Below is my column in Fox on the final appeal of respected journalist Catherine Herridge in her case to protect the principle of confidentiality. The Supreme Court has been asked to review a case that has been truly bizarre for the former Fox reporter who uncovered an alleged threat to our national security. However, she has been facing an $ 800-a-day order to turn over her sources to an alleged former colonel in the People’s Liberation Army.
Here is the column:
Not long ago, former Fox News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge began a painful daily ritual. With her oldest son for support, she walked to the mailbox at the end of her street and dropped an envelope into the mail. It contained a check for a daily fine of $800 that she was ordered to pay to coerce her into revealing her confidential sources in a national security story that aired on Fox News in 2017. The money came from the college funds of her two children.
As Herridge drained the savings of her military family, an alleged former colonel in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was demanding that a court increase the daily fine to $5,000. A court later rescinded the fines, but they will be reimposed unless the Supreme Court takes Herridge’s case and reverses the lower courts.
Yanping Chen led a school called the University of Management and Technology (UMT) in Northern Virginia, which catered to U.S. service members. According to investigators and experts, Chen’s past in the Chinese military suggested that UMT posed a national security danger, including by potentially gathering information on military personnel participating in its programs. The Department of Justice declined to prosecute Chen. Nevertheless, after Herridge’s investigative report, the government terminated its contracts with UMT because it considered the school a national security risk.
All of that would seem to be the makings of a Pulitzer, not a court sanction. It is not uncommon for journalists to be sued by aggrieved subjects of their stories for defamation or other civil claims. Those cases are routinely rejected given the protections for the press under First Amendment cases like New York Times v. Sullivan, requiring a higher burden of proof from public figures suing the media.
However, Chen did not sue for defamation. She did not even name Herridge as a party. After all, Herridge is not being accused of writing anything false. Instead, Chen latched onto a clever tactic. The alleged PLA colonel sued under a law that does not exist in China: the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act regulates the government’s collection, storage and use of private information, and includes a private right of action for citizens to sue for abuses or violations. She accused government officials of violating her privacy by serving as confidential sources to Herridge. Her counsel then subpoenaed Herridge and demanded that she reveal her sources. She refused.
What is particularly alarming about this case is that the Privacy Act complaint was anemic and dubious from the outset. Much of what Chen references in her filing was available in the public domain. For example, Stephen Rhoads, a whistleblower and former UMT employee, was an FBI informant in the case and said publicly that Chen had admitted to him that she had been a PLA colonel and told him to lie about that fact when he was called to testify before a federal grand jury.
Any viable claim is primarily based on the photos. However, given all the other information in the public domain, it would have been difficult to argue that the photos caused Chen substantial harm. Her association and alleged hidden former rank as a PLA colonel led the government to take action against her and UMT.
However, Herridge had to litigate her claims of journalistic privilege in Washington, D.C. Despite being the single most important jurisdiction for investigative reporting, the federal courts in D.C. have long followed a more permissive approach to forcing the disclosure of confidential sources.
Not only did Herridge find herself in a less-than-optimal circuit, but her supporters also raised concerns about the assigned judge. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, is the husband of respected attorney Amy Jeffress, who has been referenced in past Herridge stories and represents clients who have been subjects of her investigative reporting.
In 2023, Judge Cooper ordered Herridge to identify her confidential sources. She refused. Cooper then held her in contempt and imposed a crippling $800-a-day fine. The D.C. Circuit later upheld his order. When Herridge asked the Supreme Court to intervene and stay the D.C. Circuit’s mandate, it also declined (though Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated that he would have granted relief).
She is now back on a final appeal, hoping four justices will let her present her case. They should grant this petition and address the morass left by the ill-considered 1972 precedent in Branzburg v. Hayes. One appellate judge summed up the view of many by saying that the standard in the case is “about as clear as mud.” (United States v. Sterling, 724 F.3d 482, 523 (4th Cir. 2013) (Gregory, J., dissenting)). The result has been decades of dangerous ambiguity in an area that needs clear rules.
Where circuits such as the First Circuit apply a balancing test that allows for greater contextual resolutions, the D.C. Circuit applies a standard that is easy to satisfy. Chen needed only to show that (1) the source is central to her case and (2) she has exhausted other avenues of discovery. That test could have allowed Nixon officials to force Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to disclose the identity of Deep Throat as a Privacy Act violation.
