MorningGlory Posted March 22, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted March 22, 2017 5 hours ago, Cobalt1959 said: It isn't just the obtaining of the document that is the problem. It is part of it. Even if they were handed to her, by Trump himself, she cannot broadcast the contents of the document without the permission of the person the form came from. As I understand it, the White House actually gave her figures that she could cite while doing the broadcast when they found out she had obtained a return, but there was no expressed permission to reveal the document itself. If so, it is still a felony. Technically she didn't commit a crime since the returns were given to HER; the person who stole them did though. From Politicalsci.com... "The Supreme Court has ruled that journalists are free to publish truthful information on matters of public concern as long as they did nothing illegal to obtain the information." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 8 hours ago, MorningGlory said: Technically she didn't commit a crime since the returns were given to HER; the person who stole them did though. From Politicalsci.com... "The Supreme Court has ruled that journalists are free to publish truthful information on matters of public concern as long as they did nothing illegal to obtain the information." Yes, technically she didn't commit a crime, but she could liable for civil prosecution for releasing the information. And there might be a legal argument the government could make that she knew the information was obtained illegally for the purpose of being publicly disseminated adn she agreed to cooperate with the person who obtained the documents illegally. So she knew a crime was committed and attempted to personally capitalize and benefit from that. I could see that being a problem for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted March 22, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Yes, technically she didn't commit a crime, but she could liable for civil prosecution for releasing the information. And there might be a legal argument the government could make that she knew the information was obtained illegally for the purpose of being publicly disseminated adn she agreed to cooperate with the person who obtained the documents illegally. So she knew a crime was committed and attempted to personally capitalize and benefit from that. I could see that being a problem for her. Why was this legal concern missing during the election when news agencies were publishing Wikileaks information on a daily basis? seems partisanship extends to the legal realm as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted March 22, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted March 22, 2017 6 hours ago, shiloh357 said: Yes, technically she didn't commit a crime, but she could liable for civil prosecution for releasing the information. And there might be a legal argument the government could make that she knew the information was obtained illegally for the purpose of being publicly disseminated adn she agreed to cooperate with the person who obtained the documents illegally. So she knew a crime was committed and attempted to personally capitalize and benefit from that. I could see that being a problem for her. I think she should be prosecuted as well but the SC doesn't agree. It's hard to prove what someone knew in a court of law. The government won't pursue a case they know they have little chance of winning. She probably wouldn't be worth the time and expense for a prosecutor. Remember when Comey didn't recommend indictment of Hillary because he didn't think there was sufficient evidence? Well, I disagree, I think there is but that's how the government thinks. Stupidity CAN actually reside in the halls of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant_Owl Posted March 23, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 299 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 178 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/16/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2017 On 3/20/2017 at 9:33 PM, shiloh357 said: Rachel Maddow misled the Twittersphere into thinking she had a bombshell revelation about the president’s 2005 tax returns; however, the tax return showed no wrongdoing at all by Trump — and the MNSBC host's plunging ratings have reflected viewers’ discontent with her deception. http://www.lifezette.com/referral/maddow-ratings-sink-trump-tax-ploy/?utm_content=buffer39366&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=laura_ingraham_buffer Possibly because she misled her public viewership once too often. It's good to see they're waking up at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts