a time, past the election. Think what that means as to who disclosed it.

2) The person with the clearance is the target. Chances are, given the timing of the information provided, it was someone within the government trying to influence the election.


223 posted on 12/30/2005 8:06:35 AM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

I highly doubt if any elected official will get pinched in this even if they are guilty. If anything does come of it, it will be some low level grunt that takes the blame.
Even so, thats all it will take. Make an example of one and you'll never hear about any leaks in Washington again, or at least for a very long time.


224 posted on 12/30/2005 8:06:49 AM PST by oneofmany (Dems,MSM Imperium in imperio(5th Column))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel

If the FBI is involved it's more than just an inquiry, it's officially a criminal investigation. I guarantee right now the Slimes are consulting with their lawyers and are going to try their hardest to make this into "Whistle-Blowers" Status.


225 posted on 12/30/2005 8:06:51 AM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

226 posted on 12/30/2005 8:06:58 AM PST by doug from upland (NEW YORK TIMES -- traitorous b*st*rds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac

"The administration wanted a resolution that allowed for "all necessary and appropriate force in the United States and against those nations...", but didn't get it."

That's a Democrat talking point, raised by the loser Tom Dashle. There's no evidence to support it other than his lying mouth. A more likely scenario, if anything like this happened at all, is that Bush asked for specific wording but was told it wasn't necessary. "All necessary and appropriate force...." means exactly that.


227 posted on 12/30/2005 8:07:02 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: School of Rational Thought
But will it be a serious investigation?

No. If the administration was serious about finding the leaks, it would not be the justice department conducting the investigations. Furthermore, they would be dumb to even announce that they were initiating an investigation. Why give the leaker a warning?

I think the administration is just throwing a bone to the base.

228 posted on 12/30/2005 8:07:13 AM PST by been_lurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

It's also Friday. Guess what the media is going to HAVE to talk about all weekend. The spinners are in full overdrive this morning.


229 posted on 12/30/2005 8:07:20 AM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: nina0113

First amendment doesn't cover the illegal disclosure of classified information.

If a journalist gets his/her hands on something classified, they are as bound as you or me to follow the law, secure the item and notify the FBI.

You walk into a Starbucks and watch two guys leave the restaurant. On the table is a briefcase, and you grab the case and run out the door, trying to flag the car down with the two men in it, now speeding away from you oblivious to what has happened.

You examine the outside of the case for a tag and find none.

The case is unlocked. You open the case and find this document staring back at you.

Operations Manual
W80 Nuclear Warhead
Classified: Top Secret/NOFORN

Inside the case also is a daytimer with a 'If lost, please call . . . '

What do you do?

What if a journalist found the same case? Would they not be under the exact same obligations you would be as a non-journalist?

Nothing special about the first amendment that shields a journalist from national security laws.


230 posted on 12/30/2005 8:07:27 AM PST by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mystery-ak

If I remember correctly, RUSH made a VERY strong aim at Rockefeller and judge Robertson!! You're right... the WH probably knows who's finger prints are on this HOT POTATOE!!!


231 posted on 12/30/2005 8:07:37 AM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: ArizonaPatriot

I'd love it if he ran on MTP and his mouth gets him into more trouble.


232 posted on 12/30/2005 8:07:52 AM PST by mainepatsfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Great news. Glad to see they're ahead of the curve on this one.


233 posted on 12/30/2005 8:08:04 AM PST by freeperfromnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #234 Removed by Moderator

To: atomicpossum

Start with the Pentagon Papers case.


235 posted on 12/30/2005 8:08:10 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody

Thanks I will read it ASAP


236 posted on 12/30/2005 8:08:16 AM PST by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

Or the FISA court whiners?


237 posted on 12/30/2005 8:08:26 AM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"Got any suggestions?"

Jay Rockefeller

238 posted on 12/30/2005 8:09:09 AM PST by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Image hosted by Photobucket.com BRAVO ZULU!!!
239 posted on 12/30/2005 8:09:51 AM PST by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toast
The whistleblower defense has already been invoked over on DU:

H2O Man (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-30-05 11:06 AM

Response to Original message

4. Actually the law that can force reporters to testify to grand juries in federal investigations, and the case law that follows, allows the journalist in question to have a judge review the case: if the journalist is protecting a "whistle-blower," the judge is not required to force them to testify. The obvious point is that "whistle-blowers" are those who expose illegal activities, as opposed to in the Plame case, where the government employees were engaged in illegal activities.

240 posted on 12/30/2005 8:10:44 AM PST by NEPA (Give war a chance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 1,221-1,225 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson