Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, January 24, 2023

A lawyer for former Vice President Mike Pence discovered about a dozen documents marked as classified at Pence's Indiana home last week, and he has turned those classified records over to the FBI, multiple sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Well, that muddies is the waters even more.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-24 12:50 PM | Reply

@#1 ... Well, that muddies is the waters even more. ...

In some respects, yes.

In other, somewhat more important respects, no.

... he has turned those classified records over to the FBI ...

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-01-24 12:54 PM | Reply

They should kick Mitch McConnel's door in and see what they find.

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-24 12:58 PM | Reply

I wonder if both the Clintons and George Bush are having bonfires right now

#4 | Posted by eberly at 2023-01-24 01:14 PM | Reply

@4 ... I wonder if both the Clintons and George Bush are having bonfires right now...

I wonder if the tracking system for classified documents (if there is one) is being examined and improved.

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-01-24 01:25 PM | Reply

I wonder if the tracking system for classified documents (if there is one) is being examined and improved.

I don't think there is one. This is pretty obvious.

#6 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-24 01:31 PM | Reply

Ooops. Didn't see this before posting the same story.

From my duplicate thread

Someone posted that they thought this was a likely common occurrence by POTUS, VPOTUS ect.
Then I called it an excuse.
Now we have evidence that might be correct, so I want to go on record as saying I was wrong and my apologies.
Now, let the fun begin! When is the FBI raiding Pence and Mother?

#1 | POSTED BY JPW

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2023-01-24 01:34 PM | Reply

Well, that muddies is the waters even more.

#1 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Not even a little. We need to stop looking for drama where there is none.

Like Biden, Pence found them, immediately turned them over and is doing the right thing.

Trump admitted to taking hundreds of documents amounting to tens of thousands of pages and refused to give them back, even when told they weren't his property to keep.

Trump's situation isn't close to Biden's or, now, Pence's. End of story.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2023-01-24 01:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Just gonna report what I put in the other thread here. The fact that the previous two administrations at the very least have badly mishandled classified and national security threatening documents should be a much bigger issue and the National Archives and/or whoever was the custodian of these classified documents have definitely got some serious explaining to do.

#9 | Posted by qcp at 2023-01-24 01:38 PM | Reply

Repost. Damn autocorrect.

#10 | Posted by qcp at 2023-01-24 01:39 PM | Reply

I wonder if both the Clintons and George Bush are having bonfires right now
#4 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I heard on the news this morning that classified documents expire after 25 years. If that is the case, then Clinton and Gore are likely in the clear. Bush and Cheney not quite.

#11 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-24 01:43 PM | Reply

If that is the case, then Clinton and Gore are likely in the clear.

Bush and Cheney not quite.

#11 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Obama is up next. I am actually surprised they didn't go after him before Mike Pence.

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-01-24 01:45 PM | Reply

@#8 ... Trump's situation isn't close to Biden's or, now, Pence's. End of story. ...

Agreed.

The manner in which fmr Pres Trump handled government property and the classified documents was egregiously wrong.

imo, it amounted to an attempt stealing the documents in question.


For example:

Timeline of the Trump Documents Inquiry
www.voanews.com

...
May 2021

The National Archives and Records Administration, also known as NARA, emails Trump's lawyers, notifying them that some two dozen boxes of original records were not turned over, according to The Washington Post. ...



The National Archives started their attempts to get fmr Pres Trump to return the documents in May 2021. Over a year before the DoJ finally saw the need to execute a search warrant due to fmr Pres Trump's lack of cooperation.

[emphasis mine]

#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-01-24 01:46 PM | Reply

#8 | POSTED BY JPW

I agree with everything you said. It muddies the waters, IMO, for Republicans in the House trying to make a big deal of and wanting to investigate Biden having classified documents. Are they now going to excuse Pence as well as Trump while trying to hold Biden's feet to the fire?

#14 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-24 01:46 PM | Reply

"classified documents expire after 25 years"

That is not exactly true.

www.justice.gov

#15 | Posted by qcp at 2023-01-24 01:49 PM | Reply

"Obama is up next. I am actually surprised they didn't go after him before Mike Pence."

