5 ms·

Link to the indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1069836/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1069836/d... > T

by rdtsc 8y ago

Link to the indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1069836/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1069836/d... > The former aide, James A. Wolfe, 57, was charged with lying repeatedly to investigators about his contacts with three reporters. According to the authorities, Mr. Wolfe made false statements to the F.B.I. about providing two of them with private information related to the committee’s work. They did not say whether it was classified. Ah interesting. They definitely have metadata but they don't have (or don't admit to having) all the data. So they know who talked to who and when and caught him in a lie which can end up badly. But it seems they don't know the content so they can't say "on this day, in this message you divulged this classified information". They disclose a few Signal messages but they were simple like "Great job" or "I am glad I made your career" etc. Lying to FBI is not good but disclosing classified information is even worse. It seems in this case he is only charged with lying. I wonder had he refused to talk to the investigators what would have happened? Given he was an employee with clearance, did he even have a choice in saying "I am not answering your questions, talk to my lawyer"... > Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department prosecuted more leak cases than all previous administrations combined. I wonder if there were simply more leaks because there were more dissenters, more media channels, more disappointed employees or those in charge ordered more resources allocated on finding and stopping the leaks. It is scary that they are going after and collecting all of reporter's communication going back for years. I can imagine that would be very scary.

captain_perl 8y ago
> I wonder if there were simply more leaks because there were more ... No, Obama had a personal thing against leakers. None was too many for him. I followed it in the news, but couldn't tell if it was motivate by being a lawyer, so some kind of omerta. OTOH, previous administrations used leaks as trial balloons, so had a more balanced approach. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/obama-leaks-aggressive-nixon-report-prosecution https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/obama-leaks-ag...
- mistermann 8y ago
  Really? I'm not really a news junkie, but I can't recall a single time hearing anything about Obama having a dispute with anyone, whereas I've heard stories about Trump virtually every day for the last year. Maybe he's even worse than they say?
  - mirimir 8y ago
    That's because Obama was generally careful about what he said in public.
  - jnbiche 8y ago
    I fear Trump is doing grevious harm to our democracy, and would never compare the damage done by Trump to that done by Obama. That said, Obama was notorious for his crackdown on leakers. If you at all kept up with the news then, you'd be aware. One of his darker qualities (though he had many positive ones as well).
- rdtsc 8y ago
  > No, Obama had a personal thing against leakers. None was too many for him. Funny enough he did promise transparency https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-promised-transparency-but-his-administration-is-one-of-the-most-secretive/2016/05/24/5a46caba-21c1-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-promise...
  - dgzl 8y ago
    And unsurprisingly, he failed to deliver on this.
    - rdtsc 8y ago
      Well the point was the leakers did it for him!
    - mlb_hn 8y ago
      That is accurate: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/obama-administration-sets-new-record-withholding-foia-requests https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/obama-administration-set... Background on FOIA: Basically, in 1966 the US Government created the Freedom of Information Act that allowed people to ask for records from federal agencies. In theory, it was supposed to create transparency. Unfortunately, it's a bit outdated and in many areas it's turned into many in the Government thinking requestors are just out to get them (and a lot of it is also commercial requesters). Under Obama, the USG denied more requests than ever. In their defense though, it's got really easy to do a FOIA request online and flood the government with requests (it only applies at the federal level, states have their own version of public information laws).
duxup 8y ago
I don't belive you give up any fifth amendment rights when given a security clearance. However, you also have no right to a security clearance so simply refusing to answer probabbly kills your career / clearance right there, and suddenly you're the focus of the investigation. When asked I wonder if it was just the FBI "casually" asking everyone a bunch of questions. Then you have to decide, do I lie (not a good idea) and maybe keep my job... or end my job outright? Most people's choice likely has to do with how likely they think they're the focus of an investigation and how much the FBI already knows or doesn't know.
- charleslmunger 8y ago
  Lying to the FBI is a crime by itself - if they're talking to you at all, there's a good chance that it's only to save them the effort of having to prosecute a more difficult to prove crime.
  - duxup 8y ago
    Yeah I certainly would choose the not talking thing.
bb88 8y ago
> Given he was an employee with clearance, did he even have a choice in saying "I am not answering your questions, talk to my lawyer"... Yes. The trick is that most likely he needs a lawyer with a security clearance. Yes, those exist for exactly this purpose.
cm2187 8y ago
In a way it’s no different than the DoJ getting into Trump’s lawyer’s archives and sniffing into any dealing with any of his clients that would normally be protected by attorney-client privilege.