Herridge’s counsel has argued that the Court should adopt the more protective standards applied outside of Washington or create a new standard. One suggested approach is to allow a judge to consider whether a case is likely to survive a motion for summary judgment before ordering such disclosure. In this case, Chen is unlikely to secure any relief based solely on the photos, given the rest of the publicly available information about her past in the Chinese military.
Ironically, Chen is seeking to use rights that are denied in China in a way that would seriously undermine the protections of a free press in this country. However, if she thought ruinous fines would force disclosure of such sources in a national security case, she tangled with the wrong reporter.
Herridge has long been a champion of journalistic privilege, even when fighting news organizations. Years ago, I disclosed in a column how CBS News seized Herridge’s files containing confidential source information after she left the network. Herridge refused to yield and forced the network to surrender the files.
Herridge is not asking for immunity. She is seeking to establish a fair standard, so a court can balance interests in cases such as hers. Chen was able to repurpose the Privacy Act as a way to circumvent press protections in areas like defamation. It would be particularly concerning if an alleged former colonel in the PLA whom DOD found to be a national security threat could claim privacy violations to force the disclosure of national security sources.
There is ample ground here to strike a reasonable balance, but the Court must first accept review in Herridge v. Chen.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” Jonathan Turley previously worked for CBS News and currently works at Fox News as a legal analyst. His views do not necessarily reflect those of those networks.
Talk about a chilling effect on a free press. This abuse of process lawfare translates into financial ruin for a reporter, between fines and legsl fees. What reporter is going to break such a story now, after witnessing Herridge’s crucifixion?
Journalism is already in bad trouble, with local and national outlets notable for vast lacunae of stories that are simply not there. Just as Herridge’s fellow journalists seem not to be there in her defense. Why aren’t they howling? I think they might be scared. They don’t want to be next up against the wall.
And I had just felt a glimmer of hope for journalism. Was anybody else stunned that the “half the news that’s fit to print” NYT published an investigative report on Peltola campaign skulduggery, albeit many months after it should have? I hope that reporter isn’t subjected to ruinous lawfare now. I hope the newsroom isn’t up in arms, demanding scalps.
After trying to get a timeliness, no FOIA, it was tumult of Obama leaving and DJT entering. Could Herridge have requested a declassification of FBI information?
AGs were coming and going Lynch, Yates and then Sessions. Herridge would have had the FBI info at that time.
Reason mag blog leaves Herridge with no luck. Yanping is about to become quite wealthy?
Have a glorious day, all…
Sounds like a China hoax given the lack of prosecutions. This in contrast to the claim there was a Russian hoax, that sent a large number of people through the judicial wringer.
By whom was the Dodds case leaked? Had to be a woman.
Ah, yes, it was Deep Throat.
Let’s speculate on who will make-whole Herridge should SCOTUS take the case and opine in her favor. Judge Cooper should be held financially liable for demanding such a high daily fine (8th Amendment prohibits excessive fines – how did Cooper determine the amount?). Add the Circuit Court Judges who signed off on Cooper’s fines before Herridge was ever found guilty of committing an actual crime (withholding the names of confidential sources isn’t a crime). Cooper and his rubber-stamp friends in Appellate Courts should pay Herridge from their personal, public pensions – should they be overruled. Call it misplaced priorities… it seems they continue to be more interested in denying her due-process than whether a Chinese spy is gathering intel in our learned institutions.
“withholding the names of confidential sources isn’t a crime” could be considered contempt of court, considering the court ordered the information to be revealed.
The judge, in this case, appears to be following the law in exactly the way that the conservatives whinge about how the court should exactly do.
The problem is the law, a factor Professor Turley ignores in favor of using who appointed whom and other prejudicial information about the judge.
It would be more appropriate to examine the history of the law in question, who pushed for it, and whether protections for the press were introduced and either removed or failed to pass a vote for inclusion.
Once again it appears that who nominates someone for a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary is determinative in how they rule. The obvious national security threat is real as well as the threat posed to the informants for retribution by the PLA. The judge who imposed the fined should have recused himself for his obvious conflict but Dem appointees seldom do.
The Democrats and their foreign helpers like to keep their crimes Private!
let me guess Marc Elias and lots of Democrat lawyers are helping the chinese?
bascially Democrats and their leftist judges….LOVE Fascist China!
