Share this page!

George Croner Profile picture
Twitter logo
31 Mar, 5 tweets, 2 min read
I'm delighted at the successful effort by DoJ in this leaks case. But, again, the prosecution stops at the transfer to the reporter. Why? It's clear from the DoJ press release that the recipient reporter's news outlet published, in whole or in part, no less than 23 of the /1
documents leaked by Hale. Further, "[e]leven of [those]documents were marked as Top Secret or Secret."
DoJ's superseding indictment in the Julian Assange case lays out the approach to prosecuting the reporter/publisher receiving classified information, and I write about /2
the merit in prosecuting Assange here. law.upenn.edu/live/news/1105…

Clearly, the media members in this case knew they were publishing classified national security information. Assange is being prosecuted for what is, essentially, the same conduct /3
(no matter how much DoJ tries to differentiate it). Why not here? I don't pretend to know all the factual details of this case but, until is DoJ prepared to use the available laws to stop the media's publication of these secrets, leakers will continue to leak largely because /4
the media publishes what they steal. If the government's position on leaking is that the press is beyond the reach of the laws that punish the unauthorized disclosure of national security information - then that position ought to be included in DoJ's next press release. /END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with George Croner

George Croner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GeorgeCroner

George Croner Profile picture
16 Mar
To be clear, this ODNI report is a declassified version of the classified report, which remains classified. It differs from the 2017 IC Analysis, which focused exclusively on Russian activities and intentions regarding the 2016 election, by evaluating the conduct of other /1
foreign actors directed at the 2020 election. The Report uses the same estimative language as the 2017 version but, unlike 2017 version, does not identify the views of individuals agencies within the IC.
Key takeaways: (1) there is no indication that any foreign actor /2
attempted to alter any technical aspect of the 2020 voting process. The Report notes that"unlike 2016, we did not see persistent Russian efforts to gain access to election infrastructure." (2) But, Putin did authorize, and Russian actors conducted, influence ops aimed at /3
Read 11 tweets
George Croner Profile picture
25 Feb
There is a need for some context here. The FBI's FISA process has received justified criticism with respect to its Carter Page FISA applications. However, it is worth noting, given the implications of this post, that a review of other FBI FISA applications identified by the /1
DoJ IG revealed no material errors. Still, the Page situation produced plenty with which to be concerned about the FBI's FISA process. But, best not to get too far ahead on this case. The defendant, Gartenlaub, filed a motion to suppress in his criminal trial that was denied /2
by the trial judge so, unlike Page, a FISC judge reviewed the initial FISA application (likely for both surveillance and physical search authority) AND another federal judge reviewed the record in connection with the suppression motion filed at trial (concluding that the /3
Read 10 tweets
George Croner Profile picture
11 Nov 20
Since the NYT article refers to PA litigation, in PA there is a statute called the Dragonetti Act that codifies an action based on the wrongful use of civil proceedings.

But, more importantly, in federal court where this farce is playing out in PA, /1
there is good, old Rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. It says: when a lawyer signs on to a lawsuit, the signature is a representation that (1) the action is not being filed for an improper purpose, (2) the claims are warranted under existing law or /2
by a non frivolous argument for extending existing law, and (3) that the factual contentions have evidentiary support. Violations of Rule 11 are punishable by court-ordered sanctions. I sincerely hope that, when this baseless litigation is dismissed, that the Biden folks /3
Read 4 tweets
George Croner Profile picture
10 Nov 20
Your parallels with Iran-Contra are well-taken. I worked on the Iran-Contra interagency group that coordinated the review and release of information to the Tower Commission, the Intel Committees, and the Independent Counsel. The decapitation of the Defense Department /1
the emasculation of the ODNI, and, now, even the installation of a partisan hack as General Counsel at NSA will only serve to muddy accountability and mask activities controlled out of the White House (like Iran-Contra) without customary oversight. We, at the interagency group /2
saw how the use of the NSC allowed partisan zealots to organize an international operation using enormous resources completely outside the purview of Congress or even the executive agency departments customarily charged with those functions. If nothing else, the neutering /3
Read 4 tweets
George Croner Profile picture
15 Oct 20
The former "acting" (and I use that term in its most literal sense) DNI is completely adrift on the "unmasking" issue, just as he was when he ordered the substantively pointless but politically motivated declassification of an NSA memo detailing Flynn unmasking requests made /1
at the end of 2016. Anyone who doubts the legitimacy of the surveillance that contributed to the questioning of Flynn needs to read Sally Yates's testimony given to the Senate Judiciary Cmte. in August. Here's the Washington Post's summary: 1) The Trump transition team was not /2
being surveilled, nor was Flynn. While she could not say why because of national security concerns, it was obvious that then- Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak was the one being monitored. Flynn wound up being recorded when he spoke with Kislyak; 2) Flynn was attempting to /3
Read 16 tweets
George Croner Profile picture
7 Oct 20
I see where @KimStrassel has taken a swipe at @NormEisen for Eisen's endorsement of the report discussed in today's @washingtonpost that addresses Barr's politicized DoJ.

Kim, you're quite insistent about not letting facts in the way of taking myopic /1
swipes at Comey/Brennan even when Mueller, Horowitz, and the entire IC have convincingly demonstrated that (1) the Russians interfered, in 2016, (2) Putin wanted to hurt Clinton, and (3) the Russians wanted to (and did) help Trump. This is what the unanimous Intel Community /2
Assessment concluded, and that ICA was thoroughly vetted by the Republican-controlled Senate Intel Committee who described it as "a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 US /3
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @GeorgeCroner has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @GeorgeCroner!

Read all threads by @GeorgeCroner