8 Cases Where Mishandling of Classified
Information Went Unpunished
Breitbart Politics,
by
Joel B. Pollak
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
6/24/2023 3:51:59 PM
The core of the accusation against former President Donald Trump is the allegation that he retained and mishandled classified information and national defense secrets. Special Counsel Jack Smith justified this unprecedented prosecution by citing the need to protect classified information and the rule of law. But do we really have “one set of laws in this country”? Here is a list of eight past examples of high-profile individuals who were never prosecuted for the same basic or similar allegations.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Strike3 6/24/2023 4:31:04 PM (No. 1498808)
The lower you are in the pecking order, the harsher your punishment with the top layers being exempt. That applies to the military as well.
4 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Birddog 6/24/2023 5:23:18 PM (No. 1498843)
I can also remember that some administration official "overtalked" to the media and let slip that we were tracking Bin Laden via his sat phone...once in the news that trail went forever dark.
3 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 6/24/2023 5:28:06 PM (No. 1498846)
The law doesn't apply to Democrats and Deep Staters.
4 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
bpl40 6/24/2023 5:55:44 PM (No. 1498865)
Enforcing the law where it will do justice is relatively easy. But what about the case where it could do injustice or case harm?
2 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
bpl40 6/24/2023 5:56:43 PM (No. 1498866)
That is “cause harm”.
3 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Strike3 6/25/2023 11:13:51 AM (No. 1499241)
I disagree with the Leon Panetta case because the operation had "SEAL Team 6" written all over it and the whole world knew it. The others are technically law breakers, especially Hillary, but it was determined that stupidity is not illegal. Letting a media guy in on a CIA briefing is stupid. My personal opinion is that if the perp did not have intentions of providing aforementioned data to a foreign power then the espionage act does not apply, it is mishandling of the data. Many classified material mishandling cases concern information meant for personal retention, such as the photos taken inside a nuclear submarine by a Navy man, Kristian Saucier, 28, of Arlington, Vermont. He served honorably and was unquestionably a patriot, just sloppy, although sloppy can easily lead to information getting into the wrong hands. Intentions matter here.
0 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Geoman 6/25/2023 2:04:55 PM (No. 1499371)
Every crime, federal or otherwise, has a set of facts that must be provable to become prosecutable. These are known as the elements of the offense. Typical elements include: a criminal act; criminal intent (aka culpable mental state); concurrence; causation, and harm. In the case of handling classified information, especially top secret (TS) and higher levels of classification. proving criminal intent is not an element. The criminal act e.g., the removal from a secure facility of TS information is sufficient for prosecution, as those who have been cleared to access such information have a 'duty to know' the rules for such access. For example, no one cleared to enter a SCIF and receive, either visually or by listening to a briefing/recording of highly classified information, is permitted to bring a personal or government-issued cell phone into the SCIF. Every SCIF that I've encountered has lockers with keys outside the entrance, similar to the gun lockers police officers must use before entering a jail facility, for the temporary storage of any prohibited items not allowed inside the facility. If a person brings their cell phone into a SCIF an takes pictures of TS information and leaves the SCIF with a facsimile of the TS information, that have committed a criminal act such that their culpable mental state is not an element that must be proven. IOW, the "I didn't mean to" or "I didn't know" excuses are no defense to prosecution. Apparently, the Justice Department of 2023, considers being a Republican as a super-element of a crime, one that guarantees a criminally culpable mental state will be assigned what may or may not be a criminal act. Conversely, being a democrat provides an automatic defense to prosecution, although you'll never find such language in the description of a criminal act. AG Garland should explain how/why he made the assumption that Hunter Biden did not intend to purchase and use illegal drugs, hookers, and a handgun, although there is self-recorded film and written documentation of his criminal acts.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)