Well yes, but you can't tell a judge "yes, I broke the law, but it's OK because the government broke the law first."

kasey_junk 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s frequently not illegal to talk to a reporter. Let’s not kid ourselves, this isn’t about classified material it’s about loyalty, so watch what happens to sources that didn’t do anything illegal.

This government brought sham charges against the Fed president, what are they going to do to a run of the mill federal employee?

▲

irishcoffee 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> It’s frequently not illegal to talk to a reporter. Let’s not kid ourselves, this isn’t about classified material it’s about loyalty, so watch what happens to sources that didn’t do anything illegal.

It is not illegal to talk to a reporter, it is illegal to share classified intel with someone who doesn't have a clearance and a need-to-know.

Do I think they should have raided this persons house? Absolutely not. Is it illegal to share classified information, absolutely.

"For my friends everything, for everyone else, the law" or whatever the saying is, applies here. In this case, the reporter did nothing wrong, but the raid on the home of the reporter can be justified according to the law, so it isn't illegal. Should it be? Probably.

Legislation is good, rules are good, the classified rules seems to make sense if you subscribe to Hanlons Razor at the least. Sometimes though, laws just don't make sense and shouldn't be codified.

For example:

MCL 750.335 - "Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together, and any man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00."

This shouldn't be a law.

▲

Tadpole9181 4 hours ago | parent [-]

You've misunderstood the parent. They're saying watch out what happens to anyone in the Journalist's book who did not share classified information.

You seriously think this administration is going to get a list of 1,200 government employees who are (legally) informing reporters of the goings-on and just... Let it go? Those people are about to get punished.

And since we're at the point of an unaccountable, unidentifiable Gestapo going door-to-door and arresting / murdering citizens openly in the streets...

▲

Nicook 3 hours ago | parent [-]

its pretty clear, even from the journalist's quote, that some of the things they informed her about was not done legally (classified information).

Now is overclassification a problem too, yes but that's bureaucracy.

	▲	Tadpole9181 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You are responding to a thread with the exact quotes: > But also note the government is punishing people for legal acts as well. ... > so watch what happens to sources that didn’t do anything illegal. So we, in this thread, are talking about what happens to the majority of her sources that are NOT sharing confidential information or committing any crime.

▲

alphawhisky 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, but you can tell it to a jury.

▲

epistasis 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Aren't you arguing against a straw man here? It seems that you can't address the concerns of the comment and are instead saying obvious truths as if that is somehow counter to the person you replied to.

	▲	everdrive 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't intend to. When he said "But also note the government is punishing people for legal acts as well." I read this as "the government is breaking the law" I think instead what that poster meant is was "people who didn't share classified information will be targeted and prosecuted as well." So, apologies for misunderstanding.