Although this TPM article does not specify when this conversation took place, the McClatchy article to which it links states that the conversation took place “the week after the riot.”
5 Likes
Hear! Hear!
I riffuse to read any more TPM articles until they heed your advice.
2 Likes
Well that’s still should be on a “need to know” basis. And like I pointed out “a Protective Services Bureau special agent” should have known better.
Hey @txlawyer not to keep poking this hornet’s nest, do you think it’s illegal for a USSS to blab to his friends the details of how the agency secures POTUS?
(and I’m not trying to start an argument, just truly asking some legal questions, thnx)
1 Like
I think it’s quite possible that certain Secret Service policies and procedures have been classified as Secret or above, but I don’t know whether that actually is the case or not. I doubt anything as generic as “Take the President to the bunker when there’s trouble” is anything that would be classified.
ETA: And if a Secret Service agent did disclose actual classified information, whether it amounted to a crime seems to depend upon the nature of the information. The criminal laws are targeted specifically at defense and foreign intelligence info, not the President’s lunch order.
2 Likes
Which now makes me wonder if they’ll add to freshmen orientation that in case of an insurgency, storming of the Capitol=castle, or a weather event they will be directed to a safe and secure location. Maybe have them sign something about not sharing this information with anyone under penalty of __________.
txlawyer, I am absolutely good with generalized bloodlust, in the particular special case of the Protective Services Bureau special agent who thought it would be just special to reveal the secret secure location to which the lawmakers under his care had been removed. In the immortal words of just some extra from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: “We don’t need no stinking rules; this is a knife-fight.” Anyway, a generalized bloodlust would be far, far preferable to the absolutely nothing of consequence that those who fomented and caused the 1/6 insurrection have had to face so far.
The problem is that only Congress can fill in that blank with a crime. And while you can certainly write confidentiality/non-disclosure obligations into their contracts, breach of contract still isn’t a crime.
Roughly 200 defendants charged with the 20-year-max felony of obstructing an official proceeding. More than another 100 charged with felonies for violently assaulting cops, with most of those folks probably looking at upwards of a decade in prison, maybe more. Dozens looking at multiple years on felony charges of being in a restricted location while armed. A few dozen of them cooling their heels in prison pretrial because they’re dangers to the community. That’s a whole lot of “nothing” there.
6 Likes
Yes I understand that non-disclosure obligations aren’t enforceable, it’s just that we’ve seen what an dangerous person can do to whip his “followers” into a frenzy. I know it’s futile but I keep hoping that there has to be some adults on the Republican side.
1 Like
Meh, Trump’ll pardon every one of them on January 21st, 2025.
It won’t happen unless and until their party has been tossed into the electoral wilderness long enough that they are made to understand they can no longer win as currently constituted. And even then, the petulant toddlers will continue to hold political power in a whole lot of what are still red states.
Reminds me that if I were on the bench in D.C., my minimum sentence for anyone guilty of a J6 felony would be “Long enough so they’re still in prison come the next Inaugural Day.”
4 Likes
Hey, I’m not knocking that. Even Manafort did a decent chunk of time for an older guy who can’t have been having much fun there. Have to take what we can get.
3 Likes
Wow! Obstructing an Official proceeding, did you say? I had no idea that the federal government would bring out the BIG GUN charges against those who… I think my words were… “fomented and caused the 1/6 insurrection…” And by the way, none (that would be 0) of the 200 persons charged, i.e., those 200 of whom you spoke, actually “fomented and caused” the 1/6 insurrection. Those charged to date were just the button men, not the decision-makers behind the attempted coup. But then, you know that, don’t you? So, in summary, yep, a whole lot of nothing. You might even call it a Nothingburger, hold the cheese… well, hold everything, actually. Which is fitting for a Nothingburger. Or for federal law enforcement, in the face of an attempted coup. .
And you’re being a complete asshat on this thread. Take the loss.
1 Like
20-year-max. That’s just as long as the max. penalty for “insurrectuion,” which a lot of silly people think should be the charge because it sounds cool or something.
If you have knowledge of any facts indicating that the insurrection was planned inside the White House or in Roger Stone’s hotel room or whatever, you should probably inform the FBI.
Stated with all the grace of a petulant 6-year-old crying that he wanted strawberry ice cream, not vanilla.
1 Like
Don’t sneer. Remember, they got Capone on tax evasion.
1 Like
There are categories of unclassified information with civil and criminal penalties for inappropriate disclosure. Anyone with authorized access would have signed a form acknowledging that they knew the rules. Over ~20 years as a DOE contractor, I had to take annual training on the rules for handling sensitive information. My guess is that they could make a criminal case for unlawful disclosure.
2 Likes
Yes, there are. But none of the criminal statutes appear to protect from disclosure the location of Congress’s J6 hidey hole.
I am sure I wasn’t the only person in America watching on January 6th and fearing that the police might turn around and start charging with the rioters.
2 Likes