Telling me to that Google should find what I’m looking for isn’t the point. You made the assertion so the onus is on you to support your claim. Your first cite is a book that is critical of the Espionage Act. Your second is not critical of the Espionage Act in and of itself. It just questions whether or not it applies to Trump.
The use of the word “often” would suggest that examples of this are plentiful. From what my searches have determined, they are not plentiful. Examples might be plentiful in specific cases, but not in the general sense from what I can find.
Was Nat Hentoff liberal? Yes, I always though so when I read him in the Village Voice. He was the perfect example of a liberal — albeit one who may not meet today’s standards for being a progressive – who wrote newspaper columns critical of the Espionage Act.
I further suggest googling:
“espionage act” “nat hentoff”
as well as looking at the footnotes in the book I linked to. If that means I didn’t meet my onus, so be it.
My problem is not with charging under the Espionage Act per se. I do have a problem with going a route that could end with a draconian sentence and was never going to result in speedy trial. Deterrence theory says – speed of the process often matters, and length of sentence rarely does. True for both rich and poor.
That’s not how cites work. Making a claim and telling someone else to google it is akin to saying that you can’t back up your own claim and the other person is under no obligation to assume it’s true.
Telling someone to buy a 350 page book and ‘read the footnotes’ us equally unhelpful. If the footnotes back up your claim, then quote them.
@PhillyGuy, please contain your comments in this thread to what is actually happening in the case, and take speculative discussions about what you’d like to see happen to new or different threads. You do this a lot, and it’s always a hijack. Please take more care to stay on topic.
Also, as noted, don’t direct others to Google. Be prepared to bring cites for your assertions if asked.
Is it followed by a bulleted list? Some people do that. It would be better to say “this, below.” or to use a colon after “this”, but it’s reasonable IF it’s followed by a bulleted list.
re: Cannon “overturning” herself and not releasing witness names
She ultimately got it right and her order is full of pettiness. With that said, it was the Gov’t burden to prove these witness names should be redacted (Trump and the Press both asked Cannon to make them public) and DOJ pretty much phoned it in on why Cannon should not release them. Here is their original 3 page motion (you can just look at it and get a sense that it’s not good). It’s not that good compared their usual motions/briefs. Of course maybe they were relying on Cannon using some common sense, but that ship sailed long ago and DOJ was well aware of who they were dealing with by this point.
So no appeal here. It seems like Cannon gets right up to the event horizon leading to an appeal/11th Cir reversal and then backs away.
trump attorney one in the florida indictment has left trump’s legal team. corcoran’s attorney-client privilege was pierced during the grand jury.
"Corcoran was brought on to help Trump fend off charges in the classified documents investigation, but instead turned into a central witness after Trump allegedly misled him about the whereabouts of the documents at his Mar-a-Lago club and encouraged him to lie to the Justice Department and withhold those documents.
One year ago, Corcoran was required to appear before a grand jury investigating the case after a district judge ruled he could not use attorney-client privilege to shield notes and memos from investigators about his interactions with Trump, saying that prosecutors met the threshold for the crime-fraud exception for him. The voice memos turned into notes provided a roadmap for prosecutors when they indicted Trump. Corcoran is referred to as “Trump Attorney 1” in that indictment."
I was reading that just now. According to Trump’s people in the article, he’s still on their team.
"Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told CNN in a statement, “Mr. Corcoran remains on the legal team and is continuing to help fighting the Biden Trial witch-hunts,” adding that “any assertion otherwise is fake news peddled by uninformed sources and untruthful reporting that seeks to leak disinformation and misinformation.”