No, what I said was that the actions being speculated are blackmail. Blackmail of the POTUS. Not a very moral or smart decision.

The fact that you instantly jump to 'licking the boots of power' indicates to me that you don't tolerate any dissent from your views.

The actions cited: investigating the behavior of government, and questioning public servants about that behavior. Which is basically the role of the fourth branch; read any founding father. But you describe this, with a vindictive imagination zealous enough to do any federal prosecutor proud, as "blackmail". Journalists, doing their jobs. What. The. Fuck.

Journalists doing their jobs is quite a lot different to what the poster posted:

> They can make an oxygen-sucking scandal out of nothing. This could devour the rest of Obama's second term if it gets out of hand

This is not 'journalism'. This is blackmail.

If it were up to those in power to define what is and is not "an oxygen-sucking scandal out of nothing", nothing would get investigated by journalists, ever. That's why, at least until recently, it has been journalists who have decided the proper focus of their work. The First Amendment is not vague on this point: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

I know you're trolling me here, but fuck it there probably are some halfwits out there nodding along with these power-worshiping redefinitions of old, well-understood law. From 18 U.S.C. § 873, blackmail: "Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned..." There's no money here. What is the "other valuable thing"? The safety of journalists' innocent loved ones? That's monstrous, and that isn't a proper interpretation of law.

> There's no money here. What is the "other valuable thing"? The safety of journalists' innocent loved ones? That's monstrous, and that isn't a proper interpretation of law

No, the 'other valuable thing' in this case is immunity from search or seizure.

Such putative immunity, with the due process of law, has never existed for anyone, let alone journalists, and isn't being discussed here.

It's the first amendment in practice.

No, the actions being speculated were about the possibility of retaliation if the government pisses off the wrong journalists too much. For there to be blackmail, someone would need to make a threat in advance.

Retaliation for a perceived offence can be blackmail. I'm not suggesting the poster was actually blackmailing anyone, but it's hardly the most moral position to take.