Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   CIA thinks they've found their 400-pound former employee who leaked the CIA hacking tools to Wikileaks, but can't prosecute him yet. Fortunately he's in jail for child porn charges   ( washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Federal government of the United States, Schulte, Central Intelligence Agency, National security, Prosecutor, United States Department of Justice, Joshua Adam Schulte, Schulte's attorneys  
•       •       •

5645 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 May 2018 at 7:27 AM (10 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-05-16 07:22:32 AM  
Does he have Hillary emails?
 
2018-05-16 07:30:09 AM  
So is he Leaky McTubby or Tubby McLeaky?
 
2018-05-16 07:32:44 AM  
i2.wp.comView Full Size


400 pounds? Is this bizarro Ronny Johnson math?
 
2018-05-16 07:36:46 AM  
Hang him
 
2018-05-16 07:40:12 AM  
Am I wrong to be suspicious about how lately it seems that CP charges have accompanied the charges on case where the government has had a serious need to dig into a person's computer? The details escape me but I feel like this is the second or third time it's happened in the last 2-3 years.
 
2018-05-16 07:46:52 AM  
Evidently a fan of Ayn Rand, he's also begun writing lengthy, pseudonymous essays about the injustices of the federal criminal system for "John Galt's Legal Defense Fund," according to the Post and the Times. The Facebook page, a reference to the hero of Atlas Shrugged, had just two likes as of Tuesday.

Naturally.
 
2018-05-16 07:47:32 AM  

baorao: Am I wrong to be suspicious about how lately it seems that CP charges have accompanied the charges on case where the government has had a serious need to dig into a person's computer? The details escape me but I feel like this is the second or third time it's happened in the last 2-3 years.


It's a clever strategy.  No one has any sympathy for a kiddy-diddler*, so that allows you to run roughshod over their rights without any public outcry.  No one is going to defend him.

*When you mention "child porn", people make assumptions about the person being a child molester, even if the media in question happens to be an old Traci Lords movie.
 
2018-05-16 07:56:34 AM  

baorao: Am I wrong to be suspicious about how lately it seems that CP charges have accompanied the charges on case where the government has had a serious need to dig into a person's computer? The details escape me but I feel like this is the second or third time it's happened in the last 2-3 years.


Also possible that the kind of dirtbag that shows up in the government's sights has no morals. Or they caught them because of the kiddie porn and found other stuff when they started digging.
 
2018-05-16 07:57:23 AM  
"The FBI also sent along photos they obtained from one of Schulte's phones to prosecutors in Loudoun County, where he lived when he worked for the CIA. The photos, taken in April 2015, show a woman "passed out on the floor" of his bathroom and being sexually assaulted. The unnamed woman has been referred to as Schulte's friend and former roommate.

The government said in October that the county conducted its own investigation and interviewed the victim after the FBI provided the photographs. In November, according to federal prosecutors, Schulte was charged with two crimes: a felony count of object sexual penetration and a misdemeanor count of unlawful creation of an image of another."


There's more.
 
2018-05-16 07:58:12 AM  

dittybopper: baorao: Am I wrong to be suspicious about how lately it seems that CP charges have accompanied the charges on case where the government has had a serious need to dig into a person's computer? The details escape me but I feel like this is the second or third time it's happened in the last 2-3 years.

It's a clever strategy.  No one has any sympathy for a kiddy-diddler*, so that allows you to run roughshod over their rights without any public outcry.  No one is going to defend him.

*When you mention "child porn", people make assumptions about the person being a child molester, even if the media in question happens to be an old Traci Lords movie.


I wonder if parents who have pics of their own kids at bath time would get thrown into this category.

OMG that 1 year old girl has no shirt on!
 
2018-05-16 08:00:38 AM  

dittybopper: baorao: Am I wrong to be suspicious about how lately it seems that CP charges have accompanied the charges on case where the government has had a serious need to dig into a person's computer? The details escape me but I feel like this is the second or third time it's happened in the last 2-3 years.

It's a clever strategy.  No one has any sympathy for a kiddy-diddler*, so that allows you to run roughshod over their rights without any public outcry.  No one is going to defend him.

