Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

openchannel.nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

#81

Post by hga »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #79
hga wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Informed people know the BATF never made any attempt to track the guns whatsoever (unlike the previous Boooosh "Wide Receiver" where they put tracking and transmitting devices in the stocks of the guns, but abandoned the effort after about 200 guns since the approach wasn't working). There's some telling emails that have surfaced that indicate the sole purpose was to generate more statistics about guns of American or…

This sounds like a very elaborate conspiracy theory. Do you have any facts to back it up?

A vast, right wing conspiracy that extends all the way to the Emmy awards committee (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/sharyl-attkisson-91871...):

"In February 2011, [CBS reporter Sharyl] Attkisson wrote a landmark report about the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal, which earned her an Emmy award. Months later, she went on Ingraham’s radio show and said that officials from both the White House and the Justice Department had yelled and screamed at her because of her report."

Re: Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

#82

Post by jbooth »

tss20147 wrote: post #80
jbooth wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad wording on my part. I guess I was saying that there hasn't been a major court decision overturning US vs Ellsbury/NYT, yet somehow everyone's just pretending it's gone. Seems to me like in order to contradict that previous ruling you should be going to the Supreme Court. I also think it's sketchy as hell to name someone as a 'co-conspirator' in a leak case for being a journalist who was leaked to. That's not cons…

They aren't pretending it's gone. There is a difference between a journalist passively receiving classified material which a source decides to provide them and a journalist actively soliciting a source to provide classified material. The government has a reasonable argument that a journalist actively soliciting for classified material may be in violation of the law and not protected under the first amendment. This ha…

Thanks, I hadn't thought about it that way. Still disagree with it and all that but at least it makes some amount of sense that they were able to pull it off now.

Re: Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

#84

Post by throwaway9848 »

1337biz wrote: post #38
throwaway9848 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't read the article, but I've heard nothing about him targeting _the journalist_ for prosecution. They are trying to target the leaker for disseminating classified information, and got a warrant to search the email account of the person he leaked to. By far the best part of this whole affair has been the journalistic pearl-clutching, as if they would be immune the the same laws permitting such invasions of priv…

Since you seem to be new around here: Please don't start a post with I didn't read the article . Some people on this site put a decent amount of work into their comments. So please spend at least the 5 minutes skimming through the article before making a statement.

I'm not new to here. I just created a throwaway to say a few things in another thread. I didn't read it because I was already familiar with the story. I have never cared so much for the amount of effort involved in things, just the value that said thing provides. Best regards.

Re: Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

#85

Post by dllthomas »

adolph wrote: post #18
dllthomas wrote: post #12

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.

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?

That's more or less my understanding - the AG approved requesting a warrant from a judge, which approval is required in certain cases for whatever reason.

This is different than the subpoenas, which skip the judge altogether.

Re: Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

#86

Post by dllthomas »

chiph wrote: post #22
pekk wrote: post #16

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.

This isn't a left-wing or right-wing issue, it's a civil-liberties issue concerning life in a free society. The press, while not one of the checks & balances envisioned by the country founders, serve in that role by revealing the misdeeds & transgressions of those in positions of authority.

Fourth Estate vs. fifth column...
Post reply on HN