From what I understand, no one "went after" Pence. Like Biden did, Pence had his lawyers look for classified docs, they found some and volunteered to turn them over. But, yes, Obama should have his lawyers checking for classified documents too.

#16 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-24 01:49 PM | Reply

#15 "Automatic declassification is the declassification of information based upon the occurrence of a specific date or event as determined by the original classification authority; or the expiration of a maximum time frame for the duration of classification established under the Order (25 years)."

The person I heard speaking on the topic was suggesting that the 25 year expiration date be changed to 10 years. But that does bring up a question I've been having: mightn't some of the classified documents Biden, Pence and Trump have already been declassified (and not through Trump magically declassifying them with his mind)? Isn't that what happened to some of the classified info Hillary had on her server?

#17 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-24 01:53 PM | Reply

Gal, if you read further you'll see anything that still needs protecting or isn't considered of "permanent historical value" is not automatically declassified. It's not safe to assume that all or even most documents meet that requirement.

...mightn't some of the classified documents Biden, Pence and Trump have already been declassified?

Yes, but that's a very big assumption.

#18 | Posted by qcp at 2023-01-24 02:13 PM | Reply

It is probably routine for people working in high levels of government to misfile or act carelessly with respect to classified documents.

The difference made obvious by Trump is that prior to him we had such a traitorous POS in office who would sell out their country in a heartbeat.

Intent matters. And how the accused reacts to DOJ and National Archives inquiries matters. Both Pence and Biden appear to be cooperative. Trump meanwhile likely committed additional obstruction crimes when confronted.

MAGA --------- will pretend every case is the same. They are not.

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2023-01-24 02:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

*never* had

#20 | Posted by JOE at 2023-01-24 02:18 PM | Reply

" MAGA --------- will pretend every case is the same. They are not.

#19 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2023-01-24 02:18 PM | FLAG: "

Of course every case has some differences. In this case the one constant is statute - it's a felony to handle classified material in a grossly negligent manner. That even applies to Saint Biden. It applies to Trump, Pence and others.

This has become overblown because Dems shot their wad trying to use this to destroy Trump once and for all. Now they are forced to play by their own rules.

#21 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-24 02:35 PM | Reply

You shot your wad all over an 8x10 of Saint Fatty.

#22 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-01-24 02:49 PM | Reply

"That even applies to Saint Biden. "

Not while he is still the President DingDong.

Swallow it.

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-01-24 03:16 PM | Reply

From what I understand, no one "went after" Pence. Like Biden did, Pence had his lawyers look for classified docs, they found some and volunteered to turn them over. But, yes, Obama should have his lawyers checking for classified documents too.

#16 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

You are right.

I should have said "pressured" or something like that because they are volunteering to let the public know. They don't really have to. They only have to inform the National Archives.

And it is interesting to see the different ways each handles it.

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-01-24 03:20 PM | Reply

Jail!

#25 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-01-24 03:32 PM | Reply

Not while he is still the President DingDong.
Swallow it.
#23 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY.

Depends upon the docs, could be high crimes

#26 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-01-24 03:34 PM | Reply

it's is probably routine for people working in high levels of government to misfile or act carelessly with respect to classified documents. - Joe

No it's not.

As a senator you have to go to special rooms, removing all electronics.

They give you the docs, and you give it back, then you can leave.

#27 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-01-24 03:39 PM | Reply

it's is probably routine for people working in high levels of government to misfile or act carelessly with respect to classified documents. - Joe

No it's not.

As a senator you have to go to special rooms, removing all electronics.

They give you the docs, and you give it back, then you can leave.

#28 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-01-24 03:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

So these incidents involving Pence and Biden are, at least in the public eyes, reducing Trump's removing of the documents down to little except for the lack of cooperation?

That's a big change, isn't it?

It was tantamount to espionage, treason, and all sorts of vilifiable actions on the part of Trump for daring leave with such documents.

Now, it's "well, I guess this sort of thing happens all the time".

I was hoping Trump would hang for taking them and his subsequent lack of cooperation.

Doesn't seem likely now.

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2023-01-24 03:45 PM | Reply

"As a senator you have to go to special rooms, removing all electronics.
They give you the docs, and you give it back, then you can leave."

#27 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

Pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about, but what else is new?