Democrats hate America…and will harm it EVERY chance they get!
This looks like all the trains coming into the station at once. If 4 Justices decide on granting cert., the Court may have a lively interest in calling up the Solicitor General- the “tenth Justice” to weigh in. There is not only a Circuit split on treatment. There is a jurisdiction split. Diversity Jurisdiction brings in the Erie Doctrine that heeds a State grant of privilege. Cases Arising jurisdiction under a congressional Statute, as in the Privacy Act, does not. Awareness of the danger of CCP servers sucking up US data from TikTok to radio transmitters on imported parts not shown on the schematic is at an all time high. So is the perceived value of whistle blowers like Ms. Herridge- and protection for them. As background radiation there is already the tsunami flow of all the interim docket and merits issues of the midterms. I just hope this Indispensable Right issue doesn’t get lost in the wash.
All I can say is I’m glad she’s fighting. These rogue judges are tyrants of a different order; I can’t recall a time when the courts were so infested (and it is what the dems wish our Supreme Court were, too) and we have to keep pushing back, both in court and in public sentiment The notion that our current SCOTUS is somehow partisan in light of these Obama and Biden nominated hacks is hysterical. They modern left are everything they accuse others of being and more. It’s madness.
She’s fighting a losing battle she brought upon herself the moment she chose to publish information that proved someone in government broke the law.
Herridge got herself into a legal pickle she’s not likely to win. Even Turley knows it is not likely Herridge will succeed.
According to your logic X, John Brennan and Adam Schiff should be forced to reveal their sources who told them that Trump was a Russian spy. Adam Schiff said he had seen the proof in writing so why not force him to reveal the source of his information? Please recall that at the time you declared that what Schiff was saying was the gospel truth. Why do you constantly get such pleasure out of declaring your self a fool multiple times a day? Considering that any one person knows only one percent of the world’s knowledge perhaps a little humility on your part might be in order. Then again, it’s obvious that obsession is involved. Just Google help.
Anonymous, wow. I mean. Really. Wow.
Under Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution (The Speech or Debate Clause), members of Congress possess absolute immunity for any speech or actions they perform as part of their legislative duties.
Chen is not going after a member of Congress. That should be your first big clue. She’s suing an agency which is NOT protected under the speech and debate clause.
The law gives a private individual the right to sue a federal agency if it leaks their unredacted, protected records. Chen was able to utilize the court system because her personal, physical government files were displayed on TV.
You really walked in to that didn’t you? LOL!!
That’s why having reading comprehension skills is important.
Liability and discovery obligations are different things. Schiff couldn’t be held liable for his statements, but a court could still order him to disclose his source under a Privacy Act litigation. In the Schiff situation, Trump could have sued the FBI under a Privacy Act claim, for the disclosure, and obtained a court order for Schiff to disclose his source. Under the DC standard, Schiff would have been in the same position as Herridge.
Not Anonymous, nope. Doesn’t work that way.
Schiff is a member of Congress. He has immunity from such legal requests because of the speech and debate clause.
A federal court cannot order a member of Congress to disclose their sources under any circumstances, meaning Adam Schiff could never be placed in the same legal position as Catherine Herridge.
The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that the Speech or Debate Clause does not just shield members of Congress from personal liability or lawsuits; it shields them from all compelled disclosure and judicial questioning regarding their legislative actions.
What is interesting is you didn’t point out exactly what DC standard applies. Cite the specific standard. I would point out the constitution supersedes any standard you claim would force a member of Congress like Adam Schiff to divulge his sources.
Thank you for confirming why Jim Jordan had the right not to comply with the January 6 subpoena
As usual, your argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of the actual facts
Congress does not have absolute immunity and are only protected for comments made on the floor of Congress during legislative activity. Television appearances, or tweets are not covered.
What the Clause Does NOT Cover (Limits)
That’s why having reading comprehension skills is important. And …. truth and honesty which fails you. X you’re a liar, a pathological liar.
LOL!!!! ROFL!!! Nope.
You’re still failing to prove I’m wrong. Perhaps you should try actual research and adapt whatever poor reading comprehension problem you have to figure out how to prove me wrong. LOL!!!
Prove yourself right.
