Quote:
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
That may be a defense, but I don't see a jury so finding.
|
Why's it gotta get to a jury? The culpable mental state is an element of the offense. The prosecution's case might not even survive a 12(b)(6) motion. On the 1924 violation, they have to prove he knew the notes were classified and on the 793(f), they have to prove gross negligence. The latter is of course easier, so a 12(b)(6) motion would likely not lead to dismissal on the 793(f), but one of the best bits of evidence to make the negligence gross is showing that he knew at least in some respects he was doing something wrong (or at least reckless). Get the 1924 case thrown out, and you don't even have that.
I agree there's a strong case, based solely on what we know now, but it is not a slam dunk, especially with all those rich Democrat lawyers.
If you want to get your head spinning, read the CIA Inspector General's report on the John Deutch inquiry. There, the CIA Principal Deputy General Counsel told the Office of Personnel Security Legal Advisor that she thought that since Deutch, as DCI, had the legal authority to declassify material under his control, he couldn't be prosecuted for a security violation. The OPS Legal Advisor's notes reflect his incredulity: "Talked to [the PDGC]. She already knew about the Deutch leak. Discussed the 793(f) issue. She concluded years ago that the DCI who has authority to declassify cannot realistically be punished under the statute. I expressed my disbelief in that analysis. Hypo - does that put the DCI beyond espionage statutes? No she says that would be a natl. security call .... Returned briefly to information in play. Discussed how there may have been [non-CIA controlled compartmented program material] on the computer. Doesn't this push 793(f) back into play?"