#30 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-01-24 03:50 PM | Reply

Depends upon the docs, could be high crimes

#26 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

Nope. Precedent has been set.

Investigate all you want. But no indictments while in office.

And go ahead and try and impeach him. You got nothing. He fully cooperated. And if we can't impeach trump for an insurrection which is obviously a "high crime" then so sorry no "high crimes" for a cooperative Biden ... you built that!

But do keep dreaming. Dreams are important!

Also you forget.. as President Biden can just telepathically declassify anything! Even retroactively. Because he has them Article 2 Powers!

#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-01-24 03:52 PM | Reply

it's a felony to handle classified material in a grossly negligent manner. That even applies to Saint Biden

Assuming his conduct actually meets the statutory prerequisites, he should be prosecuted.

Find a Trumper willing to say that about your cult leader, ------.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2023-01-24 03:58 PM | Reply

This has become overblown because Dems shot their wad trying to use this to destroy Trump once and for all. Now they are forced to play by their own rules.

#21 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You have to be intentionally stupid to think that that's the only thing Trump was worth going after for.

Jesus Christ. I don't even know why I bother addressing this stupid ----. You don't even attempt to be honest and intellectually accurate.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2023-01-24 04:15 PM | Reply

As a senator you have to go to special rooms, removing all electronics.
They give you the docs, and you give it back, then you can leave.

#27 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

You're describing compartmentalized information IIRC.

Not everything is held with that level of security.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2023-01-24 04:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

www.brookings.edu

Only Top Secret documents are held in and viewed in a SCIF.

Anything else isn't required.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2023-01-24 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" Jesus Christ. I don't even know why I bother addressing this stupid ----. You don't even attempt to be honest and intellectually accurate.

#33 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2023-01-24 04:15 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

Intellectually accurate? I'm the only one citing actual statute. You are such a fricking hack.

#36 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-24 04:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

" Find a Trumper willing to say that about your cult leader, ------.

#32 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2023-01-24 03:58 PM | FLAG: "

Unlike you, I'm consistent. If Trump was grossly negligent then file charges. If anyone else was grossly negligent - the same. File charges.

#37 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-24 04:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

" I was hoping Trump would hang for taking them and his subsequent lack of cooperation.

Doesn't seem likely now.

#29 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2023-01-24 03:45 PM | FLAG: "

Same.

#38 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-24 04:37 PM | Reply

Perspective:

How Many Documents Are Classified Each Year?

Most practitioners and observers would say too much. Some estimates assess that as many as 50 million documents or more are classified each year.

The number appears to have grown incrementally in the last 20 years between the proliferation of technology in the Information Age that can generate classified information as well as the two-decade period in which the U.S. waged active wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while also defending against threats from nation-state actors across the globe.

Beyond the clear procedures for generating classified information, the practical realities for protecting it by presidents and down the chains of command are not always clear.

Accidental leaks, including when the staff of a retiring senior leader transports bulk documents from a secure facility into storage, happen so regularly that the National Archives has a startlingly matter-of-fact set of instructions for such instances on its public website " aligned with the actions reportedly taken by members of Biden's staff when they believed they had made such a discovery at his archive and his private residence.

www.usnews.com

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-24 04:49 PM | Reply

Oh no!

It's Document-gate!

I have a strong suspicion there are a lot of politicians who still have documents from when they were in office.

I'd wager the majority, if not all, aren't really that important.

It's all politics and nonsense.

#40 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-01-24 04:55 PM | Reply

it's is probably routine for people working in high levels of government to misfile or act carelessly with respect to classified documents. - Joe
No it's not.
As a senator you have to go to special rooms, removing all electronics.
They give you the docs, and you give it back, then you can leave.
#27 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

That seems to be the case with Top Secret documents, but not all classified documents fall into the Top Secret category:

The most sensitive documents are Top Secret Codeword documents. Almost every product of the National Security Agency is Top Secret because the Agency engages in intercepting and decoding sensitive communications of foreign countries and individuals.

Also highly classified are documents regarding operational activity of human intelligence collection (spies) by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the various military intelligence services. The raw intelligence produced by such means is usually classified SECRET, but occasionally a sensitive case will be TOP SECRET. In very sensitive cases, the originator will specify by name who can read the report.