*When you mention "child porn", people make assumptions about the person being a child molester, even if the media in question happens to be an old Traci Lords movie.


You mean the one where she's underage?
 
2018-05-16 08:01:08 AM  
More theater. I'm bored.

 Everyone, everyfarkingone knows to assume any and all "smart" electronic devices  are compromised.   The release of specific, technical details doesn't change anything.

The fun part to me in this story is that even with all these hacking tools, even with basically watching  and storing and analyzing and re analyzing everything everyone says, where everyone is, what everyone thinks, likes to eat, what their poop smells like and how often they change thier underwear, even with all these mind boggling and advanced tools, they can't nail a leaker in thier own organization.

They have the money, the power, the authority,  the data and the capability, and they still cant find thier own dicks.

One thing the govt  will never learn: More isn't better.  Only better is better.
 
2018-05-16 08:04:37 AM  
Sadly, when the government is involved I have to wonder how much of this stuff is made up and how much is true. The topic in the movie "Enemy of the State" is pretty much how I think of our government, only a lot more boring.
 
2018-05-16 08:07:57 AM  
I have a feeling this entire case, on all the charges, will fall apart.
 
hej
2018-05-16 08:11:18 AM  
I didn't think the CIA was in the business of prosecuting people.
 
2018-05-16 08:14:48 AM  
Arstechnica have a pretty detailed article about this posted, and the Weeners to it brings up an interesting possibility for those charges:

Per user drefanzor:
I'm questioning the whole child pornography possession and transport charges after I read that he ran a public server which allowed people to upload/download files freely on the internet. Could be that the "leak" originated from there too. Apparently when they searched his phone they found administration passwords for the server, which makes him guilty of the possession since he was in control. What's worse, getting charged with treason by disseminating CIA documents and getting a few years in prison - or permanently having your life ruined (and more time probably) by having a child pornography charge added to your record? Don't mess with the government, especially if they employed you.

Which is a valid point really. From my understanding of their article, and the comments, there doesn't seem to be solid enough proof to nail this guy for the leak just yet, but he can be indefinitely held on CP charges while the Feds put enough pieces together to build that case.
No one is going to claim ownership for CP, so the admin of the server takes the fall for it, whether they knew the content was there or not. If the Feds had their eye on this guy already, and we're aware he had a public upload server, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that those images could have been planted as a means to get the ball rolling against this guy. The feds did run a dark web CP site for a month as a Honeypot last year after taking it over after all. How the hell they consider that legal is beyond me.

Now, I'm not defending CP or anyone in possession of it. Simply stating that there just might be more going on here beneith the surface than we're being told.

/removes tinfoil hat
 
2018-05-16 08:15:42 AM  

envirovore: Arstechnica have a pretty detailed article about this posted, and the Weeners to it brings up an interesting possibility for those charges:

Per user drefanzor:
I'm questioning the whole child pornography possession and transport charges after I read that he ran a public server which allowed people to upload/download files freely on the internet. Could be that the "leak" originated from there too. Apparently when they searched his phone they found administration passwords for the server, which makes him guilty of the possession since he was in control. What's worse, getting charged with treason by disseminating CIA documents and getting a few years in prison - or permanently having your life ruined (and more time probably) by having a child pornography charge added to your record? Don't mess with the government, especially if they employed you.

Which is a valid point really. From my understanding of their article, and the comments, there doesn't seem to be solid enough proof to nail this guy for the leak just yet, but he can be indefinitely held on CP charges while the Feds put enough pieces together to build that case.
No one is going to claim ownership for CP, so the admin of the server takes the fall for it, whether they knew the content was there or not. If the Feds had their eye on this guy already, and we're aware he had a public upload server, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that those images could have been planted as a means to get the ball rolling against this guy. The feds did run a dark web CP site for a month as a Honeypot last year after taking it over after all. How the hell they consider that legal is beyond me.

Now, I'm not defending CP or anyone in possession of it. Simply stating that there just might be more going on here beneith the surface than we're being told.

/removes tinfoil hat


/shakes fist at Fark filter
 
2018-05-16 08:17:20 AM  
How 'convenient' for the government that they 'found' such material in their raid.
 
