>>2367164 rt >>2367152 ——————Track last. JA offline cause.

>>2366811 ————————————- Joshua Schulte Unsealed Indictment

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/in-refusing-to-defend-assange-mainstream-media-exposes-its-true-nature-e5fd0cce471c

Last Tuesday a top lawyer for the New York Times named David McCraw warned a room full of judges that the prosecution of Julian Assange for WikiLeaks publications would set a very dangerous precedent which would end up hurting mainstream news media outlets like NYT, the Washington Post, and other outlets which publish secret government documents.

“I think the prosecution of him would be a very, very bad precedent for publishers,” McCraw said. “From that incident, from everything I know, he’s sort of in a classic publisher’s position and I think the law would have a very hard time drawing a distinction between The New York Times and WikiLeaks.”

THEY ARE EATING THEMSELVES ALIVE

NO! You don't publish secret government info! American lives are threatened when you do that. For God and Country first!

>>2371037

It means Seth Green is a nerd (only real evidence so far).

It means you took the bait and are being distracted.

Congrats!

>>2371126

It was a pen

>>2371159

JEFFREY SMITH, Former CIA General Counsel:

No, I don’t think so.

Leaks are a real problem. They can cause real harm, but I think one has to distinguish between leaks of information that is genuinely classified and truly does cause harm and leaks of information that people regard as sensitive, but is more political in nature.

So it’s important to concentrate on those leaks that really do cause harm to national security, and not just on those that are inconvenient for leadership.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/difference-illegal-leaks-inconvenient-leaks

>>2371257

… should there be an expectation a president has that he can have a conversation with another world leader and it be private?

Doesn’t it change the equation? Every president that’s going to call or every leader that’s going to have a conversation with President Trump might speak differently to him knowing now that those conversations might be published in The Washington Post the next day.

>>2371269

…

HARI SREENIVASAN:

Jeffrey Smith, according to even to your own definition, would the publishing of those transcripts by The Washington Post, would that constitute a leak? Should it be prosecuted?

JEFFREY SMITH:

Yes, I think it could.

Undoubtedly, those transcripts were classified. I don’t know what level. But I spent many years in the Department of State. And conversations between heads of state or secretaries of state and foreign ministers are extraordinarily sensitive.

And the leak of that will undoubtedly chill any future conversations between the president and others, because they will wonder whether or not what they said to him can remain confidential. So, yes, it will cause harm.

So, yes, it will cause harm.

So, yes, it will cause harm.

So, yes, it will cause harm.

There is a distinction between national security reporting and political reporting.

>>2371288

IS LEAKING ILLEGAL?

Sometimes. It depends on what information leaked (and sometimes, why the information was leaked).

There are a number of criminal laws that apply to leakers, but these three cover most of the information that might be leaked:

*It’s a crime to disclose information related to national defense with the intent of injuring the United States or aiding a foreign nation. If a document is classified, that might be an indicator that it’s related to the national defense and could injure the United States were it released. But that’s not always the case; not all classified documents would fall into this category of information.

*It’s also a crime to disclose classified information about communication intelligence (the procedures and methods used to intercept and obtain information from communications), knowingly and willfully. This is much easier to prove than it is to prove that someone intended to injure the U.S. or aid a foreign nation.

*It’s a crime to steal, sell, or convey, “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value” to the United States. (Here, it’s only necessary to prove that someone intended to use the property in an improper manner.) While this would certainly apply to physical records and documents, there is some disagreement on whether it applies to the information written on the physical documents. The 4th Circuit and 2nd Circuit say that the law applies to intangible information as well, but the DOJ does not prosecute the theft of intangible property.

>>2371329

> If a document is classified, that might be an indicator that it’s related to the national defense and could injure the United States were it released.

>>2371327

same

>>2360893 rt >>2360166 —————— U-Access KILLS

The man in black can EASILY be identified by his veins

>>2371394

Flipped image is signalling MA works for Q

Y'all run out of popcorn or something?

>>2371386

*It’s a crime to disclose information related to national defense with the intent of injuring the United States or aiding a foreign nation.

Someone can also *leak the nuke codes…think harder

>>2371326

That was an old set of documents that have been floating around for a while. Some kids were just having fun with it and creating fake

suspense on 4chan last night. Schizo larp nothingburger

>>2371305

duh

>>2371419

Do you really expect us to keep national security without breaking a few laws here and there?

The world is not all sunshine and rainbows anons. Lets not be naive.

>>2371443 see

>>2371409 are you not entertained?

>>2371398

Vault 7 info was never really secret for those who worked in top info security positions. It was just so outrageous that no normies believed it so no one cared if someone slipped up and mentioned the govt was watching your every move.

The branwashing was effective. Remember when people used to believe you couldn't hack an iphone? Did you ever try googling that prior to 2017? Every site, with confidence, claimed it was IMPOSSIBLE and to suggest otherwise was absurd.

Funny how things change

>>2371513

Neither

>>2371609

>>2371616

He would make a great actor no?

>>2371626

Dig away.

>>2371619

glass coated microwire drug delivery

>>2371634

The BIG reveal is the large man in black! MA is a great actor….sigh….

>>2371692

And people!

>>2371692

nanotech is spooky