TS (Top Secret) material must be stored in a SCIF office which stands for (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). Only personnel with a TS clearance can enter the SCIF. When not in use, the room is locked. Presidents often have a temporary SCIF on their property or vacation homes. Presidents and VPs travel with a large communications team so they are always in constant contact with the Situation Room including when abroad.

Most State Department cables are SECRET. Some are CONFIDENTIAL, the lowest classification. Many of the most sensitive State documents are marked NODIS, which stands for No Distribution, meaning that they can only be read by a named individual or by selected positions.


#41 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-24 05:01 PM | Reply

Intellectually accurate? I'm the only one citing actual statute. You are such a fricking hack.

#36 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Lol the guy acting like all three cases are similar is calling other people a hack.

Claims he's citing statutes (he's not).

While ignoring the other three categories of criminal mishandling, namely intent and volume.

He's gonna sit here and act like the rational, well thought out one while acting as if two VPOTUS with enough fingers and toes to count everything they turned in as soon as they found it are in the same league as the POTUS with hundreds of documents totaling thousands of pages who refused to return them on multiple occasions even when asked, told and then subjected to a federal search warrant.

You just can't make this level of stupidity up.

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2023-01-24 05:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Intellectually accurate? I'm the only one citing actual statute. You are such a fricking hack.

#36 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Where? Which one?

I don't see you citing a statute anywhere.

#43 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-01-24 06:55 PM | Reply

@#37 ... I'm consistent. ...

Yes, your current alias is quite consistent.

But I do not think what it is consistent about is something it should apparently be proud of.


#44 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-01-24 06:59 PM | Reply

" Claims he's citing statutes (he's not)"

Do you need me to c/p it? Do you doubt what I'm saying as it pertains to the handling of classified materials? The statute was quoted often during the Clinton email kerfuffle.

#45 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-24 08:16 PM | Reply

Everyone doubts everything you say, fool.

#46 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-01-24 09:01 PM | Reply

Not all classified documents are created equal. We need to know more about the Biden and Pence docs:

Classified material is not just one big category. We know from the Trump investigation that he had a lot of Top Secret and Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information--in other words, the big stuff, the crown jewels stuff.

We don't know just what was found in Biden's or Pence's homes. But it seems very likely that we're talking about what are essentially briefing papers down at the confidential level. That's not a non-issue. Whether the U.S. government over-classifies in general isn't relevant. These are the rules and especially those at high level of power and responsibility should follow those rules. But those kinds of documents are the kind that would not be surprising to find occasionally interspersed with the vast amounts of paper records vice presidents and senators accumulate over the years.

In any case, the relevant point here is that this distinction has really been elided in most press coverage and it shouldn't be.

talkingpointsmemo.com

#47 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-24 09:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

@#1 ... Well, that muddies is the waters even more. ...

In some respects, yes.

In other, somewhat more important respects, no.

... he has turned those classified records over to the FBI ...

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-01-24 12:54 PM | Reply

Not really.

Joe Biden: aides find documents a handful of documents and contacts national archives, turns them over to FBI, invites them to look for more, then find more and they are returned.

Mike Pence: lawyers find documents, contacts FBI and turns them over.

Donald Trump: National archives is notified he has documents by an informant, is asked to return documents, ignores request, DOJ subpoenas documents, they find BOXES stored in residence, move them to locked room, told him to not move them, see them being moved on video, sends FBI to seize them, find them in locked room and in his personal office, he sues, says they were planted by the FBI, says he declassified them in his mind and then sues to have them returned. Meanwhile MBS says Trump was his puppet and absolutely gave him classified and top secret documents calling into question why Jared was paid $2,000,000,000. Also Dotard was paid hundreds of millions from Saudi Arabia during his presidency.

Dotard was the
Most.
Corrupt.
President.
Ever.

The only people who think these cases are identical are liars and morons.

#48 | Posted by Nixon at 2023-01-25 09:07 AM | Reply

" Claims he's citing statutes (he's not)"
Do you need me to c/p it? Do you doubt what I'm saying as it pertains to the handling of classified materials? The statute was quoted often during the Clinton email kerfuffle.

#45 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Still waiting for it....

#49 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-01-25 10:31 AM | Reply

Two weeks ago, Pence was calling for a special counsel to investigate Biden for having classified documents.

