Difficult to prove. All of the potentially relevant documents, e-mails, persons and planetary systems have been deleted. Also, there are unresolved court cases, most prominently, a suit from genetically-enhanced koala that seeks a ruling that the extermination of the ewok was justified on the grounds of being insufferably cute.
Why go to contrived examples? I gave mine in the post above, which is much closer to reality. 3 points. Care to answer my question there?
According to this article, Comey is willing to testify, but only in a public hearing. Hopefully public pressure will make this happen.
All three are leaks. Any person who has ever dealt with sensitive information knows that you neither confirm nor deny anything related to the classified matter. Three is a confirmation. Period. We know it is a confirmation because that’s what the text says in a plain reading, and on a functional level, you are using that statement as confirmation of Trump’s allegation.
Ergo, leak.
Indeed. It seems to me that a leak entails providing classified information that a person is not authorized to provide. Do you agree, Okrahoma? If so, I doubt the law is written to specify whether that information is provided in straightforward English, in a series of insinuations, in semaphore, in Pig Latin, or via interpretive dance: if you’re communicating classified information that you’re not authorized to communicate, you’re violating law.
So, to your examples:
Let’s stipulate this is a leak. Note that the individual words, individual phonemes wouldn’t be leaks; it’s their connection that makes them a leak.
“Co” isn’t a leak. “Mey” isn’t a leak. “Comey told me” isn’t a leak. “Comey told me who is being investigated” isn’t a leak. But when you provide both statements, if they’re communicating the same idea as your first example, and if your first example is a leak, they’re equally leaky.
Similarly, if Grassley said, “Omeycay oldtay emay Rumptay isay otnay underay investigationay,” that’d be a leak.
Granted, I’m not an attorney, and I welcome correction with citations to the relevant statute and case law; but I’d be astonished if the law is formulated so sloppily that a person can get around the law via this sort of shenanigans.
shakes fist You have caused me to flashback to “The OA” /end of hijack
Your opinion. I disagree. Saying “I know nothing that contradicts that person’s statement” is not a leak.
No, it’s your opinion too. You have clearly stated that there is no logical way to interpret Grassley’s remarks other than “Trump is not a target of investigation”. Revealing that is giving away confidential information. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, dude.
Of course. In a non-leak way.
Well, a “leak” is done anonymously so sure. But is it somehow more legal that he publicly revealed confidential information under his official letterhead?
He didn’t.
…this is the title of your thread:
“Grassley confirms Comey told him that Trump is not being investigated.”
How did he confirm this without publicly revealing confidential information?
If it has been “confirmed,” as you hold it has, that is the sharing of classified information. If it is not the sharing of classified information, then it isn’t confirmed. Which is it?
Oh lord…And here I thought this would be a thread I was gonna stay out of…now I got that stupid dance in my brain too…:smack:
I already explained.
It was confirmed without sharing classified information. As I explained.
As you imagined.
Then it was not “confirmed.” You are trying to make an implication (or your own inference, perhaps) into some sort of proof, and it’s not.
If his being under investigation is classified, then confirming it - no matter how it was done or worded - is leaking classified information.
Not in the way it was done.