[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

As the article goes on to state, here is the problem:
When Pompeo was director of CIA, he proclaimed Wikileaks a "non-state hostile intelligence service."

In my view, although he has done a good job with NK overall, this is not the only time Pompeo has opened his mouth when he should have said less.

[Boogieman]

“Trump campaign lawyers have tried out a new defense: free speech.”

It’s not a new defense at all. It’s the exact same defense the New York Times or any other newspaper uses when they publish leaked documents, even classified ones.

[Jim Robinson]

Daniel Ellsberg.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

But they were all for Daniel Ellsburg stealing the Pentagon Papers and the New York Slimes publishing them.

[Tenacious 1]

I suppose paying Russian agents to produce fake documents to provide and pressure the FBI and Attorney General with, to spy on and investigate, in order to smear, your political opponent in, and with the help of, the media, during a Presidential Election Campaign is “Free Speech”.

*WORST SENTENCE EVER* (High-Five Myself!)

But it is a crime against democrats if someone promotes a media story that exposes their illegal, unethical and corrupt behavior.

[bigbob]

The problem with Wikileaks is, it cuts both ways. Do you really want information that can get American soldiers and citizens killed being put out by a group that has no more loyaly to the US than to China or Iran?

You may not like it but Pompeo’s description was exactly right.

[tsomer]

The sheer audacity of this move is almost admirable.

A campaign that used our own Justice Department to bug, surveille and recycle a bogus fabrication to provide it a cover of legitimacy now attacks it’s target for violating privacy of communications that they themselves revealed through their own ineptitude.

[Fhios]

It’s not to far off the mark. The person stealing them might no have the right of free speech but having them sent to you then yes it would be free speech. Like the Pentagon papers et al.

[ALX]

in a brief filed Tuesday that the campaign can’t be held legally responsible for WikiLeaks’s publication of the DNC emails.

Furthermore, the Trump lawyers argued, the First Amendment protects the campaign’s “right to disclose information—even stolen information—so long as (1) the speaker did not participate in the theft and (2) the information deals with matters of public concern.”....
————
End of story

[Lazamataz]

But the Trump campaign—represented by Jeffrey Baltruzak, Michael A. Carvin, Nikki L. McArthur, and Vivek Suri, all of the law firm Jones Day—responded in a brief filed Tuesday that the campaign can’t be held legally responsible for WikiLeaks’s publication of the DNC emails.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

Furthermore, the Trump lawyers argued, the First Amendment protects the campaign’s “right to disclose information—even stolen information—so long as (1) the speaker did not participate in the theft and (2) the information deals with matters of public concern.”....

Did the News Misleadia publish a single hacked email?

Oh, they did? Dozens or more of them?

Then they shed crocodile tears.

[vg0va3]

You sure he wasn’t referring to the FBI/DOJ?

[HollyB]

If it’s a barf article, why post it?