Irony.

#50 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-01-25 10:50 AM | Reply

"Still waiting for it....

#49 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT"

Okay.....

"18 U.S.C. 793(f) makes the mishandling of classified material through gross negligence a criminal act."

www.judiciary.senate.gov

#51 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-25 11:07 AM | Reply

@#5 ... I wonder if the tracking system for classified documents (if there is one) is being examined and improved. ...

America's system for handling classified documents is broken, say lawmakers and former officials
www.nbcnews.com

...Far too many documents are classified, and gatekeepers charged with tracking the secret papers are struggling to keep up, experts say....

#52 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-01-25 11:24 AM | Reply

The statute governing the mishandling of classified material establishes criminal penalties for "gross negligence." Comey's May 2, 2016, draft stated that Clinton had been grossly negligent in handling classified information.

I'm not sure "gross negligence" is the standard.

WHY INTENT, NOT GROSS NEGLIGENCE, IS THE STANDARD IN CLINTON CASE

warontherocks.com

According to Peter Strozk who was involved in the Clinton email investigation:

During the Clinton email investigation, we identified *every* time DoJ had charged someone with mishandling classified. Ever.

4 categories emerged: intentional mishandling, vast quantities, a foreign power, or obstruction.

None applied to Clinton.

At least 2 apply to Trump.

twitter.com

#53 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-25 02:01 PM | Reply

Here's Strozk's latest on classified documents, in which he also talks about the Hillary Clinton case:

What the hell

Look, mishandling of classified information is serious business. I spent the better part of my career investigating it. Mishandling classified information - as opposed to, say, espionage, in which a person deliberate provides national defense information to a foreign power - is frequently unintentional. But even inadvertent mishandling has the potential to put sources, methods, and technologies at risk (things like human sources operating in hostile countries, sensitive collection sensors on a satellite, or a cutting-edge military technology).

The thing is, unfortunately, mishandling of classified information goes on all the time. All the time. On a daily basis somewhere in the federal government, someone accidentally inserts classified information into an unclassified email, or takes home a stack of paper which has some classified in the middle of the pile, or misplaces a briefcase with classified information in it on the metro or at a conference. You get the idea. When I was the head of the FBI's Counterespionage Section, on a monthly basis, if not more, we'd get calls from various agencies telling us they'd come across a scenario like I just described, asking us if we would open a case. The subsequent discussion inevitably centered around one critical question: what did they know about the intent of the person who had mishandled the classified information?

Did the person intentionally and willfully mishandle it, e.g., had they repeatedly had mishandling violations, were they warned, counseled, and/or punished for them and nevertheless continued to do so?

Was there a massive amount of it (I'm not talking about tens of documents - I mean tens of thousands or more, Chelsea Manning or allegedly Edward Snowden amounts of material)?

Did it involve a party, like a foreign power or the media, that would indicate some sort of disloyalty to the US? (I'm not going to dive into a discussion about whether or not leaking classified information to the media can ever be proper. My view? There are appropriate avenues for whistleblowing. If you nevertheless feel a need to leak, great, but be prepared to pay for that self-decided altruism with jail time if a jury of your peers decides it's merited.)

Did the person try to impede the investigation - did they lie, destroy evidence, etc?

petestrzok.substack.com

He clarifies a question I had had about what constitutes a "massive amount" of classified documents. 10,000's of thousands of documents. So neither Trump, Biden, Pence or Clinton fall into that category.

#54 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-25 02:11 PM | Reply

RE Clinton from the above article:

In his July 5th, 2016 speech announcing the results of the FBI's investigation into former Secretary of State Clinton's use of a private email server, Director Comey did an excellent job of succinctly laying out when (based on a review of every time the Department of Justice had charged someone with mishandling classified information): "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice." I know the decision to make speech remains contentious - but if you can set the conduct aside, the actual content of how the FBI and DOJ think about mishandling cases is and remains accurate and helpful.

#55 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-25 02:24 PM | Reply

"18 U.S.C. 793(f) makes the mishandling of classified material through gross negligence a criminal act."

Does not apply to Biden. And probably not Pence either.

But regardless Biden is the President and he obviously declassified everything with his mind.

Retroactively.

:)

Now time to get a special prosecutor on the Pence case!

Fair is fair!

#56 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-01-25 02:25 PM | Reply

#55 Comey flat-out lied. The statute is clear. She was guilty.

#57 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-25 03:14 PM | Reply

"The statute is clear."

The statute you've never cited, right?

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 03:17 PM | Reply

#55 Comey flat-out lied. The statute is clear. She was guilty.
#57 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

From article cited in #53:

The issue of mens rea, or intent, is not as simple as it seems on the surface, and intent is the correct standard. Comey was right not to recommend filing charges and to base his decision on the absence of evidence that Clinton had the necessary intent.

Section 793(f) makes it a felony for any person "entrusted with ... information relating to the national defense" to allow that information to be "removed from its proper place of custody" through "gross negligence." On its face, the law does not appear to require intent, but it turns out the key phrase in 793(f) is not "gross negligence." The key phrase is "related to the national defense."

Section 793(f) is a subsection of the Espionage Act, a controversial statute enacted during World War I in order to combat efforts by German agents to undermine the American war effort. The Act has been amended and renumbered many times, but its core provisions have not substantively changed. The Espionage Act has only sparingly been used to file criminal charges, but when it has been used it is often in high-profile cases. Eugene Debs was jailed under the Espionage Act for anti-war activities during World War I. The Rosenbergs were charged under the Espionage Act when they sold nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. More recently, both Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were charged under the Espionage Act for providing classified material to WikiLeaks.


#59 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-25 03:34 PM | Reply

If we keep finding classified docs at the homes and offices of all those in washington, this draining the swamp thing is going to go a lot faster than I had thought possible.

#60 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2023-01-25 03:42 PM | Reply

MFA:

The Espionage Act was left on the books, however, in the years after the war it was used only sparingly. When it was used, it was often controversial because it resulted in prosecutions that civil libertarians believed infringed on press freedom and the right to political protest. Perhaps the most famous of these cases is the prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon papers The courts too grew wary of the Espionage Act and as a result their readings of it narrowed the scope of the law and limited when it could be used.

This helps provide context as to why James Comey insisted that intent was required to satisfy the requirement of 793(f). Even though the plain language of the statute reads "gross negligence," the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction.

In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States. In that case, the defendant was charged with selling information "relating to the national defense" to a foreign power. The defendant argued on appeal that the phrase "relating to the national defense" was unconstitutionally vague, so much so that the defendant was deprived of the ability to predetermine whether his actions were a crime.

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States." Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:

The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information ... relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.

In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).

Without the requirement of intent, the phrase "relating to the national defense" would be unconstitutionally vague. This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton's lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory.

#61 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-25 03:45 PM | Reply

I know: too many words. But apparently it's complicated and only one person has ever been charged with gross negligence under 793(f), and as you can see in the article, the case wasn't remotely like anything Hillary did.

#62 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-25 03:54 PM | Reply

@#57 ... She was guilty. ...

Of what, exactly.

Your current alias seems to be so sure she is guilty, then you should be able to specify exactly what she is guilty of.

thx.

#63 | Posted by lamplighter at 2023-01-25 04:55 PM | Reply

51 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Now you've cited statute.

Sorry, was just being a hyper literal ----- for fun.

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2023-01-25 05:00 PM | Reply

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton's Use of a Personal E-Mail System (2016)
www.fbi.gov

...So that's what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don't normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person's actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here....


#65 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-01-25 05:01 PM | Reply

"She was guilty."

HRC was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-25 05:14 PM | Reply

Pence saw a Jolly Rancher wrapper with Keep On Sucking on it and apologised to mother for having impure thoughts.

#67 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2023-01-25 05:52 PM | Reply

Does anyone else feel like we're being psy-op'd with the 'classified document' stories?
Are they top speed or plan-of-the-day classified, or are they crypto key top secret classified, which would be expired anyway? Are 'they' getting 'us' worked up for other reasons?

#68 | Posted by stoneher at 2023-01-25 07:53 PM | Reply

...Their lunch menus are probably 'classified'

#69 | Posted by stoneher at 2023-01-25 07:54 PM | Reply

Yevgeny Prigozhin gay, now post somewhere else Russian.

#70 | Posted by Tor at 2023-01-25 08:01 PM | Reply

Does anyone else feel like we're being psy-op'd with the 'classified document' stories?
Are they top speed or plan-of-the-day classified, or are they crypto key top secret classified, which would be expired anyway? Are 'they' getting 'us' worked up for other reasons?

#68 | Posted by stoneher

The psy op is saying "everybody does it" in order to rehab donald trump's image. When in reality everyone else turns their documents right over instead of refusing and lying about them.

#71 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2023-01-25 08:13 PM | Reply

" When in reality everyone else turns their documents right over instead of refusing and lying about them.

#71 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2023-01-25 08:13 PM | FLAG: "

That's not what happened. They realized they had a problem and tried to sweep it under the bus. When the lawyers "discovered" the documents they didn't turn them over to the DOJ. They turned them into friendlies at FARA with the hope it would never reach the public. The IG blew that gambit up.

#72 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-25 08:23 PM | Reply

That's not what happened. They realized they had a problem and tried to sweep it under the bus. When the lawyers "discovered" the documents they didn't turn them over to the DOJ. They turned them into friendlies at FARA with the hope it would never reach the public. The IG blew that gambit up.

#72 | Posted by BellRinger

Get back us when they deny they have the documents, lie about them, and refuse to return them like your cult leader did.

Until then you can return to your usual mission of pretending trump's fascist coup attempt was no worse than BLM vandalism.

#73 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2023-01-25 08:31 PM | Reply

That is quite rhe deflection.

#74 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-25 08:58 PM | Reply

You didn't actually dispute what I said, BTW.

#75 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-25 08:58 PM | Reply

That's not what happened. They realized they had a problem and tried to sweep it under the bus. When the lawyers "discovered" the documents they didn't turn them over to the DOJ. They turned them into friendlies at FARA with the hope it would never reach the public. The IG blew that gambit up.
#72 | Posted by BellRinger

That's the same thing Trump did. NARA took a lot longer to contact DOJ in his case though:

January 17-18, 2022: After a series of requests to return original presidential records which began at least as early as January 2021, NARA recovers 184 documents containing over 700 pages bearing classification markings. A month later, on February 18, NARA notifies DOJ of the material marked classified, and nearly two months later, on April 11th, the FBI asks NARA for access to the material.

vs

November 2, 2022: Biden's attorneys discover approximately 10 documents with classification markings in a locked closet in the Penn Biden Center office in Washington, DC. The documents are immediately turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), who quickly inform DOJ two days later. On November 9th, the FBI begins an investigation, and on November 14th, AG Merrick Garland assigns John Lausch, the outgoing US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, to determine if appointing a Special Counsel is merited.

petestrzok.substack.com

#76 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-25 09:11 PM | Reply

You didn't actually dispute what I said, BTW.

#75 | Posted by BellRinger

Because you didn't dispute what I said. They found the docs themselves and turned them over to the proper owner. Entirely different than what trump did. Just like BLM vandalism was entirely different from trump's fascist coup attempt, but you've spent 2 years trying to sell the false equivalency, just like you're doing now with the classified docs.

#77 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2023-01-25 09:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'm not defending Trump.

I'm simply laying waste to the dumb talking point that Biden and his team have been fully cooperative.

#78 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-25 09:13 PM | Reply

#77. I explained why your interpretation of what happened is false. Your problem is you view everything, and I mean EVERYTHING through a Trump lens.

#79 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-25 09:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pence did the same thing, so maybe that is the protocol:

Pence asked his lawyer with experience handling classified material to conduct the search of his home out of an abundance of caution. Sources said that the attorney, Matt Morgan, began going through four boxes stored at Pence's house last week, finding a small number of documents with classified markings.

Pence's lawyer immediately alerted the National Archives, the sources said. In turn, the Archives informed the Justice Department.

www.cnn.com

#80 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-25 09:18 PM | Reply

Unless you are wanting to claim Pence isn't fully cooperating because he, too, contacted NARA instead of DOJ?

#81 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-25 09:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#77. I explained why your interpretation of what happened is false. Your problem is you view everything, and I mean EVERYTHING through a Trump lens.

#79 | Posted by BellRinger

That's because your entire political party, and i mean ALL OF IT, is now just a reflection of trump.