2018-05-16 08:17:28 AM  

dittybopper: It's a clever strategy.


As is any mention of "think of the children" or "protect children".  Anytime a politician/law enforcement agency uses one of those phrases, i try to dig deeper.  There's something they want to get past and it's far easier to pull at heart strings to get public backing.  No one wants to be the "(S)He hates children and we shouldn't vote for this" person.
 
2018-05-16 08:18:31 AM  

FatherDale: baorao: Am I wrong to be suspicious about how lately it seems that CP charges have accompanied the charges on case where the government has had a serious need to dig into a person's computer? The details escape me but I feel like this is the second or third time it's happened in the last 2-3 years.

Also possible that the kind of dirtbag that shows up in the government's sights has no morals. Or they caught them because of the kiddie porn and found other stuff when they started digging.


Yeah that's also a reasonable possibility.
 
2018-05-16 08:18:32 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: dittybopper: baorao: Am I wrong to be suspicious about how lately it seems that CP charges have accompanied the charges on case where the government has had a serious need to dig into a person's computer? The details escape me but I feel like this is the second or third time it's happened in the last 2-3 years.

It's a clever strategy.  No one has any sympathy for a kiddy-diddler*, so that allows you to run roughshod over their rights without any public outcry.  No one is going to defend him.

*When you mention "child porn", people make assumptions about the person being a child molester, even if the media in question happens to be an old Traci Lords movie.

You mean the one where she's underage?


Yes.

Literally millions of people are guilty of having watched "child porn" without any actual intent because she lied about her age, and looked the part of someone in her late teens/early 20's when she was actually underage.  And in fact, there was a case more recently where a man was accused of having "child porn" because the actress *LOOKED* underage, but in fact was 19 years old at the time.

I want to point out here that my tastes in such things runs in the opposite direction.

Now, the organization we're talking about here is the CIA.  They spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to lift a Soviet submarine off the floor of the Pacific Ocean.  They are infamous for their "dirty tricks", and have been for decades.  If they think this guy was responsible, it would be nothing to plant some kiddy porn on his computer.

I'm not saying that they did.  I'm just saying that it would be a relatively simple thing to do, it would make it easy to hold him without bail, and it would poison any jury against him, as most people rightly denounce that sort of thing.
 
2018-05-16 08:20:26 AM  
You guys watch a lot of movies.
 
2018-05-16 08:23:31 AM  
File photo of the suspect:

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-05-16 08:26:40 AM  

dittybopper: Yes.


Oh so the child porn she starred in.

Literally millions of people are guilty of having watched "child porn" without any actual intent because she lied about her age,

Yeah you won't go to jail for that, you'll go to jail for possessing it. Pretty easy thing to not possess it.

 and looked the part of someone in her late teens/early 20's when she was actually underage.

media.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2018-05-16 08:32:40 AM  

envirovore: Arstechnica have a pretty detailed article about this posted, and the Weeners to it brings up an interesting possibility for those charges:

Per user drefanzor:
I'm questioning the whole child pornography possession and transport charges after I read that he ran a public server which allowed people to upload/download files freely on the internet. Could be that the "leak" originated from there too. Apparently when they searched his phone they found administration passwords for the server, which makes him guilty of the possession since he was in control. What's worse, getting charged with treason by disseminating CIA documents and getting a few years in prison - or permanently having your life ruined (and more time probably) by having a child pornography charge added to your record? Don't mess with the government, especially if they employed you.

Which is a valid point really. From my understanding of their article, and the comments, there doesn't seem to be solid enough proof to nail this guy for the leak just yet, but he can be indefinitely held on CP charges while the Feds put enough pieces together to build that case.
No one is going to claim ownership for CP, so the admin of the server takes the fall for it, whether they knew the content was there or not. If the Feds had their eye on this guy already, and we're aware he had a public upload server, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that those images could have been planted as a means to get the ball rolling against this guy. The feds did run a dark web CP site for a month as a Honeypot last year after taking it over after all. How the hell they consider that legal is beyond me.

