3 ms·

https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o By admitting that they knew these documents were classified and did nothing they have now broken the

https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o By admitting that they knew these documents were classified and did nothing they have now broken the law. If they shut up, they can plead ignorance “oh I figured it was role play, why would I trust stuff on the internet, etc”. It is never in your interest to talk to anyone in cases like these. Get a Lawyer on retainer and wait.

nradov 3y ago
Nope. Please explain which "law" you think they have broken? Let's have a specific citation of the US criminal code and relevant case law please.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 Sections C through F. I'm unsure of relevant case law, it may be untested, but it's part of the charges against Julian Assange.
  - nradov 3y ago
    I take it you're unfamiliar with the case law established in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971).
    - boomboomsubban 3y ago
      The case which ruled they couldn't use the law to bar publication of classified documents? I'm not sure if that's relevant when charging an individual. The government certainly doesn't think so, hence the ongoing indictment against Assange.
      - nradov 3y ago
        Wrong again. Read the actual indictment. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-sup...
        boomboomsubban 3y ago
        Your link is the DoJ summary of the indictment, if you read the attached actual indictment they reference title 18 section 793 for count 1 then 3-18. Reading the indictment is how I found the relevant law.
        nradov 3y ago
        Read it again. The core of the indictment is for conspiracy and incitement. If Assange had merely received unsolicited classified information and published it then he wouldn't have been indicted.
        boomboomsubban 3y ago
        It repeatedly says that Assange "knowingly and unlawfully received documents" in charges 5-8. Something it could be argued these people did too. And trying to argue "the law itself can be used to charge people, but not the subsections that clearly apply in this case despite the lack of case law striking them down" is silly. Those laws are on the books, and being used in an indictment. They definitely could be charged, though probably won't be.
jones6ofMont 3y ago
[dead]

nradov 3y ago

Nope. Please explain which "law" you think they have broken? Let's have a specific citation of the US criminal code and relevant case law please.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 Sections C through F. I'm unsure of relevant case law, it may be untested, but it's part of the charges against Julian Assange.
- nradov 3y ago
  I take it you're unfamiliar with the case law established in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971).
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    The case which ruled they couldn't use the law to bar publication of classified documents? I'm not sure if that's relevant when charging an individual. The government certainly doesn't think so, hence the ongoing indictment against Assange.
    - nradov 3y ago
      Wrong again. Read the actual indictment. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-sup...
      - boomboomsubban 3y ago
        Your link is the DoJ summary of the indictment, if you read the attached actual indictment they reference title 18 section 793 for count 1 then 3-18. Reading the indictment is how I found the relevant law.
        nradov 3y ago
        Read it again. The core of the indictment is for conspiracy and incitement. If Assange had merely received unsolicited classified information and published it then he wouldn't have been indicted.
        boomboomsubban 3y ago
        It repeatedly says that Assange "knowingly and unlawfully received documents" in charges 5-8. Something it could be argued these people did too. And trying to argue "the law itself can be used to charge people, but not the subsections that clearly apply in this case despite the lack of case law striking them down" is silly. Those laws are on the books, and being used in an indictment. They definitely could be charged, though probably won't be.

jones6ofMont 3y ago

[dead]