Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GonzoII

Go after the person who actually removed the security classification, and then, as his defense, he may claim he was “under orders”, and failure to comply threatened his continued livelihood.

This gives a direct shot at the “unindicted co-conspirator”.

An unindicted co-conspirator is a person who is identified by a law enforcement officer to have engaged in a conspiracy, but who is not charged in the indictment charging that person’s fellow conspirators. The term unindicted co-conspirator was familiarized in 1974.

The publicity alone is often enough to force out the unindicted co-conspirator, or at least destroy any moral authority they may claim.


17 posted on 01/08/2016 10:01:40 AM PST by alloysteel (If I considered the consequences of my actions, I would rarely do anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: alloysteel

Actually, the order itself is a felony, if I understand the law correctly.

Whether it was followed or not is immaterial.


43 posted on 01/08/2016 10:15:53 AM PST by MortMan (I am offended by those who believe they have a right not to be offended.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: alloysteel

he may claim he was "under orders", and failure to comply threatened his continued livelihood.

If by "continued livelihood", you mean "continued capacity to breathe", it is undoubtedly true that he would have been terminated.

104 posted on 01/09/2016 9:26:06 PM PST by bIlluminati (Who is Horatio Bunce?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson