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

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18451142-holder-okd-search-warrant-for-fox-news-reporters-private-emails-official-says

by rubikscube • 13 years ago

79 80 13 years ago

openchannel.nbcnews.com

Nrsolis4• 13 years ago

I supported Obama and worked for the campaign in 2008. I'm sad to see that this administration has been more aggressive in leak persecution than GWB.

I don't think there is anything wrong in pursuing illegal leaks of classified information. I DO think it's wrong to target bona fide journalists for criminal prosecution based on their reporting. The optics of this kind of thing are bad no matter how you look at it.

As a reporter, you're allowed to ask a question. You have no right to information a source is legally required to withhold. That said, if they violate that requirement, it's not your fault. Obtaining the private emails of journalists is crossing a line. It makes it impossible for a journalist to guarantee the safety of their sources.

I think Holder is on pretty thin ice here and generations of future journalists are going to look at what happened and adjust their methods. As citizens, we have a right to know what our government does even if it doesn't want us to.

If a person with information decides to risk their freedom so that citizens can be informed, that's their choice. Attacking the fifth estate will make revolutionaries of us all.

jbooth11• 13 years ago

Yeah, I thought this was settled with the Pentagon Papers. But apparently everyone changed their mind after Wikileaks, and without court oversight.

Can Fox News sue here? It seems like calling him a co-conspirator (aka journalist) just to get the search warrant with no plans to charge him is super fishy.

And even more puzzling than Holder's actions, why isn't Fox News trumpeting this instead of Benghazi?

skylan_q• 13 years ago

Nothing they do makes any sense. The ruling elite live in a different world from us commoners. Holder probably thought people would view him as a hero or something.

rayiner• 13 years ago

There was a warrant, so I'm not sure what lack of court oversight you're talking about.

mtgx2• 13 years ago

There was an article on BI a few days ago saying how "Americans don't care" about the AP spying (from a survey), and that they cared a lot more about IRS and Benghazi.

But let's put things in context. The IRS scandal, and especially the Benghazi one, have been trumpeted at least 10x more than the AP one. Maybe 100x more. With such "awareness campaign" is it really a surprise most people responded in the surveys with IRS or Benghazi?

So what this really means is that the media themselves don't really care about the AP spying - which is actually quite frightening, and a worse situation than I thought. You'd think they would want to turn this into another Watergate or something - but apparently not. Same for the Fox News journalist.

These two stories would be reason enough to call for the impeachment of the president in my book. I mean it threatens a core power in the society - the press. The Benghazi story, and even the IRS one to "some" degree, are the real distractions here.

Shivetya• 13 years ago

Adjust their methods, I suggest that this wasn't about having journalist adjust their methods but to intimidate anyone in government from speaking out without approval. Approved leaks, like the recent IRS about targeting specific groups is an example of what is allowed. The leaks to this Fox reporter and the not so long ago prosecution of Thomas Drake are all about silencing people who know whats wrong from talking because now they will get the reporter to reveal their sources directly or indirectly.

mtgx2• 13 years ago

I agree. I'm pretty sure Obama does this to create a chilling effect for whistleblowers more than anything else, which means he values government secrecy very highly and it's the exact opposite of what he promised.

tptacek3• 13 years ago

The idea that Obama has been more aggressive than Bush in leak investigations is popular, but I'm not sure it's anything more than circumstantial. Here are the leak prosecutions that have actually happened since he took office:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5701813

joshuahedlund• 13 years ago

The fact remains (as far as I know) that the Obama administration has prosecuted more leaks under the Espionage Act of 1917 than all other presidents up to now combined. So we have a few possibilities:

1) Obama is prosecuting at the same rate of aggressiveness as previous presidents but has happened to have more prosecutable leaks under his watch than all previous presidents combined.

2) Obama is prosecuting at the same rate of aggressiveness as previous presidents, and there has not been a sudden increase in prosecutable leaks, but Obama has found out about them better, and thus been able to prosecute more.

3) Obama is prosecuting at an increased rate of aggressiveness compared to previous presidents, because there has not been a sudden increase in prosecutable leaks the president knew about

4) It's all irrelevant because comparing 0 vs. 2 vs. 6 prosecutions among 20-some presidents is too small a sample size

There's a lot of missing information here, so it's easy to see how some biases would tend towards 3 and others would tend towards 1-2 or 4

bradleyjg4• 13 years ago

Between signing off on warrants against journalists, signing off on the CIA murdering American citizens abroad (via OLC), and giving de facto immunity to banks and bank employees, Holder has been a terrible Attorney General.

It's time for him to go.

38252• 13 years ago

Can an Attorney General sign a warrant? Isn't it supposed to be a judge who signs warrants?

philwelch• 13 years ago

Not to mention selling guns to Mexican cartels.

shardling2• 13 years ago

> I DO think it's wrong to target bona fide journalists for criminal prosecution based on their reporting.

I'm not sure there's any indication that they were really going to prosecute a journalist, though, was there?

I know the way the warrants were written probably sounds like it implies that. But I think they were using the fact that the journalist technically broke the law to fish for information about the guy they were really targeting: whoever leaked the info.

