Jeff Sessions Suggests He's Steering The DOJ Towards Prosecuting More Journalists
from the publish-and-die dept
Jeff Sessions and the DOJ are back to threatening leakers again. It seems counterproductive, considering each new threat of leak investigations does little to stem the steady flow of leaks. But the new DOJ boss seems ready to go further than his predecessors.
Having already expressed an interest in taking care of Obama's unfinished business by going after Wikileaks, Sessions now appears to be headed towards threatening journalism and the First Amendment itself. This would be a new direction for the Justice Department. A 2013 report by the DOJ stated it was unwilling to consider the punishment of journalists during leak investigations, except as a last resort.
As an initial matter, it bears emphasis that it has been and remains the Department's policy that members of the news media will not be subject to prosecution based solely on newsgathering activities. Furthermore, in light of the importance of the constitutionally protected newsgathering process, the Department views the use of tools to seek evidence from or involving the news media as an extraordinary measure.
Journalists have been subpoenaed before in leak investigations, but the DOJ has generally been unwilling to jail journalists for refusing to hand over information on their sources. Jeff Sessions, however, seems less concerned about using the weight of the law against members of the press.
In his written remarks before a press briefing on national security leaks, Sessions said this:
I have listened to career investigators and prosecutors about how to most successfully investigate and prosecute these matters. At their suggestion, one of the things we are doing is reviewing policies affecting media subpoenas. We respect the important role that the press plays and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited. They cannot place lives at risk with impunity. We must balance their role with protecting our national security and the lives of those who serve in our intelligence community, the armed forces, and all law abiding Americans.
This strongly suggests the 2013 guidelines on "new media" will be rewritten by Sessions' DOJ to justify increased prosecutions of journalists. This is a dangerous step forward, especially in an era where leaks seem to be coming faster than journalists can publish them. Throwing a few journalists in jail for contempt creates a severe chilling effect. Even the enhanced threat of prosecution may be enough to discourage journalists from publishing leaked docs or working with government sources.
Sessions was asked directly if this administration would prosecute journalists. He refused to answer the question before ending the briefing. This would be the second time Sessions has dodged this question -- the first being Sen. Klobluchar's question along the same lines during his confirmation hearing. What better way to send a chilling message to journalists then telling them their freedom might be at stake as they attend a press briefing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chilling effects, doj, first amendment, free speech, jeff sessions, journalism, sources, subpoenas
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Something you WON'T hear Jeff Sessions say...
"We respect the important role that the police play and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited. They cannot place lives at risk with impunity."Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm turning red and I don't know why...
What lives? Staffers leaking about the bloviating done in the Oval Office or the West Wing doesn't endanger lives. Telling the Nation about illegal actions by various government departments doesn't endanger lives. Embarrassment might be the word they are looking for, but I seriously doubt government embarrassment is codified as against the law.
The use of treason laws without discerning the difference between treason and wistleblowing tells us a lot about the motives of the government and Sessions.
Telling people about ongoing covert operations or naming covert operatives might endanger lives, but this has happened with silver spoon leakers (Patraeus for example) and nothing happened. Claiming sources and methods isn't actually in the national security interest as fiction writers tend to out those up to decades before they are used. In fact it might be claimed that the government gets their methods from those writers. Sources might actually be a problem, but not always, as sometimes the sources are the press themselves, and without leaks from our government. How much does the CIA learn from foreign news and how much from 'placed' covert operatives or agents?
Sessions had better come up with some seriously better excuses to obviate the 1st Amendment, and here is to praying that the ideologically stacked Supreme Court stands up to their responsibilities to the Constitution, as it certainly appears that Sessions is not standing up to his oath to support that document.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saints Obama & Eric Holder
Sessions & Trump have a very long way to go to match the Obama/Holder record of arrests/prosecutions/spying-on of journalists, whistleblowers and leakers.
Obama prosecutions under the blatantly non-Constitutional "Espionage Act" were particularly egregious. If journalists had any real professionalism -- they would pursue and expose the injustice of the Espionage Act ... and destroy the phony legal footing of these DOJ witch hunts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Saints Obama & Eric Holder
Neither this or the past administration respects the Constitution. It was only good enough for use as toilet paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Saints Obama & Eric Holder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Saints Obama & Eric Holder
Why do we always have to attack the messenger?
Keep focusing on the message, its far more important than what is actually done! As long as I "tell" you that you I am not going to harm you while grinding my dagger in your back its all good.
~Dems and Reps
sucker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Saints Obama Holder
..
....and exactly WHAT is the core "message" from the headline:
"Jeff Sessions Suggests He's Steering The DOJ Towards Prosecuting More Journalists"
{?}{you don't know}
_________________
...somebody pretends to mindread Sessions, but can only offer vague opinion about 'suggestions' and 'steering'
is DOJ pursuit of journalists supposed to be something new (?)
{of course not, it's been standard practice for years--- so WHAT is the point?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm turning red and I don't know why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm turning red and I don't know why...
Not only that, but I heard they published the name of the very head of the CIA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[Citation Needed]
They cannot place lives at risk with impunity. We must balance their role with protecting our national security and the lives of those who serve in our intelligence community, the armed forces, and all law abiding Americans.
I'd be mighty interested to have some evidence of any leaks lately(or even not so lately) that actually put lives at risk, because I'm not aware of any offhand.
I do seem to recall the 'put lives at risk' mantra being trotted out when they were going after Manning, but as memory serves they eventually had to admit that they couldn't find any evidence of actual lives lost thanks to the leaks.