I already did. Multiple times. You have not proved me wrong.
Which means Trump has a 100% legitimate case against the government for leaking his tax returns
Steve. Nope. Because you can’t sue yourself. Trump is in charge of the IRS. He can’t sue an agency he’s perfectly capable of commanding. That’s why that case will go nowhere.
Except Turley correctly points out Herridge would’ve won in a different venue. Therefore, there is a circuit split which the Supremes must address.
Moreover, if the suit itself is frivolous, then the underlying subpoena should be viewed as nothing but a fishing expedition (which in almost every Court is not allowed within the context of discovery). Finally, this implication creates a paradox. What if the information from her confidential source did NOT break any laws? What if it isn’t a violation at all of the Privacy Act? The only way for her to prove that is to TURN OVER THE CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE! It creates a wide-open avenue to force disclosure of sources through any spurious claim by placing the burden on the individual subpoenaed.
X – you love to misstate the law and spew your ignorance on the daily, but this one reads like you just want to be an anti-Turley troll. You have zero critical thinking skills and just word vomit on this blog to fill some hole in your life.
But please! Keep it up!
DW, again you demonstrate how you don’t understand how the law works.
Under federal civil procedure, a judge will immediately throw out a frivolous case before discovery even begins. Chen’s lawsuit survived multiple motions to dismiss because her evidence of a government leak was rock-solid.
Because the lawsuit was ruled legitimate, the subpoena issued to Herridge was a highly targeted demand for the identity of a specific tortfeasor, not a blind fishing expedition.
No federal circuit grants journalists absolute immunity from subpoenas.
Even in circuits with more stringent balancing tests, courts consistently compel disclosure if a non-party journalist is the only living eyewitness to a federal statutory violation and the plaintiff has spent years exhausting every other humanly possible avenue to find the leaker.
The physical proof of the Privacy Act violation consists of the unredacted immigration forms and internal FBI PowerPoint slides that Herridge displayed on screen.
Because those documents were under the exclusive, locked control of federal agencies, the mere fact that they appeared on television proves a federal employee leaked them without authorization.
The identity of the source is not needed to prove that a leak happened; it is needed to identify which federal official or agency must pay civil damages for committing the leak. No one has to guess if a law was broken—the proof was broadcast to millions of homes.
Now you get it?
DW,
Just scroll past him. Not worth your time reading and most certainly not worth responding too.
Says the idiot from Albany NY. Can’t write a coherent sentence because… no HS diploma.
Unfortunately the common thread is the hate for Donald Trump, the republican party an in part the constitution. I wish it wasn’t but it is now imho an infestation or cancer that only the people who love this country can change.
The real problem is Herridge used information in her investigative reporting that put her in a legally indefensible position. Turley is trying to paint Chen as the ‘bad guy’ by alleging PLA connections. Turley doesn’t focus on the real issue which is that someone in government broke the law and Chen wants to find out who that was.
If Herridge had simply used verbal tips or leaked corporate memos, the legal landscape would be different. Because she published un redacted copies of Yanping Chen’s official U.S. immigration forms and internal FBI PowerPoint slides, she provided indisputable, visual proof that a federal employee had committed a statutory crime under the Privacy Act of 1974. This gave Chen an airtight civil lawsuit against the FBI.
Herridge messed up. Chen is just exercising her right to sue the government for violating her rights under the Privacy Act.
Legally indefensible position? And you know that because you’re NOT a lawyer?
I know that because I read the case and understand the legal process that is occurring.
Turley acknowledges Herridge is in trouble and he’s doing his best to paint this case as a free speech issue when in fact it is Herridge’s mistake whether intentionally or unintentionally publishing evidence that the government broke the law.
The only way Herridge can avoid being liable in this case is for the government to give up the person/s responsible for divulging information that was not legally supposed to be public. It seems someone very important is trying to avoid being held accountable for violating the law. Herridge is being thrown under the bus so the government can’t be held accountable and Turley is framing this as a case Chen is seeking against Herridge by alleging her irrelevant PLA ‘connection’.
Of course MR. X sides with China. If Nixon was going after Woodward and Bernstein X and the same DC Courts would do a 180. It is called ends justified reasoning…or hypocrisy.
X, “I know that because I read the case and I understand the legal process….” X, did you learn to understand the legal process while at LAW SCHOOL? No, I didn’t think so.
