so take it to a different court
Posted on 05/01/2018 10:32:38 AM PDT by mandaladon
This is a disturbing case coming out of a federal court in New York. A freelance journalist named Adam Johnson had been seeking copies of CIA emails sent to certain newspaper reporters and, having been denied them, sued to have the material released. The emails were part of a batch of more than 500 documents which the agency made public, but some were heavily redacted. Johnson wanted to see the redacted ones since they had already been given to other members of the press.
Amazingly, Judge Colleen McMahon (a Clinton appointee) ruled that the CIA was free to pick and choose which reporters they gave sensitive material to. (McClatchy DC)
The CIA can selectively divulge classified information to selected reporters in emails yet withhold that information from other journalists or members of the public when they seek the same information under the Freedom of Information Act, a federal judge in New York has ruled.
The decision appeared in the court record on Friday but became more widely disseminated Monday.
The ruling comes amid vigorous national debate over leaks to the media and the use of anonymous sources in covering national security news, including an ongoing FBI investigation into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Secrets? What’s a secret?
My first thought also. Looks like the judge thinks it’s OK for CIA to deny Congress, too!! I wonder how the judge would feel if CIA denied her access to their records....
Laws are only for the chumps, not them.
Basically, the judge gave a stamp of approval to domestic propaganda, to the CIA interfering in domestic politics, and to Operation Mockingbird.
Leaking top secret material is perfectly OK, so long as you can guarantee that the classified material will be printed on tomorrow’s front page.
Imprison the Judge and string up the CIA director. Next!?
So, ‘leaking’ is no longer a crime?...................
This is a 14th Amendment issue: equal protection under the law.
I think most of us have said at some point that the CIA (government) permitted leaks to entrap or mislead.
“My first thought also. Looks like the judge thinks it’s OK for CIA to deny Congress, too!! “
A retarded concept since Congress can remove the CIA director, and could disband then entire CIA in an afternoon of they choose. They can do all that.....but are not entitled to have access to their records.
And don’t forget, the CIA was caught spying on Congressional computers during the torture hearings to discover what Congress knew.
The intelligence community runs our government. There is a term for that.
Outrageous!
Dark state knows what is good for you. It knows all.
The Judge wrote: “The Director of Central Intelligence is free to disclose classified information about CIA sources and methods selectively...”
Yes, the CIA Director can disclose pretty much whatever he wants. But the issue in the case was whether once he has disclosed something to a particular reporter, he can still refuse to disclose that exact same thing to someone making a FOIA request. The CIA and Judge are of the view that even though the information has already been disclosed to a reporter, the public is still not entitled to see it. Makes zero sense to me.
Well, we have all seen that the media is part of the wicked party of the government. The media is the official Ministry of Propaganda.
Well, the President should (and does) have powers in such matters, and far, far in excess of those of the CIA
Won’t help because Comey was NOT director of anything when he leaked those documents. He was a private citizen, in illegal possession of classified documents.
The CIA has been interfering with domestic politics for many decades already. I don’t think they care whether some judge approves it or not.
Effectively, the argument is about whether:
a) a leak by the director effectively declassifies the information (so that anyone should be able to view it)
or
b) a leak by the director effectively grants some limited security clearance to the reporter (so that only they should be able to view it)
Since a leak to a reporter by its very nature implies that the information is to be disseminated, it makes more sense that scenario a is what is actually going on, but the judge seems to have chosen scenario b.
so take it to a different court
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.