Likewise with Snowden where the claim was that exposing what they were doing would allow terrorists to hide their actions, completely ignoring that any even remotely competent terrorist was already well aware that they could be under surveillance and took steps in response, such that the only people who were learning anything new was the general public.
With no examples that I'm aware of at least of leakers threatening lives rather than reputations, careers and/or programs the argument put forth for cracking down on them comes across as pretty weak and dishonest.
Sessions was asked directly if this administration would prosecute journalists. He refused to answer the question before ending the briefing.
Not so, his refusal was his answer, and the answer was 'Yes', he just isn't honest enough to admit it and would prefer to keep it as a 'implied' threat. With a simple yes or no question like that refusal to answer(twice) should be assumed to mean 'yes, but I don't want to say it out loud'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [Citation Needed]
Libby dodged jail time. We don't know about about Trump yet, but it would be nice to see some consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: [Citation Needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: [Citation Needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: [Citation Needed]
Hinting that it was the president who released that information is beyond disingenuous at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: [Citation Needed]
Libby did absolutely nothing wrong, and was simply the fall guy for Dick Armitage's leaky blabby mouth.
We really should see severe consequences - for the real criminals in all this: Holder, Obama, Hillary, Lynch, Comey, Rice, Powers, Clapper, and more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: [Citation Needed]
When did the Plame thing happen again?
Well - lets see here .... Oh yeah, here it is:
"As the subject of the 2003 Plame affair, also known as the CIA leak scandal, Plame had her identity as covert officer of the CIA leaked to the press by members of the George W. Bush administration and subsequently made public. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
See the part where it says what year it occurred in? Do you recall who was in the white house at that time? Oh, the internet helps us again! ... It was Bush 43.
So .... how do you connect the dots implicating those who you named? This may be an entire area of history that many are unaware of, so do explain please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: [Citation Needed]
Not true, my little apologist friend. She was a covert officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: [Citation Needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Guardian, for exmaple, would not subject to any kind of prosecution in the United States, because it is a British newspaper, and, therefors, only subject to British laws on what they publish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a better argument made that there is no law being broken, but that hasn't gotten very far at times in the past. Of course that also doesn't mean that journalists can't break a law. It means possibly arguing that reporting something one is told is protected by the 1st Amendment and that does not violate a law, US journalist or otherwise. The problem here is that the Fourth Estate is being targeted for doing it's job, likely because the US government doesn't like the job it is doing, and in our system, that is not allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Times, being in an independent California, would no longer be subject to the laws of the remaining United States. So neither the LA times, or its management, would be subject to prosecution in the remaining United States.
So if Calexit, or Pacifica (Oregon, Washington, California) did happen, the management of newspapers in the country would not not be subject to prosecution in the remaining United Staes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 4th, 2017 @ 7:55pm
Most of them seem to be "sources within the Administration" anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trumps dick is only 2 inches short
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: trumps dick is only 2 inches short
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's play word substitution!
Prosecution, prosecutors, and similar: "Silencers, silencing, etc."
Journalists, news media, similar: "Witnesses."
Jeff Sessions Suggests He's Steering DOJ Towards Silencing More Witnesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump'merica
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something you WON'T hear Jeff Sessions say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something you WON'T hear Jeff Sessions say...
I imagine he would rather literally blow his own foot off than utter anything along those lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sessions vs. Journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What passes for journalism today is often printing a bunch of opinion pieces backed up by supposition and slanted toward whatever result the 'journalist' supports. Most of today's journalist could better be described as political operatives.
True journalists should have great latitude and protections while they carry out their tasks. Political operatives, not so much. The trick is figuring out when someone has switched from journalist to operative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"No TRUE journalist..."
Just no.
If someone is actually breaking a law then journalist or not go after them that way, or if they're not breaking the law but are simply doing a lousy job vote with your wallet/attention, but 'they aren't real journalists, they don't deserve the same protections' is a horrible idea for any number of reasons, with 'Who determines who qualifies as a 'real' journalist?' being the one that comes to mind first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "No TRUE journalist..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journalists indistinguishable from operatives
What is driving my choice of relevant facts? If I want action of some kind, I'm an operative...now, how about this very techdirt article...is it journalism?(it's reporting interesting facts) or is it from an operative? (ultimately, I'm pretty sure the Techdirt crew wants the situation changed)
Once again, with feeling: SPEECH NEEDS PROTECTING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is simply not true, is incorrect and misleading - most likely intentionally and therefore is a lie unless the poster actually believes it and then they are just wrong.
"What passes for journalism today is often printing a bunch of opinion pieces backed up by supposition and slanted toward whatever result the 'journalist' supports."
This has always been the case, please investigate and stop spreading bullshit.
"The trick is figuring out when someone has switched from journalist to operative."
Probably occurs when they accept the paycheck.
In your mind a journalist only reports things that support the present administration and their dogma while anyone who reports things that show us in a bad light are the operatives - amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrest all the politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cause without the 2nd you have no hope of keeping the first .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So just to be clear, the second is about the right to have 'arms', guns basically, so what exactly is your proposal with regards to journalists 'protecting' their first amendment rights with their second amendment rights?
Please spell that one out for me clearly, because offhand I can't think of a way for that to make any sort of rational sense, and/or that doesn't go horribly/violently wrong, so either I'm missing something obvious or you seem to be saying that journalists should use force or at the very least the threat of force in order to 'protect' their right to free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How exactly that would work in practice is less clear; even if you were successful in beating back the government forces in the immediate instance, you'd probably need to promptly go on the run and underground in order to avoid further government-force consequences, and that would kind of impede your ability to continue to speak publicly anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]