The Justice Department is being asked to look into criminal charges against CNN after publishing a report about an app that allows users to track Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in their area. While critics may view the report as reckless and dangerous, it is not a crime.
President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem discussed the possible charges on Tuesday. Noem stated
“We’re working with the Department of Justice to see if we can prosecute them for that, because what they’re doing is actively encouraging people to avoid law enforcement activities, operations,. We’re going to actually go after them and prosecute them with the partnership of [Attorney General Pam Bondi] if we can, because what they’re doing, we believe, is illegal.”
President Trump also suggested that CNN, The New York Times, and other media outlets could be charged for publishing reports suggesting that US airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities did little damage.
Such prosecutions would constitute a major attack on the free press under the First Amendment and would most certainly fail in the courts.
I have been a persistent critic of these outlets for their biased reporting. However, that is no justification for prosecuting journalists for reporting on these issues, even if the reporting is misguided or false.
CNN’s report discussed an app called ICEBlock, which has more than 20,000 users, offering an “early warning system” when ICE is operating nearby. This is public information, and the app is publicly available. The media has the right to report on its existence and use without fear of criminal prosecution.
If the Justice Department were to bring criminal charges, they would be quickly struck down in federal court and the Administration would only succeed in creating precedent against the Executive Branch.
OT
Medicaid is unconstitutional.
Medicaid is not debt, defense or “general Welfare.”
General means ALL or the WHOLE.
Medicaid covers at most 25% of the American population illegally – who wouldn’t want “free stuff.”
Congress has no power to tax for favor or charity.
_______________________________________________________
“They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the [general] welfare of the Union.”
– Thomas Jefferson
_______________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;….
RES RES EST:
If seen as conspiracy to provoke murder, the software would be illegal. CNN, however, could easily be defended by any anti-American attorney as informative, not conspiratorial. Now, after the software has been publicly pronounced illegal, CNN could be charged with conspiracy. That’s my deux centimes.
While it does not appear that this is any more illegal than doxing the residence addresses of SCOTUS justices, still, you would think that such ICE-planned operations and locations would be kept more private/under agency control until imminent presence-tense.
Also, while it does not appear that Noem is the brightest star in the sky, -and it’s hard to believe that DHS lawyers would not know better, –plus knowing how much Trump dislikes CNN–it’s at least possible that Noem/Trump are playing CNN’s game by using MEDIA to shine a spotlight on CNN’s role, (knowing that this will go nowhere beyond headlines).
How ’bout a person who criminally ATTACKS and injures an ICE person and claims he would not have known of ICE location had he not learned about the “app” from watching CNN? Does that make CNN an “accessory before the fact?” Ha Ha!
It seems that the point is being totally missed. The question is how did they get the information of where ICE. is going to be. If someone or some organization is hacking into the ICE computers it’s very possible that a crime is being committed. In the procedure lies the detail.
I think if you look a little deeper you will discover people who “see” ICE report it on the app much like Waze for traffic. There is no hacking of anything.
The app is a crowdsourced thing, similar to WAZE. Users report when they saw ICE activity, and it gets filtered and broadcast to other users. If this app is illegal, then so it WAZE and other crowdsourced apps that report where police speed traps and DUI checkpoints are located. Eventually, a good case will get to SCOTUS. One minor difference that could matter legally is ICE is Federal law enforcement, whereas apps like WAZE mostly report on state level law enforcement.
I would agree. The App report by CNN is not illegal and nothing will come of it. The App itself is another matter but doubtful at this point that it breaks any law. I suppose there are acts that could misuse the App in a criminal way to clearly obstruct justice but nothing comes to mind. Might be different if it leads to an ambush of legitimate law officers resulting in injury or death but that might be a stretch.
I despise CNN but that does not make this report illegal.
It could be used to harm ICE
I see. Crazy
Pam Bondi strikes this writer as a very good attorney. Hence Attorney General. I think her shop is gonna hold with Johnatan’s thinking. She isn’t the President’s White House or personal attorney, but l think he understands the broader principle that lawyers advise and clients decide. Separately, intelligence community surveillance of traffic on the app may tie user and location movement to some wanted illegal aliens. Finally, l keep thinking about what Judge Andrew Napolitano writes about the 4th Amendment and that surveillance. But that’s another issue for another time, after saying here I’m not agnostic about it.
Mike: “Separately, intelligence community surveillance of traffic on the app may tie user and location movement to some wanted illegal aliens.”
