PDA

View Full Version : There's a new legal word being tossed around.



Crepitus
07-18-2017, 10:25 PM
Espionage.

You guys wanted a crime? Well this may be it.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/18/could-trump-jr-kushner-or-manafort-be-charged-under-the-espionage-act/


At the risk of resurrecting yet another obscure part of the U.S. code, I would argue that the national security concerns that prompt right-thinking people to reach for the word treason in these circumstances have a place. But that place is not the crime of treason. It is the admittedly problematic Espionage Act of 1917. And as innocuous as it may have seemed in the moment, Veselnitskaya’s plastic folder may have led Trump Jr. across a serious legal line.


Section 957 provides:

Whoever, in aid of any foreign government, knowingly and willfully possesses or controls any property or papers used or designed or intended for use in violating any penal statute, or any of the rights or obligations of the United States under any treaty or the law of nations, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

resister
07-18-2017, 10:35 PM
Damn, I thought it was "treason" evidently that meme failed and the bar has been lowered, hoping some feces will now stick! Good luck, the fantasy is falling apart!:poopfan::killme:

Ethereal
07-18-2017, 10:36 PM
Ah, one of the worst laws in American history, passed during one of the worst wars in American history, meant to silence domestic critics and effectively criminalize dissent and transparency.

Cool.

Anyway, the language in that section is so vague and expansive that it could include almost any activity. It seems a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich based on that crummy statute.

Safety
07-18-2017, 10:43 PM
Totally didn't see that coming...

Ethereal
07-18-2017, 10:47 PM
Totally didn't see that coming...
Probably because you know very little about the Espionage Act or the law in general. I doubt you even read the article that Crepitus posted. Get back to me when you've educated yourself.

Ethereal
07-18-2017, 11:03 PM
The act of possession serves the same purpose in the Espionage Act as the overt act requirement does in the conspiracy statute. It is a clear line that can be identifiably crossed. It prevents the law from sweeping too broadly, from prosecuting mere inchoate desires that are untethered to an identifiable criminal act. It is not espionage to be favorably disposed to a foreign power. Nor is it espionage to welcome the assistance a foreign power may independently provide. It is espionage, however, to do a hand-off.

In other words, if this Russian woman had merely wrote the exact same information on a white board instead of handing Trump Jr. physical documents, it would have been 100% legal. But because there was a "hand-off" (which would have been effectively no different than simply reading the information off a white board), it magically becomes illegal.

And the author of this article thinks that's a point of strength for his argument.

Comical.

Bethere
07-18-2017, 11:06 PM
In other words, if this Russian woman had merely wrote the exact same information on a white board instead of handing Trump Jr. physical documents, it would have been 100% legal. But because there was a "hand-off" (which would have been effectively no different than simply reading the information off a white board), it magically becomes illegal.

And the author of this article thinks that's a point of strength for his argument.

Comical.

Merely WRITTEN.

Comical.

Ethereal
07-18-2017, 11:08 PM
Merely WRITTEN.

Comical.

Your obsession with me is flattering. However, you might find the relationship a bit one-sided as I am not into guys. Sorry.

Crepitus
07-18-2017, 11:10 PM
In other words, if this Russian woman had merely wrote the exact same information on a white board instead of handing Trump Jr. physical documents, it would have been 100% legal. But because there was a "hand-off" (which would have been effectively no different than simply reading the information off a white board), it magically becomes illegal.

And the author of this article thinks that's a point of strength for his argument.

Comical.

Line has gotta be down somewhere. Besides, he definitely committed the "overt act" required for conspiracy.

Ethereal
07-18-2017, 11:14 PM
Line has gotta be down somewhere. Besides, he definitely committed the "overt act" required for conspiracy.
Even the author doesn't go that far. He readily admits that it could go either way, especially if it were appealed. The Espionage Act is one of the most illiberal laws in American history. It shouldn't even exist.

Ethereal
07-18-2017, 11:20 PM
(The Atlantic) The Espionage Act's Shameful and Forgotten History (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/12/the-espionage-acts-shameful-and-forgotten-history/68084/)

WENDY KAMINER DEC 15, 2010

Demanding the indictment of Julian Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Senator Diane Feinstein (or her resident ghost writer) quoted everyone's favorite rationale for restricting speech: "the First Amendment is not a license to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." Actually, like most people, she (or her staffer) misquoted this canard: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a panic," (emphasis supplied) Justice Holmes wrote in 1919, in Schenck v U.S. Given the truths exposed by WikiLeaks, you might argue that Assange was truly shouting fire in a crowded theater, and you might even characterize the ensuing "panic" as a kind of heckler's veto.

Not that Holmes would have been at all sympathetic to Julian Assange (at least not in 1919). He offered his famous "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater" analogy in upholding an early conviction under the Espionage Act. What terrible act of treason did this case entail? Charles Schenck was convicted of circulating pamphlets urging men to resist the draft. According to Holmes (writing for a unanimous Court), these pamphlets presented a "clear and present danger" to the republic.

Today, Schenck is mainly survived by its famous one-liners. It was decided before the First Amendment was regarded as an essential restraint on federal and state power to restrict speech, when Justices Holmes and Brandeis, in particular, were just beginning to articulate theories of First Amendment rights. (In the immediate aftermath of World War I, the Court also upheld the Espionage Act conviction of Eugene Debs who, like Schenck, was prosecuted for speaking against the draft: he told his audience that they "were fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder." Emma Goldman was deported for criticizing the draft.)

I like to assume that the Supreme Court would not uphold the these convictions today, even though it recently re-authorized the criminalization of political advocacy, in Holder v Humanitarian Law Project. Still, I don't think the Court is quite ready to approve the prosecution of anti-war activists for circulating pamphlets or exhorting people not to regard themselves as cannon fodder. (Although the FBI might illegally monitor their activities and police might corral and arrest them.) But if the criminalization of anti-draft rhetoric seems anachronistic, Charles Schenck's rhetorical defense of liberty was timeless, and could easily be echoed tomorrow by a right or left wing civil libertarian, or even a Tea Party activist, if Congress were to re-authorize a draft (and unleash a strong anti-war movement).

[...]

Captain Obvious
07-19-2017, 12:55 AM
oh nooooooes....

resister
07-19-2017, 01:36 AM
oh nooooooes....18796 (copyright, Resister) :)

Common
07-19-2017, 03:34 AM
Ah, one of the worst laws in American history, passed during one of the worst wars in American history, meant to silence domestic critics and effectively criminalize dissent and transparency.

Cool.

Anyway, the language in that section is so vague and expansive that it could include almost any activity. It seems a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich based on that crummy statute.
Brings back the recollection of the communist purge in this country, when govt was accusing those of being communist and aiding and abetting the enemy and treason.

J. Edgar Hoover was the catalyst and they ruined people lives falsely accusing them

This trump hunt is the same thing

Peter1469
07-19-2017, 04:46 AM
The media and the dems, sorry to repeat myself, are flailing about.

hanger4
07-19-2017, 05:59 AM
Espionage.

You guys wanted a crime? Well this may be it.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/18/could-trump-jr-kushner-or-manafort-be-charged-under-the-espionage-act/

"or intended for use in violating any penal statute"

What penal statute ??

hanger4
07-19-2017, 06:39 AM
So, who possess this plastic folder with the documents ?? Goldstone said "incriminating evidence", apparently not, did Goldstone lie or was he lied to ??

Hoosier8
07-19-2017, 07:02 AM
Line has gotta be down somewhere. Besides, he definitely committed the "overt act" required for conspiracy.

Evidence? We don need no stinkin evidence! Liberal logic 101.

Adelaide
07-19-2017, 07:41 AM
This case doesn't amount to espionage at this point. Depends on what really happened in the meeting and what was or wasn't shared. And again, it would make a difference if the Russians involved were registered under FARA.

pragmatic
07-19-2017, 08:04 AM
This case doesn't amount to espionage at this point. Depends on what really happened in the meeting and what was or wasn't shared. And again, it would make a difference if the Russians involved were registered under FARA.

The case to this point amounts to Trump Jr, Manafort, and Kusner pulling an idiotic boneheaded stunt and getting caught at it. Have seen no evidence that any actual laws were broken.


But one UUUGE question remains unanswered:

"What in the holy fock were those three retards thinking when they set up that meeting....????!!!"

Crepitus
07-19-2017, 08:49 AM
Evidence? We don need no stinkin evidence! Liberal logic 101.

A confession isn't evidence in your world?

hanger4
07-19-2017, 09:23 AM
A confession isn't evidence in your world?

A confession to what crime ??

MisterVeritis
07-19-2017, 11:22 AM
There is a new legal phrase making the rounds. Coup attempt. That is what this is. It will not stop until the coup plotters are in prison (or dead).

Hoosier8
07-19-2017, 09:10 PM
The case to this point amounts to Trump Jr, Manafort, and Kusner pulling an idiotic boneheaded stunt and getting caught at it. Have seen no evidence that any actual laws were broken.


But one UUUGE question remains unanswered:

"What in the holy fock were those three retards thinking when they set up that meeting....????!!!"

Dirt on Hillary. Who wouldn't want that?

Peter1469
07-20-2017, 07:38 AM
Funny, the hard left is bringing back the crime their girl was guilty of. Ironic.

And they are not getting it right.