X is the kind of narcissist that will argue with a general or admiral about military strategy because he “read the case and understands ‘military strategy’ “.
Hullbobby, you don’t need to be a lawyer to understand or be able to read the case.
You just need basic reading comprehension skills.
But… you seem to be able to understand it enough to “show” us how bad the case is despite the fact that I know you haven’t read the case or the rules regarding court procedure.
Do YOU need to be a lawyer to argue about this case? Because you seem to be doing the same thing I am. What makes you qualified to opine or judge the merits of the case?
X – it is clear you are not a lawyer and do not understand what is happening. Heck, you cannot even properly analyze what Turley wrote in the plainest of legal language.
The case is a farce. There is a circuit split. The current DC standard places the burden of proof on Herridge and not on the Plaintiff who is clearly on a fishing expedition.
These obvious failures of the DC Circuit need to be addressed. Apparently its related to a poor supreme court precedent. I tried to read that opinion, but it really is a great deal of circular talking without much in the way of a clear holding or guidance. I’m accustomed to reading opinions from Judges who can’t put their thoughts on paper, but usually the Supremes are better than this.
DW, LOL!
Thanks for demonstrating you have absolutely no clue how the law works.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand how it works if you apply yourself to truly understanding it. You don’t need a law degree for that.
”I tried to read that opinion, but it really is a great deal of circular talking without much in the way of a clear holding or guidance. I’m accustomed to reading opinions from Judges who can’t put their thoughts on paper, but usually the Supremes are better than this.”
And yet you don’t explain exactly why you think it is a “great deal of circular talking” by showing exactly what points you’re referring to.
I posted links to the case, rules, and the actual reason why this case is not about Chen suing Herridge. Chen is not after her. Chen is suing the government because Herridge published information the government gave her that proves someone in government broke the law and the information caused her harm.
Herridge is in legal trouble because she published evidence that someone in government broke the law. Because the law allows Chen to sue she is entitled to know who harmed her and that is government agency or person. Herridge cannot use her journalism privilege to “protect” her source because she published evidence that a law was broken. That act put her in a legal position where she has no to protect the source. The source committed a violation of the law and that source is a government official. Not a private individual.
If the information was not in violation of the Privacy Act Herridge would have had justification for keeping her source anonymous.
DW,
He has to rely on AI to make his point for him. And as you aptly point out, he has no idea what he is even reading so he does not even understand what to put in the AI. In this case, garbage in, garbage out.
Yes upstate you have to use AI because it helps to prove your case and use the correct rules and laws applicable the case.
FYI even professional’s like, real lawyers are now using AI as a tool to reinforce their arguments and do the kind of research needed to do their job more efficiently.
What YOU can’t prove is what I posted is wrong or incorrect regarding the rules and process of how this case is being litigated and the facts surrounding it. Thanks. 👍
So you admit you use AI. But AI has been proven to regurgitate false info, just like yo without that crutch.
Yeah. So what? I also double check my research results against other sources. Which requires a little bit of more work, more than you ever apply to your own comments.
Fun fact; even lawyers, real ones, are using AI to support their arguments and research, write motions, etc. AI is incredibly helpful when you know how to use it.
No, ‘X’; the real problem here is there is no moral universe where anyone — especially any government –should have the ability to compel any speech of any private citizen.
This is not a speech issue. It’s an identity issue.
Herridge published information proving someone in government broke the law. The information is the evidence.
The information caused Chen harm. The law allows her to sue and her legal strategy is sound according to Turley.
The judges are all doing what the law requires. It’s the government that is in the wrong here and Chen rightfully has reason to sue according to the Privacy Act of 1974.
X at one time or another claimed to be an expert in medicine, the law and even MS-13 tattoos on the fingers of an illegal immigrant who beat his wife. I say to X, name the schools that gave you your degrees in the law, medicine and cosmetology. Don’t forget to provide pictures from your clown school graduation ceremony Mr. Know it all. We’ll wait?
Nope. Never stated I was an expert. YOU imply I did.
You stated you use AI. So you’re a fraud too. And a liar.
So? What is the fraud? That I am smart enough to use a tool that helps with the research of a topic? You haven’t shown what I have lied about this case.