This, any cross roads/crossover with the “cell-site location information (CSLI)” in the SCOTUS Carpenter case (2018 or 2019?)………………?
any thoughts?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
ICE could also use the app itself to inject false and corrupt data into the system. They could make it unusable if they are deliberate and clever about it. In fact, they could use it to drive illegal aliens right into their laps by directing them to certain roads where they are waiting for them.
I for one refuse to consider this topic until I hear from Gigenius, Dennis, and that whip-smart George fellow. Their well-reasoned and logical analyses never fail to impress.
If illegal aliens make you miserable in laundromats and restaurants by their inconsiderate conduct, is it good when ICE makes illegal aliens miserable, as if ICE is avenging you?
you mean, like, putting ICE in their clothes dryer, or ICE in their hot coffee or under their tamale?
If you don’t care how I feel, then don’t expect me to care how you feel about anything.
The government is thrilled to spy on americans but cries foul when americans spy on them.
Americans are thrilled to spy on Americans, thanks to camera phones.
Golden Country, are you referring to the government spying on Christians while they’re in church. Perhaps you’re referring to the government adding 85,000 new IRS agents. That’s a lot of IRS agents to spy on the 902 billionaires in America. That’s 94 IRS agents per billionaire. This is assuming that you’re capable of doing the math. I hear what you say. Oh, I never thought of that. Enough said.
Is it an impediment to the enforcement of immigration laws?
That and a threat to the officers.
It’s a war game with walkie talkies.
Trump talks. He throws things out there. He is a pot stirrer. If it disturbs CNN at all, causes a shiver of anxiety, it is worth the price of the CO₂.
On the other hand, he’s been chalking up a string of unexpected wins. Probably not a good idea to bet against him.
Dear Professor Turley… didn’t SCOTUS stop this overreach? https://www.zerohedge.com/political/judge-orders-halt-mass-layoffs-dept-health-and-human-services
A crime is an act that a government has legislated as illegal. Reckless and dangerous actions can be lethal and enable lawless acts but a civilized society would not engage in them except by those who wish to promote an agenda outside the bounds of civilized behavior.
OT
“BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP”
The Mexican Constitution states clearly that its birthright citizenship applies to the child REGARDLESS of the nationality of the parents.
The U.S. Constitution states clearly that the child and mother must be “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” and means WITH REGARD to the nationality of the parents.
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” cannot possibly mean anything else.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Constitution of Mexico
TITLE ONE
Chapter II
Mexicans
Article 30. Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
A. Mexicans by birth are:
I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of
their parents:
II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and
a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
III. Those born on Mexican vessels or airships, either war or merchant vessels.
B. Mexicans by naturalization are:
I. Foreigners who obtain letters of naturalization from the Secretariat of
Foreign Relations;
II. A foreign woman who marries a Mexican man and has or establishes her
domicile within the national territory.
The Mexican Constitution has no relevance to the US Constitution. It is undisputed that children of all immigrants were automatically citizens after the ratification of 14A. Since it was true then, it must be true now. There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant back them.
8647
Well, that’s certainly a take. And don’t you realize that the sly assassination threat lingo is outdated. You might as well be wearing white shoes after Labor Day.
8647?
Well no it was never clear and is a very misunderstood through the use of bad legal ethics. Subject to the Jurisdiction is clear, but it has been misinterpreted. If you think that it’s alright for people to come here illegally you better open up your house and put your address on here so they will come!
So true.
The Mexican Constitution is an example of writing and expressing a thought clearly and of bestowing great generosity, if not foolishness.
The American rendition is more thoughtful, comprehensive, precise, and coherent, requiring some relationship and allegiance to the United States.
A child born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction of said, as were former slaves to whom this clause applied, is a citizen, whereas a child of unrelated foreign criminal illegal alien invaders is not and is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of the country of origin of its mother, as is its mother.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14th Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
While I beleive that 14A grants citizenship tot he children of illegal aleins,
The claim that is undisputed is complete nonsense. There are past citizens ship cases – like Won Kim Ark – but they do not address illegal aliens and in fact there is dicta in some of the distant past immigration cases to suggest that SCOTUS then would rule the children of those here illegall were not citizens.
There are good arguments that the children of illegal immigrants are citizens – Illegal immigrants ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
SOME people who are hear legally – foreign military and forign consultate and embassy staff are not.
And yes there were “illegal immigrants” back then – the US has had immigration laws from the ratification fo the constitution.
If you are going to argue against the Trump EO – atleast do not make ludicrously stupid claims.