by rdtsc 8y ago

captain_perl 8y ago

> I wonder if there were simply more leaks because there were more ... No, Obama had a personal thing against leakers. None was too many for him. I followed it in the news, but couldn't tell if it was motivate by being a lawyer, so some kind of omerta. OTOH, previous administrations used leaks as trial balloons, so had a more balanced approach. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/obama-leaks-aggressive-nixon-report-prosecution https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/obama-leaks-ag...

mistermann 8y ago
Really? I'm not really a news junkie, but I can't recall a single time hearing anything about Obama having a dispute with anyone, whereas I've heard stories about Trump virtually every day for the last year. Maybe he's even worse than they say?
- mirimir 8y ago
  That's because Obama was generally careful about what he said in public.
- jnbiche 8y ago
  I fear Trump is doing grevious harm to our democracy, and would never compare the damage done by Trump to that done by Obama. That said, Obama was notorious for his crackdown on leakers. If you at all kept up with the news then, you'd be aware. One of his darker qualities (though he had many positive ones as well).
rdtsc 8y ago
> No, Obama had a personal thing against leakers. None was too many for him. Funny enough he did promise transparency https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-promised-transparency-but-his-administration-is-one-of-the-most-secretive/2016/05/24/5a46caba-21c1-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-promise...
- dgzl 8y ago
  And unsurprisingly, he failed to deliver on this.
  - rdtsc 8y ago
    Well the point was the leakers did it for him!
  - mlb_hn 8y ago
    That is accurate: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/obama-administration-sets-new-record-withholding-foia-requests https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/obama-administration-set... Background on FOIA: Basically, in 1966 the US Government created the Freedom of Information Act that allowed people to ask for records from federal agencies. In theory, it was supposed to create transparency. Unfortunately, it's a bit outdated and in many areas it's turned into many in the Government thinking requestors are just out to get them (and a lot of it is also commercial requesters). Under Obama, the USG denied more requests than ever. In their defense though, it's got really easy to do a FOIA request online and flood the government with requests (it only applies at the federal level, states have their own version of public information laws).

duxup 8y ago

I don't belive you give up any fifth amendment rights when given a security clearance. However, you also have no right to a security clearance so simply refusing to answer probabbly kills your career / clearance right there, and suddenly you're the focus of the investigation. When asked I wonder if it was just the FBI "casually" asking everyone a bunch of questions. Then you have to decide, do I lie (not a good idea) and maybe keep my job... or end my job outright? Most people's choice likely has to do with how likely they think they're the focus of an investigation and how much the FBI already knows or doesn't know.

charleslmunger 8y ago
Lying to the FBI is a crime by itself - if they're talking to you at all, there's a good chance that it's only to save them the effort of having to prosecute a more difficult to prove crime.
- duxup 8y ago
  Yeah I certainly would choose the not talking thing.

bb88 8y ago

> Given he was an employee with clearance, did he even have a choice in saying "I am not answering your questions, talk to my lawyer"... Yes. The trick is that most likely he needs a lawyer with a security clearance. Yes, those exist for exactly this purpose.

cm2187 8y ago

In a way it’s no different than the DoJ getting into Trump’s lawyer’s archives and sniffing into any dealing with any of his clients that would normally be protected by attorney-client privilege.