Skip to comments.
DOJ warns the media could be targeted in crackdown on leaks
The Hill ^
| 08/04/2017
| Jonathan Easley
Posted on 08/04/2017 5:28:09 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
2
posted on
08/04/2017 5:30:49 PM PDT
by
proust
(Trump / Pence 2016!)
To: ForYourChildren
Will not give credit to a credit less person. Session has done damn little for Trump and will drag his feet on the leaks.
To: ForYourChildren
Will not give credit to a credit less person. Session has done damn little for Trump and will drag his feet on the leaks.
To: ForYourChildren
Yeah, the FBI will take care of everything.../sarcasm
5
posted on
08/04/2017 5:36:41 PM PDT
by
LIConFem
To: Logical me
Have a little faith, will ya? Things don’t always happen on FReeper schedule.
6
posted on
08/04/2017 5:41:03 PM PDT
by
bigbob
(People say believe half of what you see son and none of what you hear - M. Gaye)
To: ForYourChildren
7
posted on
08/04/2017 5:41:28 PM PDT
by
reasonisfaith
("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
To: ForYourChildren
Revoke their credentials, and sic the IRS on them.
And with all the wailing over NSA “wiretapping” since 9/11, the NSA would/should have the info on who is leaking what to whom wouldn’t they?
8
posted on
08/04/2017 5:41:47 PM PDT
by
2CAVTrooper
(Democrats... BETRAYING America since 1828.)
To: ForYourChildren
Bad idea.
#FirstAmendment
9
posted on
08/04/2017 5:42:15 PM PDT
by
SSS Two
To: ForYourChildren
Can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. Same goes for knowingly publishing “news” that risks national security or individual lives.
10
posted on
08/04/2017 5:44:56 PM PDT
by
reasonisfaith
("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
To: ForYourChildren
What a joke. 1st amendment bozo!!
To: 2CAVTrooper
Have to clean out the IRS first.
To: 2CAVTrooper
"And with all the wailing over NSA wiretapping since 9/11, the NSA would/should have the info on who is leaking what to whom wouldnt they?" It's probably someone within the NSA producing these RECORDINGS and providing them to the media.
My guess is that it was the RECORDINGS sent to the media. The delay in their release was because it took time to transcribe those recordings into text.
13
posted on
08/04/2017 5:54:23 PM PDT
by
CivilWarBrewing
(Feminism DESTROYED females)
To: ForYourChildren
I’ll take this seriously when we start seeing the deep state leakers and their vile media counterparts being frog marched in hand cuffs to the paddy wagons.
14
posted on
08/04/2017 5:55:35 PM PDT
by
RooRoobird20
("Democrats haven't been this angry since Republicans freed the slaves.")
To: SSS Two
First Amendment my a$$. If you are party to leaking classified information you can't wave away your crime by saying you are a reporter.
A few years in supermax and maybe some of these twink reporters will be willing to sing about who on the inside is feeding them this classified info.
15
posted on
08/04/2017 5:56:52 PM PDT
by
Newbomb Turk
(Hey Newbomb, where is your bothers ElCamino ?)
To: ForYourChildren
Let me know when he arrests Comey for his illegal leaking
16
posted on
08/04/2017 5:57:18 PM PDT
by
for-q-clinton
(If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
To: RooRoobird20
+1. Actions speak louder than sternly worded letters. We are way past that stage.
17
posted on
08/04/2017 5:57:37 PM PDT
by
proust
(Trump / Pence 2016!)
To: reasonisfaith
You're wrong on both counts.
Cant yell fire in a crowded theater.
You forgot the word "falsely", too. Schenck v. United States is the SCOTUS case which famously includes the phrase "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater". The "falsely shouting fire" phrase was dicta, meaning it never was law. Furthermore, Schenck v. United States was overturned in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio. So even if "falsely shouting fire" was prohibited at one time, it hasn't been in nearly the past 50 years since Brandenburg.
Same goes for knowingly publishing news that risks national security or individual lives.
The lawbreaker in a leaking case is the leaker, not the recipient of the leak. See New York Times Co. v. United States.
18
posted on
08/04/2017 5:59:11 PM PDT
by
SSS Two
To: raiderboy
You can force them to give the source or sour in jail until they do. They can’t be arrested for publishing the info though.
19
posted on
08/04/2017 5:59:24 PM PDT
by
for-q-clinton
(If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
To: for-q-clinton
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson