Posted on 08/30/2019 10:36:07 AM PDT by bitt
To expose how former President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration had been lying to both Congress and the U.S. public about the Vietnam War, in 1971, Daniel Ellsberg leaked a classified Department of Defense report to The New York Times.
That leaked report came to be known popularly as “The Pentagon Papers,” and the newspaper’s publication of it resulted in a landmark legal case.
Naturally, the U.S. government wasn’t too happy with Ellsberg or the newspaper, and argued that Ellsberg had committed a felony under the 1917 Espionage Act. The position of the government was that it’s simply illegal to publish classified information, no matter the reason.
After failing to convince The New York Times to cease publication of the remaining Pentagon Papers, President Richard Nixon had Attorney General John Mitchell file a federal injunction to force the newspaper to interrupt its ongoing series after three articles had appeared. The NY Times appealed the injunction, and, in June 1971, the Supreme Court took up the matter. In a 6–3 decision, the court found that the government was essentially trying to cover up its own deceptions, rather than attempting to protect critical information.
Since then, many people have the idea that the Pentagon Papers case means the U.S. news media can pretty much print whatever classified documents or information it can get its hands on without facing any sort of legal consequences.
That’s not true.
What the Pentagon Papers case actually established is that a reporter or news outlet could legally publish classified information leaked to expose government wrongdoing. New York Times Co. v. United States didn’t grant the U.S. news media a blank check to print whatever classified secrets fall into its hands.
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
p
Wrong. Until they are prosecuted and convicted, they are patriots.
So why didn’t Barr prosecute Comey?
This sentence is wrong because it contains uninformed assumptions. It is never ok to publish classified information, which is information that could be damaging to national security. It is illegal to label some thing as classified in order to cover up wrongdoing, waste, fraud and abuse, etc. The whistleblower is not protected, ever, from revelations that damage national security.
This all twists on what is more than semantics - a label that something is classified, versus the fact that something is classified because it could genuinely damage national security.
Ellsburg and the NY Times got off because the fact of the ineffectiveness of the conduct of the Vietnamese War was not something that was properly classified since it was not information that was generally unknown to our enemies. Classification just kept it out of the domestic political debate.
Don’t care what a #QAnon promoting, porn compiler says.
Small potatoes perhaps, and he is aiming higher on the criminal list of charges? That being said I am upset Barr did not prosecute, if for no other reason than to make Comey hire lawyers and deplete his monetary holdings. Even if he were to be found not guilty. Bankrupt the SOB and his family.
I certainly would not jump to using that noun to describe them. It all depends on what they are exposing. Even if they haven’t been prosecuted and convicted.
Leaking < Treason & Sedition
“OUR PRACTICE IS ALWAYS TO CHARGE AND PURSUE THE MOST SERIOUS READILY PROVABLE OFFENSE AVAILABLE BASED ON THE FACTS”
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution
I certainly would not jump to using that noun to describe them. It all depends on what they are exposing. Even if they haven’t been prosecuted and convicted.
Seems to me we just don't have the will to deal with treason. If this is not prosecuted and laws were indeed broken, it will happen again, and soon!
The leaked material wasn't in one of the categories where leaking constitutes a felony.
The FBI leaks this sort of material (meaning not in one of the felony buckets, not meaning conversations with POTUS) often, is caught often, and the perps are not prosecuted. To prosecute Comey would in fact be selective prosecution - the sort of thing that Mueller and Weissman specialize in.
Gotcha, I was thinking the wrong was your word, along with patriot. 8>)
Thanx for the heads up
Can’t say I agree with that ruling - it’s when the government gets free rein to cover up it’s crap that our FReedom is endangered......FBI over classified a lot to hide Russia Gate info and almost succeeded an a “soft” coup...
It’s when legal actions are leaked that they become traitors.
Oops - agree with SCOTUS ruling at time - not with the premise that those leakers are traitors...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.