Trump’s FIRST problem is that an EO can not change the law or constitution.
This is a determination that only congress or the courts can make
If they cannot be summoned to jury duty, they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Oh hells bells, there’s a LIST of essentials in the immigration process one of which is no public assistance. That birthright thing is a dead in the water.
8647. Agent 86, Maxwell Smart is guarding the president. Is that Kristi Noem? Who heads the secret service?
George, I used to spend a lot of time, effort, and energy trying to convince people that two plus two equals four. It wasn’t working. I wasn’t getting through to them. Things never changed for the better. So I gave up
Interesting that the app does not appear to be available on the Android Play Store.
I don’t believe Android was part of the Obamaphone giveaway.
Still pushing the absurd Obamaphone nonsense.
The service you refer to is funded by the telecom companies themselves and not by taxes, and has absolutely nothing to do with Obama.
The service you are referring to was created by the Telecommunication Act of 1934. Before that there were major problems with the new telephone networks. There were many companies offering service, but there were major interoperability problems between the networks of individual companies. In addition, the companies were reluctant to provide service to remote areas and when they did they charged very high prices.
The Act of 1934 created the FCC and also included in its preamble a promise “to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”. The Act was intended to encourage the various phone companies to integrate their networks and provide a universal service, including remote areas, at a reasonable cost. To do this the Act authorized the companies to collect a “Universal Service Fee” from all customers to offset the high costs of service in remote locations and also to provide subsidized service to low income people.
There was a fear, expressed by telecom companies themselves, that market forces alone might encourage companies to avoid providing service to hard-to-reach places. This would both hurt the people who wouldn’t have service as well as existing customers who wouldn’t be able to reach them. The companies themselves wanted the authority to collect the Universal Service Fee and the Act provided that authorization.
The general principle was for the phone companies to charge a small Universal Service Fee to all customers to offset the increased costs of providing service in remote areas, and to provide subsidized or free service to low income people.
If you look at your phone bill you will see a charge for a Universal Service Fee.
The phone companies used the USF to subsidize landline service until cell phones became more freely available. In the 2000’s it became obvious to the phone companies that it was cheaper for them to provide cell service rather than landline service. They requested that the USF be used to provide subsidized cell phone service instead of landlines. In 2008, under the Bush administration, the phone companies started Safelink, a non-profit organization to provide subsidized or free service to low income people as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1934.
So you see, the free cell phone service is paid for by the phone companies using the Universal Service Fee, and has absolutely nothing to do with Obama.
After a long winded explanation – your argument STILL fails.
The law required Affordable service nationwide. NOT Free.
Further it subsuduzed the construction of infrastructure remotely – NOT the service itself.
Finally the law has mostly been a failure – the Claimed fear has ALWAYS proven false.
In a free market New Services and technology are ALWAYS cheaper in some places than others – usually but not always cities.
But that does not last.
I recall the debate in the 80’s that Internet access would eventually be pay by use service – like telephone.
But the reverse has happened. Telephone and Cell and even streaming video have become flat fee services.
THAT is the direction that free markets actually go. Free markets turn luxuries into commodities – even needs.
Nearly every left wing nut claims that healthcare is a right. That is a ludicrously stupid claim.
But it is a forgivable misconception in a country – even a world in which healthcare has become a ubiquitous commodity – NOT the luxury it has been for most of human existence.
Free markets turn scarcity into abundance.
Is it True that power companies and phone companies lobby FOR government protection from free markets all the time – often making false claims – absolutely.
The left is correct that free markets are often cutthroat and actors will do anything for a buck – and that includes seeking to leverage government power top protect them from the forces of the free market.
But it entirely misunderstand that so long as the use of FORCE is proscribed markets self regulate.
Unethical, perhaps. Illegal, no. Interesting that this website uses the video of CNN’s report. https://www.iceblock.app/
It shouldn’t take long before the site crashes due to false reports. Just sayin’
I agree with the Professor. It wasn’t a crime to tout the app. If CNN wants to start instructing people how to evade ICE, then they are getting into darker waters.
Who and what CNN roots for should be a clear message to us as consumers of news. Be selective and choose what to fill your brain with.
Dang! Before last week, all we would need is one conservative activist federal judge… 😵💫
Freedom of speech includes allowing unpleasant speech.
This temptation to do to the DNC aligned media what the previous administration attempted to build into the government needs to be resisted. The orchestration of attacks sprininging from the Biden admin should be a lesson to the Trump admin that it is repehensible. Passion often supercedes the exercise of reason.