@X
No, the problem is that the CCP are a fascist regime that has learned to exploit our system rather deftly, and that she is a front and center representative of that regime. Take your high school obfuscation and put it in your pipe. According to you, that is some GOOD sheet. Smoke it up. Just stop blowing the exhale in our direction unless you are prepared for the blowback. Thanks.
James,
Huh? CCP fascist? You do know they are communists, right?
What they are indeed is…very, very smart.
You WANT to believe the Chen is some sort of Chinese spy without proof. She’s a U.S. citizen and any allegation of being a former member of the PLA has zero relevance to this case or anything for that matter.
All she is doing is exercising her legal right to sue. Using the law.
What you’re not doing is proving my point is wrong when I’m using the actual law to show that she’s more likely to succeed and Turley admits Chen is likely to succeed because Herridge essentially messed up.
I don’t see any evidence of you proving me wrong about this case.
It causes wonder as to what else Herridge has knowingly obtained by illegal channels in the FBI or other agencies.
For most of us, an $800/day penalty would resemble death by a thousand cuts, which is, by the way, an ancient and brutal form of torture and capital punishment originating in 10th-century China. So, PLA Colonel Chen must be delighted.
Chen is not after Herridge. She’s after the government agency who improperly disclosed information that caused her harm. Herridge is just collateral damage.
Chen has a legitimate claim and it seems SCOTUS largely agreed when they chose not to review Herridge’s request.
Chen is not after Herridge. Really? Of course not as you say because your friends at DOJ told you that?
Really. Chen is not after Herridge. Chen is actually after the FBI.
The case is named Catherine Herridge, Petitioner v. Yanping Chen because it is the title of the specific appeal.
The lawsuit is actually Yanping Chen v. FBI, the name changes on the Supreme Court docket due to specific legal rules.
In the main lawsuit, Chen is suing the federal government. However, Herridge filed a separate legal challenge to fight the judge’s order forcing her to name her sources. When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the name of the person filing the appeal, Herridge (the Petitioner) goes first, and the person opposing the appeal Chen (the Respondent) goes second. Because Herridge is appealing against Chen’s subpoena, the docket reads Herridge v. Chen.
Many court documents list the case as Catherine Herridge v. Yanping Chen, et al.. The phrase “et al.” is Latin for “and others,” which accounts for the federal agencies (like the FBI and Department of Justice) that are still the actual defendants in the main lawsuit.
The name Herridge v. Chen is used for convenience to describe this specific appellate battle over reporter privilege, even though Herridge herself was never the person Chen originally sued.
The lawsuit is actually Yanping Chen v. FBI, the name changes on the Supreme Court docket due to specific legal rules. And those rules are ????
Prove it then. Don’t see any sources X.
Under Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(ii), any subpoena issued to a non-party witness must strictly retain the original case caption and civil action number of the underlying lawsuit.
Every Rule 45 subpoena must:
When a petition for a writ of certiorari is submitted to the Supreme Court, the appellate caption is dictated entirely by who is filing the appeal.
The title must be structured as [Petitioner] v. [Respondent]. The “Petitioner” is the party asking the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court’s ruling. The “Respondent” is the party who won in the lower court and is fighting to keep that ruling in place.
The name change on the docket is an automated procedural rule of appellate tracking. It does not mean the underlying lawsuit changed, nor does it mean Chen suddenly launched a personal lawsuit against Herridge.
Chen has a legitimate claim… prove it X!
Chen’s claim under the Privacy Act is a legitimate claim because her lawsuit focuses on a clear, documented violation of federal law by government agencies.
The investigative reports featured by Herridge included:
Because these files were under the exclusive control of federal agencies, they could only have entered the public domain via an unauthorized disclosure by a government employee. This establishes a clear, prima facie violation of the Privacy Act of 1974.
No it does not X. You made the statement, now prove it.
I did prove it. You just don’t like the fact that you can’t prove your assertion that it is wrong.
Of course MR. X sides with China. If Nixon was going after Woodward and Bernstein X and the same DC Courts would do a 180. It is called ends justified reasoning…or hypocrisy.
Sides with China? How so? See no references to any allegiance to China by X.
Can you read?
This has nothing to do with China. Chen is a U.S. citizen exercising her rights under the Privacy Act of 1974.
The U.S. government broke the law which harmed Chen.
This has nothing to do with China???? This has nothing to do with Japan, Tokyo Rose is an American….