Now, you might well have a problem with that intent, the current law, or the way they obtained the warrants. But saying that the current administration was actually going to prosecute the journalist seems to me unfounded.

throwaway98482• 13 years ago

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 privact that they covered being passed without uttering a peep. But if a bunch of college students or people with a suspiciously non-caucasian complexion have the same thing happen to them then its fine.

1337biz• 13 years ago

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.

glesica2• 13 years ago

> wrong to target bona fide journalists for criminal prosecution

I'm curious to know how you feel about Wikileaks. Part of the problem, I think, is that much of the media (including Fox) more or less cheered the administration on in its pursuit of Wikileaks. Journalism is an act and has a broad scope. Just as bloggers are journalists (finally recognized in recent years), people who accept documents and disseminate the information contained within those documents are, must be, journalists. As long as the media continue to try to draw a weirdly-shaped line between themselves and groups like Wikileaks, there will be no clear protection for journalists.

bradleyjg4• 13 years ago

Aside from conspiracy theories regarding CIA pressure on Swedish prosecutors has the US government actually gone after the wikileaks organization at all? There were certain calls from individual congressmen and, as you mention, journalists, to do so, but I don't remember anything ever coming of it.

Nrsolis4• 13 years ago

If I'm honest, I feel like Wikileaks started off as a good idea and somehow morphed into something else.

Journalism is an enterprise that commands a great deal of power. With that power comes a great deal of responsibility.

I don't think that Wikileaks used that power responsibly. I also feel like Wikileaks was more akin to a propaganda campaign by a single charismatic man with a little too much anarchist in him.

So while I think it goes too far to call Assange a "conspirator", I don't think he did himself any favors in the process of disseminating his acquired information.

It's important to remember that intent matters. Wikileaks was trying to subvert the ability of governments to operate in secret and thus reduce their power. He wasn't trying to inform the people about things done in their name.

The NYTimes isn't trying to bring down a government. I feel like Wikileaks was.

edit:typo

hackinthebochs4• 13 years ago

>As a reporter, you're allowed to ask a question. You have no right to information a source is legally required to withhold. That said, if they violate that requirement, it's not your fault. Obtaining the private emails of journalists is crossing a line. It makes it impossible for a journalist to guarantee the safety of their sources.

This statement seems self-contradictory. If a person leaking classified information does not warrant protection, then it is in fact legitimate to subpoena the private emails of a journalist who is known to be in contact with said person. They are using their ability to access private information under extraordinary circumstances to find someone who is breaking the law. This seems perfectly legitimate. The fact that the information belongs to a journalist doesn't necessitate extra levels of protection against wiretapping warrants--if whatever information was sensitive enough to justify a wiretap on an arbitrary (uninvolved) person, that person being a journalist shouldn't matter. The journalist isn't being targeted, so him being a journalist is irrelevant.

CodeCube• 13 years ago

Well ... looks like it's time for every news organization to implement this:

http://www.newyorker.com/strongbox/

dllthomas3• 13 years ago

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.

adolph• 13 years ago

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?

conover• 13 years ago

I seem to remember reading somewhere that there are extra procedures in the Justice Department when issuing search warrants involving members of the press. Namely, that the AG has to sign off personally. I'll see if I can find a source.

Edit: Yes. The AG has to personally sign off on them.

"Justice Department regulations call for subpoenas for journalists’ phone records to be undertaken as a last resort and narrowly focused, subject to the attorney general’s personal signoff. Under normal circumstances, the regulations call for notice and negotiations, giving the news organization a chance to challenge the subpoena in court."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/phone-records-of-journa...

Double Edit: I guess that just references phone records. It's not clear if it includes all types of summons.

dllthomas3• 13 years ago

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.

pekk• 13 years ago

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.

symfoniq• 13 years ago

I agree that the less politics on Hacker News, the better. However, I think there is a grave risk in writing off the possible abuse of political power because the alleged victims are not in your camp. As Martin Niemöller said:

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

kingkawn• 13 years ago

Godwin's Law

chiph• 13 years ago

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.

dllthomas3• 13 years ago

Fourth Estate vs. fifth column...

ianstallings• 13 years ago

Slashdot is right wing? Bahahaha. That's funny. Did you know CmdrTaco actually works for the Washington Post now? Not exactly the fortress of the right wing. In fact, quite liberal. Some would say very liberal.

Anywho, this topic is about government abuse, regardless of party.

jbooth11• 13 years ago

Washington Post isn't liberal or conservative. It's beltway. If one party says that the sky is yellow, and the other party says it's red, the Washington Post will be there in all their wisdom to inform you that it's actually a shade of orange, and they're the mature adults who can rise above partisanship and see the truth.

cmdrtaco• 13 years ago

I'd consider myself slightly left of center, but I Think the best part of slashdot during my time Was that it was home to all views.

nhebb• 13 years ago

Like chiph I look at this as more of a civil liberties issue. There's always been a strong civil liberties contingent on HN, so while most political stories aren't fit for HN, I can see why this one has caught some peoples' attention here.

rossjudson• 13 years ago

Being a tea party member or a fox news contributor is starting to look like a "get out of jail free" card.

dripton• 13 years ago

It's not a real search warrant if the cops' boss's boss's boss signs it. A real warrant needs to come from a judge.

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

Related Stories