Ponderable

espola said:
He hasn't been convicted of anything, so he is legally, under common usage in US and Britain, not a criminal, just a suspect avoiding investigation. The British have the strongest case against him, since he apparently violated the terms of his bail agreement while the British were deciding whether to honor the extradition request from Sweden. Sweden wants to question him on complaints from several women. The last remaining charge in Sweden is rape, the other complaints against him having expired under Swedish law's statute of limitations.

Ecuador's position is that he can stay in their embassy in London until they decide if he is really a criminal under Ecuadorian law, which may not extend to anything that happened in Sweden. Assange through his lawyers has said (or at least implied) that he does not fear the charges in Sweden, but is concerned that Sweden might extradite him to the USA, where he certainly has pissed off many individuals who have the power to do him serious harm.

It wouldn't be too difficult to construct a Tom Hanks-style movie drama where a popular ant-big-government hero is trapped by a weakness he cannot resist (sex) and then falls into the clutches of the forces he has been successfully opposing and exposing. In my script, there would be a lot of twists and turns by government officials who say one thing in public while enabling the victim's "escape" by their private actions. I read somewhere that if he can get to Iceland he will be free and clear. "Hey Julian," his lawyer tells him, "The good news is that we can get you out of any possibility of a life sentence in USA. The bad news is that you will have to live the rest of your life in Iceland."

I am still curious to know why LE called him a criminal - which if those diversions in his life was he referring to?
Click to expand...

Adult status temporarily re-intstated.

Do you see that the following is applicable to Assange?

violating 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which states:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(emphasis added)

In criminal law, unless strict liability applies, a statute can require four distinct mental states (“mens rea”) to commit a crime: (i) purpose, (ii) knowledge, (iii) recklessness, and (iv) criminal/gross negligence.
 
Andy Dukes said:
I am not being cute. Too ugly and old for that. I remember Comey specifically stating knowledge and purpose as two things her actions did not meet the criteria. She unlike Patreaus also did not lie to the FBI about her actions. That was Comey's agents position.
Click to expand...

"Memory" and "two things" is "specifically" lacking don't you think? But maybe the following will rattle your memory a bit?:

violating 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which states:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(emphasis added)

In criminal law, unless strict liability applies, a statute can require four distinct mental states (“mens rea”) to commit a crime: (i) purpose, (ii) knowledge, (iii) recklessness, and (iv) criminal/gross negligence.
 
Lion Eyes said:
As I said he laid out a great argument for prosecution & then decided not to prosecute even after he pointed out ant reasonable person would not have acted as negligent as HRC and her staff.
Charging the presumptive Democrat nominee with criminal act was apparently something he didn't want to tackle.
So Comey detailed Hillary's negligence and her actions regarding servers and the probability of foreign hacking of those servers & then decided to punt and trusted the American people to be smart and decide at the ballot box....
Click to expand...
He has a history of doing the tough things. Look at how he treated Ashcroft while he was AG. It was unique that he would lay out such a case against someone his department chose not to forward for prosecution. I agree that he wants the US voters to make decisions for themselves.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Adult status temporarily re-intstated.

Do you see that the following is applicable to Assange?

violating 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which states:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(emphasis added)

In criminal law, unless strict liability applies, a statute can require four distinct mental states (“mens rea”) to commit a crime: (i) purpose, (ii) knowledge, (iii) recklessness, and (iv) criminal/gross negligence.
Click to expand...
No. There was no negligence and he did not remove from it's proper place.
 
espola said:
He hasn't been convicted of anything, so he is legally, under common usage in US and Britain, not a criminal, just a suspect avoiding investigation. The British have the strongest case against him, since he apparently violated the terms of his bail agreement while the British were deciding whether to honor the extradition request from Sweden. Sweden wants to question him on complaints from several women. The last remaining charge in Sweden is rape, the other complaints against him having expired under Swedish law's statute of limitations.

Ecuador's position is that he can stay in their embassy in London until they decide if he is really a criminal under Ecuadorian law, which may not extend to anything that happened in Sweden. Assange through his lawyers has said (or at least implied) that he does not fear the charges in Sweden, but is concerned that Sweden might extradite him to the USA, where he certainly has pissed off many individuals who have the power to do him serious harm.

It wouldn't be too difficult to construct a Tom Hanks-style movie drama where a popular anti-big-government hero is trapped by a weakness he cannot resist (sex) and then falls into the clutches of the forces he has been successfully opposing and exposing. In my script, there would be a lot of twists and turns by government officials who say one thing in public while enabling the victim's "escape" by their private actions. I read somewhere that if he can get to Iceland he will be free and clear. "Hey Julian," his lawyer tells him, "The good news is that we can get you out of any possibility of a life sentence in USA. The bad news is that you will have to live the rest of your life in Iceland."

I am still curious to know why LE called him a criminal - which if those diversions in his life was LE referring to?
Click to expand...


He is also afraid of being extradited to the USA. He apparently broke some espionage laws....
So in reality, he like Hillary is an unindicted felon....
Feel better now?
 
Bernie Sanders said:
Did I ever tell you about the small newhapshire village I grew up in, where we all had chickens in the house? (not outside like the southerner's do)
It wasnt far from espola's house, of course he's a bit older than me.
We all watched the "Dukes" on the village tv set, and dreamed of having the matza balls to jump cars like those rascally Duke(s) boys.
Those rebs sure had fun, Oy Vey!
Click to expand...
You must be getting old because you grew up in NY city.
 
Andy Dukes said:
He has a history of doing the tough things. Look at how he treated Ashcroft while he was AG. It was unique that he would lay out such a case against someone his department chose not to forward for prosecution. I agree that he wants the US voters to make decisions for themselves.
Click to expand...


Good.
We agree he punted...
 
Andy Dukes said:
No. There was no negligence and he did not remove from it's proper place.
Click to expand...
Right, not like Hillary did. But the law does say

violating 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which states:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(emphasis added)

In criminal law, unless strict liability applies, a statute can require four distinct mental states (“mens rea”) to commit a crime: (i) purpose, (ii) knowledge, (iii) recklessness, and (iv) criminal/gross negligence.
 
Andy Dukes said:
I did not say that. I say he took an unusual step that put him in an ethically challenged situation but his belief that folks should know overshadowed the professional thing of staying quiet. None of that makes her actions criminal.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a punt to me. I'm going to add Comey to my Fantasy Football team today!!
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Adult status temporarily re-intstated.

Do you see that the following is applicable to Assange?

violating 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which states:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(emphasis added)

In criminal law, unless strict liability applies, a statute can require four distinct mental states (“mens rea”) to commit a crime: (i) purpose, (ii) knowledge, (iii) recklessness, and (iv) criminal/gross negligence.
Click to expand...

U.S.C. only applies in US territory or to US citizens acting in certain ways outside of US territory, unless a foreign government in the place where the actions took place feel they have an interest in enforcing it.

That was true, at least, up until the time that w's DOJ started crafting artful deceptions to justify gathering up combatants in foreign wars as if they were occurring in US jurisdiction.
 
espola said:
U.S.C. only applies in US territory or to US citizens acting in certain ways outside of US territory, unless a foreign government in the place where the actions took place feel they have an interest in enforcing it.

That was true, at least, up until the time that w's DOJ started crafting artful deceptions to justify gathering up combatants in foreign wars as if they were occurring in US jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
It sucks to be Assange then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top