Hullbobby, it’s pretty clear you have absolutely no argument. None.
How does China benefit from this? What is YOUR claim what China is after?
Are you sure she is a U.S. citizen? No where in the article does it say that. In fact if anything she may have a green card. As with another person she may have lied on her application for a green card or citizenship. Did she disclose her ties to the PLA? If not any legal green card or citizenship status could be up for removal.
And actually it has everything to do with China accessing any and all kinds of information on our military and citizens which Herridge exposed.
I generally do not like to respond to X since his/her/it’s arguments are baseless but I was annoyed going through these posts.
You know Google exists, right? I’m constantly amazed how many people fail to use it. It has all the information you need. All it takes is a smidge of willpower and guide your fingers to begin.
It was Herridge who received the judgment, no matter who the suit charged. It was the judgment I discussed.
Herridge was hit with an $800 fine a day because she’s refusing to divulge the source of the information she was given by a government official. The problem is the information itself is evidence the said government official broke the law. Chen just wants to know who that official is so she can properly exercise her right to sue and seek damages that the illegal release of the information caused.
Herridge messed up by publishing information that proved the government violated the law. Chen needs to identify the specific official or agent so she can sue which is her right under the law.
PLA Colonel Chen is not delighted. The $800/day was between the Court and Herridge. Chen is after the person or persons who illegally supplied information to Herridge. Herridge, in turn, is protecting those sources from the legal consequences of exporting private data from government files.
It certainly appears this export was done out of frustration that Chen had done nothing illegal.
“Professor Turley conveniently fails to mention that Herridge’s $800-a-day fine was stayed months ago.”
Noted: “A court later rescinded the fines . . .” (JT)
In your maniacal desire to smear JT, you conveniently fail to read.
Sam, you’re correct. Turley mentions the fine was rescinded after making it look like Herridge was some sort of victim and suffering. Turley does blithely mention it as if it were almost inconsequential. He wanted you to focus on the idea that Herridge was somehow suffering from it now. But thanks for the clarifying.
“making it look like…” George? Turley hid that info and then … decided to make Herridge a victim? A victim huh?
If you had brain, you’d be dangerous, but you don’t so that makes you a clown.
Still trying to provoke with lies and stupidity eh X?
“Turley mentions the fine was rescinded after making it look like Herridge was some sort of victim and suffering.”
GSX, Herridge is a victim and is suffering. That temporary pause in fines chills journalists.
You “blithely” make your comment, “as if it were almost incosneequential.” That is what a disingenuous person does.
Well how is it that I knew the fine was stayed after reading the article? Turley does state it, you read it and yet you lied.
That’s X for ya – lies nonstop. Or maybe he’s really stupid.
I didn’t lie, I misread. There’s a difference. What hasn’t changed is Turley’s deliberate misuse of the Chen’s alleged association with the PLA which has absolutely nothing to do with the case or Herridge’s legal dilemma.
He uses the PLA allegation to stoke animosity and play Chen as the ‘bad guy’ in this when it’s really the U.S. Government who broke the law. Chen is rightfully exercising her right to sue for damages and compensation for the harm the government caused.
Blaming the judges rather than confronting the actual legal merits of the case reeks of ignorance. It’s a failure of understanding how the law actually works.
Even Turley is forced to tacitly acknowledge that Chen’s legal strategy is both novel and highly effective—because he knows full well that her case carries a strong probability of success under existing statutory law. Stripped of its rhetorical BS, Turley’s defense of Herridge is not a noble crusade for the basic principle of press freedom. Instead, he is shielding a reporter who chose to build an investigation around information that federal officials explicitly broke the law to disclose.
Herridge is not a martyr; she is self-inflicted collateral damage in the government’s systemic failure to protect private data. Chen’s objective is entirely legitimate: she is suing a federal agency that weaponized her private records to cause her harm. In a court of law bound by the Privacy Act, Turley’s obsessive focus on Chen’s alleged PLA past is a cheap, xenophobic distraction that remains entirely irrelevant to the illegal leak at hand.
“It’s a failure of understanding how the law actually works.” You should know George X. Kinda like not being a lawyer huh?
George X is not a martyr, he’s sees himself so but its just self-inflicted stupidity and a lack of a law degree that makes him look stupid. George knows stupid because he is stupid.
Jonathan Turley is once again peddling misleading claims about a legal battle that is increasingly moving in Yanping Chen’s favor. Notably, the Supreme Court has already denied Catherine Herridge’s request to block the disclosure order, signaling a major setback for the reporter’s position.
Furthermore, Professor Turley conveniently fails to mention that Herridge’s $800-a-day fine was stayed months ago. She is not currently paying this penalty, nor is she undergoing the immediate financial ruin depicted in his column.
Turley’s heavy emphasis on Chen’s alleged past membership in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is also entirely irrelevant to the legal merits of the case. Instead, it serves as rhetorical fodder designed to smear Chen’s character and incite suspicion among readers unfamiliar with the litigation.
At its core, this is a Privacy Act case, and Chen’s legal strategy is entirely legitimate. Because federal officials unlawfully leaked her confidential information, Chen has a compelling statutory claim. Turley himself tacitly acknowledges that the law does not favor Herridge here. Crucially, Chen is suing the federal government for the illegal leak, not Herridge.
Herridge is essentially attempting to redefine the parameters of the Privacy Act from the bench to shield her sources. However, her arguments ignore the structural reality of the lawsuit. Herridge was subpoenaed strictly as a non-party witness because Chen exhausted all other investigative avenues to identify the government officials who broke federal law. Framing this as a direct showdown between an American journalist and a foreign national deliberately obscures a vital truth: the litigation is a legitimate effort to hold U.S. government agencies accountable for unlawful disclosures.
George X is once again peddling misleading claims about a legal battle that is …. you realize you just rewrote Turley’s opinion. You’re so jealous of Turley that you want to be him. So you rewrite his opinion. Do yo have his bedsheets too george? His hair? You stalk him?
Are you a lawyer X? No huh?
“Professor Turley conveniently fails to mention that Herridge’s $800-a-day fine was stayed months ago.”
Noted: “A court later rescinded the fines . . .” (JT)
In your maniacal desire to smear JT, you conveniently fail to read.
Once again we have a far-left Fascist judge who refuses to recuse, despite clear potential bias in a case. No shock. Democrat judges rarely recuse when they believe they can do good for their side of the political aisle. One case after another we see judges remaining on cases when by all judicial standards they should step aside.
Once again we have a far-left Fascist judge… actually he’s just a Democrat.
Judge Boasberg Should Be in Jail – When’s the Arrest?https://joehoft.com/judge-boasberg-should-be-jail-whens-arrest/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=judge-boasberg-should-be-jail-whens-arrest#:~:text=Judge,-Boasberg%20Should
Here are 3 criminal charges Pam Bondi could immediately arrest Judge Boasberg for over the Arctic Frost scandal. The third criminal charge would arrest Jack Smith as co-conspirator with Judge Boasberg.
It is a violation of federal law (2 U.S.C. 6628) to prevent data carriers from informing the Senate of collection of its data. Boasberg wrote an illegal order to ban the Senate from being informed, because that same law REQUIRES federal courts to quash the data collection upon a motion by the U.S. Senate to do so.
Not just that, the DC court rotataion is ignored so the clown Judge Bozoberg can support communist and Islamic terrorists and scammers.
‘Radical left lunatic’ judge Trump wanted impeached takes up Ilhan Omar warrant fight
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/radical-left-lunatic-judge-trump-wanted-impeached-takes-up-ilhan-omar-warrant-fight/ar-AA2ggVNW
Rage much do you?
Christopher Reid “Casey” Cooper (born 1966) is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He was appointed in 2014 by President Barack Obama.
What else would you expect from a commie loving judge appointed by a commie loving president? The CCP is where their allegiance lies. How disgusting.
The Rouge DC Circuit under Judges Sullivan and Boaseberg have been the source of untold Judicial Tyranny. The ruling in this case is nothing more or less than the Judicial Branch protecting their own. From recusal by the impartial Judge to the support of the Appeals Judges this case smells of retribution against Catherine Heritage a very effective investigative Reporter!!
I agree with your comment but I don’t know why you called the judge a 1950s female make-up product? (My attempt at humor)
They’re red and they’re rogue. Boasberg and X are probably PLA colonels like Chen.
Republicans are red also. Does that make them….fascists, communists/marxists? It is, after all, their color. No?