That's on you not me.

#82 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2023-01-25 09:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'm not defending Trump.

I'm simply laying waste to the dumb talking point that Biden and his team have been fully cooperative.

#78 | Posted by BellRinger

How have they not been cooperative? His attorney general assigned A TRUMP APPOINTEE to investigate it. Would trump ever assign an obama appointee to investigate one of his myriad of scandals or crimes?

#83 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2023-01-25 09:25 PM | Reply

#79
You're 100 percent right. That moron's entire schtick is Trump, fascist, coup, regardless of the topic. He even admitted it awhile back. He was going to keep spewing the same narrative, even if it made him look like the idiot he is. Not much of a life spending way too much time here, posting the same thing EVERY SINGLE DAY.

#84 | Posted by willowby at 2023-01-25 09:33 PM | Reply

You're 100 percent right. That moron's entire schtick is Trump, fascist, coup, regardless of the topic. He even admitted it awhile back. He was going to keep spewing the same narrative, even if it made him look like the idiot he is. Not much of a life spending way too much time here, posting the same thing EVERY SINGLE DAY.

#84 | Posted by willowby

That's kind of what happens when your party surrenders its entire identity to become the cult of one person. You fully embraced trump, abandoned all your supposed principles, and ousted anyone who didn't. Now you want to complain that you're being associated with trump?

#85 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2023-01-25 09:58 PM | Reply

Just as I predicted, the republican game of "Trump who?" has already begun.

#86 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2023-01-25 09:59 PM | Reply

#85

You're not only an idiot, but a liar as well. Your out your a** allegations should be easy to prove by posting something from my history. Awaiting your obfuscation.

#87 | Posted by willowby at 2023-01-25 11:00 PM | Reply

#87. That's his Schlick. Disagree with any of his politics and that makes you a fascist coup loving Trump supporter. It's childish, but here we are.

#88 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-25 11:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's childish,

I stopped reading there.

Nasty hit piece.

#89 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2023-01-25 11:36 PM | Reply

that makes you a fascist coup loving Trump supporter. It's childish, but here we are.

#88 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Agreed. Being maga loving fascist coup loving trump supporter IS childish. And it's short sighted hatefully ignorant and stupid.

Makes one wonder why magamaroons keep doing it.

#90 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-01-25 11:38 PM | Reply

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but schticks will never hurt me.

#91 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-25 11:41 PM | Reply

#90

To own the libs. And/or it's simple contrarianism.

#92 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-01-25 11:46 PM | Reply

And/or it's simple contrarianism.

Bingo.

#93 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-25 11:54 PM | Reply

Comrades! Tell them. Tell them that it was all a mistake. In nice terms -- accidents happen. In fact when you are a political capitalist potentate, so many accidents happen.

#94 | Posted by wolfdog at 2023-01-26 03:59 AM | Reply

#77. I explained why your interpretation of what happened is false.

#79 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

How long have you been practicing law again? I forget.

#95 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-01-26 12:12 PM | Reply

#87. That's his Schlick. Disagree with any of his politics and that makes you a fascist coup loving Trump supporter. It's childish, but here we are.

#88 | Posted by BellRinger

Or maybe if you spend all your day parroting trump cult's talking points it makes you a fascist coup loving trump supporter. Stop whining about the results of your own choices.

#96 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2023-01-26 01:09 PM | Reply

You're not only an idiot, but a liar as well. Your out your a** allegations should be easy to prove by posting something from my history. Awaiting your obfuscation.

#87 | Posted by willowby

Nothing like the party of Qanon trying to call anyone else an idiot.

Every "allegation" i posted are known facts. You can't refute a single one so you just start calling names and attacking me.

#97 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2023-01-26 01:10 PM | Reply

#97

Idiot, liar, delusional and probably an incel as well.

#98 | Posted by willowby at 2023-01-27 04:47 PM | Reply

#98 Troll.

#99 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-27 04:54 PM | Reply

BTW, Bellringer and your trolling deflections are duly noted.

#100 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-27 04:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Stop whining about the results of your own choices.
#96 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Jeff would never do that! Just like the other cons on this site, he refuses accountability.

#101 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-01-27 05:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable

Drudge Retort