4 ms·
You are trying to inject uncertainty where there is none for the purposes of a prosecution like this. It doesn’t matter the purpose of taking secret documents.
by thephyber 3y ago
You are trying to inject uncertainty where there is none for the purposes of a prosecution like this.
It doesn’t matter the purpose of taking secret documents. Only that the defendant knew that they were secret and removed them from a secure facility. And since they were an FBI agent, there is documentation of when they were given access to secret documents, so the defense can’t argue they didn’t know the rules around control Those documents. Every person who is granted legal access to secret or better signs a legally binding contract that explains these things.
- reaperman 3y agoYou're right as far as it comes to the prosecution itself. But there's additional value both to the FBI and to the public at large to determine the more general nature of the infractions. The FBI likely has enough information to infer if this was malicious or just acting outside of regulation out of carelessness/complacency/convenience. The rest of us are left to conjecture and reading the tea leaves.