Quote (IceMage @ Jun 8 2018 06:52pm)

But now you're trying to minimize the Trump administration seizing records from a reporter...

Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 8 2018 05:49pm)

anyway how do you lot think this shakes out for press freedoms
any time the gubment is seizing materials from a journalist it should send a chill down the civil libertarians back. But for the historical context, bush doj locked up judith miller for 3 months to get her to reveal her source on valerie plame and spied on her. Obama doj threatened one journalist to get his source and named another unindicted co-conspirator to pressure him but didnt actually lock up either, but seized records and spied relentlessly. Here we have the trump doj spying on watkins, but presumably only after they knew the identity of her source and their relationship from other spying / internal investigation and just wanted proof. And her records are definitely material to the case. And she wasnt targeted or threatened by the doj, they went only after the leaker without coercing her. And they obeyed proper disclosure like informing her.

Id say its not as bad but its still cause for concern. It could be chalked up to the actions of cautious prosecutors who took pains not to violate the freedom of the press while narrowly seizing evidence in a case instead of fishing for sources.

Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 8 2018 08:41pm)

so when I keep drawing attention to it and talking about its chilling effects and dangerous return towards the bush/obama precedents, but everyone else ignores it, I'm the one minimizing it?
We've got a nice juicy story about leakers, presstitution, sex scandals, carter page and cia torture and counterterrorism connections and Fusion GPS and feinstein- and I honed in on the chilling of the press.
The problem icemage is that you're only reading what you want to read. When I spam the facts and dig through the evidence to sort out what we know and what we don't, you dismiss it as idle speculation and theorizing- nevermind that its the same method I used to come to my analysis of muh russiaburger. I see the Trump administration seizing records from a reporter and I give it scrutiny, but the cosmic shitshow of circumstances does the minimization of the impact, I just rattle them off and weigh them.

Quote (bogie160 @ 8 Jun 2018 21:53)

It would be concerning if there weren't already a precedent, and if the focus was actually on the journalist. There is, and it isn't.

The NYT comes out of this pathetic. So desperate for readers that they'll take in anybody, ethics be damned. No wonder they're going out of business.