Now, I'm not defending CP or anyone in possession of it. Simply stating that there just might be more going on here beneith the surface than we're being told.

/removes tinfoil hat


BTW, he can't be guilty of treason.  Treason has a very specific, narrow definition in the United States.  It's the only actual crime defined in the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


He could certainly be charged under the Espionage Act, and probably other statutes as well, but not treason.  In order to commit treason, you have to either actually be engaged in open, armed rebellion against the United States ("levying war against them"), or you have to actually be actively working at the behest of an enemy of the United States which is in open armed conflict with the United States ("adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort").

The founding fathers did this *SPECIFICALLY* because people tend to use a very loose definition of "treason", and they had seen it used as a kind of catch-all in England to get rid of people who had political disagreements with whoever happened to be in power.

Publishing things on Wikileaks is *NOT* treason.  It certainly can be a crime, but not treason.
 
2018-05-16 08:32:57 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: dittybopper: Yes.

Oh so the child porn she starred in.

Literally millions of people are guilty of having watched "child porn" without any actual intent because she lied about her age,

Yeah you won't go to jail for that, you'll go to jail for possessing it. Pretty easy thing to not possess it.

 and looked the part of someone in her late teens/early 20's when she was actually underage.

[media.giphy.com image 267x199]


User name doesn't check out.
 
2018-05-16 08:33:58 AM  
Um, how many were saying "an inside job"? Looks like we had a bunch of winners, so no prize will be given out today, thanks for playing.

And apparently he hacked himself.
 
2018-05-16 08:37:21 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Yeah you won't go to jail for that, you'll go to jail for possessing it. Pretty easy thing to not possess it.


Pretty easy thing to possess it unknowingly.  All you have to do is simply have innocently bought the video back when it was presumed legal, watched it once, then put it away.  If you didn't hear about the scandal when it came out, why would you throw out the film?  Or maybe you heard about it, but didn't realize she was in one of the videos you have.

But since possession is a strict liability crime, mens rea doesn't matter.  You're guilty of possession of child pornography, even if you had zero intent or knowledge that you possessed it.

Which is kind of my *POINT*.  The attitude you show here is precisely why planting that sort of thing on someone's computer is a great way to fark with them legally.
 
2018-05-16 08:37:58 AM  
The guy sounds like an ass and a less-than-pleasant person to hang with.

But, he doesn't sound guilty to me yet. That could easily change, but, needs more evidence.

Add me to the list of farkers that are skeptical of the CIA. I'm not a tin-foil hat kind of guy, but I am suspicious of these cats enough to think they might grease the wheels a bit.
 
2018-05-16 08:38:27 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: dittybopper: baorao: Am I wrong to be suspicious about how lately it seems that CP charges have accompanied the charges on case where the government has had a serious need to dig into a person's computer? The details escape me but I feel like this is the second or third time it's happened in the last 2-3 years.

It's a clever strategy.  No one has any sympathy for a kiddy-diddler*, so that allows you to run roughshod over their rights without any public outcry.  No one is going to defend him.

*When you mention "child porn", people make assumptions about the person being a child molester, even if the media in question happens to be an old Traci Lords movie.

You mean the one where she's underage?


IIRC, the studio skated on kiddie porn charges when their lawyer pointed out that her fake documents were so good, the U.S. government issued her a passport with her fake age.
 
2018-05-16 08:38:32 AM  
People keep qualifying their suspicions with, "I don't want to seem paranoid, but..." Statements, but really, it's more crazy just to assume that the government is always honest, every time.  Their primary oversight is a common punchline, "we investigated ourselves, and found we followed procedure.  Plus look child porn."

Paychecks and budgets are on the line.  People will do what they think they have to do.
 
2018-05-16 08:40:35 AM  

Just another Heartland Weirdass: More theater. I'm bored.

 Everyone, everyfarkingone knows to assume any and all "smart" electronic devices  are compromised.   The release of specific, technical details doesn't change anything.

The fun part to me in this story is that even with all these hacking tools, even with basically watching  and storing and analyzing and re analyzing everything everyone says, where everyone is, what everyone thinks, likes to eat, what their poop smells like and how often they change thier underwear, even with all these mind boggling and advanced tools, they can't nail a leaker in thier own organization.

They have the money, the power, the authority,  the data and the capability, and they still cant find thier own dicks.

One thing the govt  will never learn: More isn't better.  Only better is better.


When you're literally continuously drinking from a firehose, it's hard to find that one specific droplet of water that is contaminated in a specific way.
 
2018-05-16 08:43:15 AM  

dittybopper: HotWingConspiracy: Yeah you won't go to jail for that, you'll go to jail for possessing it. Pretty easy thing to not possess it.

Pretty easy thing to possess it unknowingly.  All you have to do is simply have innocently bought the video back when it was presumed legal, watched it once, then put it away.  If you didn't hear about the scandal when it came out, why would you throw out the film?  Or maybe you heard about it, but didn't realize she was in one of the videos you have.


It might be time for everyone to go though their betamax collection.

But since possession is a strict liability crime, mens rea doesn't matter.  You're guilty of possession of child pornography, even if you had zero intent or knowledge that you possessed it.

Which is kind of my *POINT*.  The attitude you show here is precisely why planting that sort of thing on someone's computer is a great way to fark with them legally.


I think it says a lot when someone is found with CP and instead of denying it, they start quibbling about the definition of CP and how possession laws are unfair.
 
2018-05-16 08:45:04 AM  

GORDON: People keep qualifying their suspicions with, "I don't want to seem paranoid, but..." Statements, but really, it's more crazy just to assume that the government is always honest, every time.  Their primary oversight is a common punchline, "we investigated ourselves, and found we followed procedure.  Plus look child porn."

Paychecks and budgets are on the line.  People will do what they think they have to do.


The CIA is going to take a hit to their funding if they don't frame someone for leaking?
 
2018-05-16 08:45:58 AM  

Vtimlin: Hang him


You ever heard of the word "patsy"

/or maybe he's like Leo DiCaprio in Departed and sitting in jail on purpose
 
2018-05-16 08:49:37 AM  

dittybopper: BTW, he can't be guilty of treason.  Treason has a very specific, narrow definition in the United States.  It's the only actual crime defined in the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

He could certainly be charged under the Espionage Act, and probably other statutes as well, but not treason.  In order to commit treason, you have to either actually be engaged in open, armed rebellion against the United States ("levying war against them"), or you have to actually be actively working at the behest of an enemy of the United States which is in open armed conflict with the United States ("adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort").

The founding fathers did this *SPECIFICALLY* because people tend to use a very loose definition of "treason", and they had seen it used as a kind of catch-all in England to get rid of people who had political disagreements with whoever happened to be in power.

Publishing things on Wikileaks is *NOT* treason.  It certainly can be a crime, but not treason.


Being that I never checked the Constitutional definition of treason, I've learned something new. The phrasing and justification behind such wording make a lot more sense than what's typically thrown around as being called 'treason'. Thanks!
 
2018-05-16 08:52:01 AM  

bighairyguy: So is he Leaky McTubby or Tubby McLeaky?


Patsy-McPatsyFace
 
2018-05-16 08:57:53 AM  

FatherDale: Also possible that the kind of dirtbag that shows up in the government's sights has no morals.


The kind of dirtbag with a government pension and a security clearance?
 
2018-05-16 09:01:11 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: I think it says a lot when someone is found with CP and instead of denying it, they start quibbling about the definition of CP and how possession laws are unfair.


When you prevail on a technicality, the term you're looking for is "innocent."
 
2018-05-16 09:01:48 AM  
Meanwhile, Schulte remains in federal custody. Evidently a fan of Ayn Rand, he's also begun writing lengthy, pseudonymous essays about the injustices of the federal criminal system for "John Galt's Legal Defense Fund," according to the Post and the Times. The Facebook page, a reference to the hero of Atlas Shrugged, had just two likes as of Tuesday.

Guilty!
 
2018-05-16 09:02:10 AM  

dittybopper: Just another Heartland Weirdass: More theater. I'm bored.

 Everyone, everyfarkingone knows to assume any and all "smart" electronic devices  are compromised.   The release of specific, technical details doesn't change anything.

The fun part to me in this story is that even with all these hacking tools, even with basically watching  and storing and analyzing and re analyzing everything everyone says, where everyone is, what everyone thinks, likes to eat, what their poop smells like and how often they change thier underwear, even with all these mind boggling and advanced tools, they can't nail a leaker in thier own organization.

They have the money, the power, the authority,  the data and the capability, and they still cant find thier own dicks.

One thing the govt  will never learn: More isn't better.  Only better is better.

When you're literally continuously drinking from a firehose, it's hard to find that one specific droplet of water that is contaminated in a specific way.


AI will soon "fix" that and everything will be fine and dandy, until some AI algorithm decides saffron is a code with for uranium and you are thrown in a dark hole for sharing a paella recipe because those people who can't find their own dicks are in charge of vetting the information the computer spits out.
 
2018-05-16 09:03:58 AM  

baorao: Am I wrong to be suspicious about how lately it seems that CP charges have accompanied the charges on case where the government has had a serious need to dig into a person's computer? The details escape me but I feel like this is the second or third time it's happened in the last 2-3 years.


No. Not in the slightest.

The fact they made these tools and lost them shows you should be very suspicious of the CIA.
 
2018-05-16 09:04:13 AM  
400 lb? The politics tab call that a lightweight
 
2018-05-16 09:05:01 AM  
Newman!
 
2018-05-16 09:07:30 AM  

big pig peaches: AI will soon "fix" that and everything will be fine and dandy, until some AI algorithm decides saffron is a code with for uranium and you are thrown in a dark hole for sharing a paella recipe because those people who can't find their own dicks are in charge of vetting the information the computer spits out.


This is how machine learning renders art.
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-05-16 09:07:50 AM  

This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: I think it says a lot when someone is found with CP and instead of denying it, they start quibbling about the definition of CP and how possession laws are unfair.

When you prevail on a technicality, the term you're looking for is "innocent."


No, you cannot be found innocent, only not guilty.
 
2018-05-16 09:08:49 AM  

dittybopper: envirovore: Arstechnica have a pretty detailed article about this posted, and the Weeners to it brings up an interesting possibility for those charges:

Per user drefanzor:
I'm questioning the whole child pornography possession and transport charges after I read that he ran a public server which allowed people to upload/download files freely on the internet. Could be that the "leak" originated from there too. Apparently when they searched his phone they found administration passwords for the server, which makes him guilty of the possession since he was in control. What's worse, getting charged with treason by disseminating CIA documents and getting a few years in prison - or permanently having your life ruined (and more time probably) by having a child pornography charge added to your record? Don't mess with the government, especially if they employed you.

Which is a valid point really. From my understanding of their article, and the comments, there doesn't seem to be solid enough proof to nail this guy for the leak just yet, but he can be indefinitely held on CP charges while the Feds put enough pieces together to build that case.
No one is going to claim ownership for CP, so the admin of the server takes the fall for it, whether they knew the content was there or not. If the Feds had their eye on this guy already, and we're aware he had a public upload server, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that those images could have been planted as a means to get the ball rolling against this guy. The feds did run a dark web CP site for a month as a Honeypot last year after taking it over after all. How the hell they consider that legal is beyond me.

Now, I'm not defending CP or anyone in possession of it. Simply stating that there just might be more going on here beneith the surface than we're being told.

/removes tinfoil hat

BTW, he can't be guilty of treason.  Treason has a very specific, narrow definition in the United States.  It's the only actual crime defined in the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

He could certainly be charged under the Espionage Act, and probably other statutes as well, but not treason.  In order to commit treason, you have to either actually be engaged in open, armed rebellion against the United States ("levying war against them"), or you have to actually be actively working at the behest of an enemy of the United States which is in open armed conflict with the United States ("adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort").

The founding fathers did this *SPECIFICALLY* because people tend to use a very loose definition of "treason", and they had seen it used as a kind of catch-all in England to get rid of people who had political disagreements with whoever happened to be in power.

Publishing things on Wikileaks is *NOT* treason.  It certainly can be a crime, but not treason.


No, you simply have to assist a party that is either planning war against the United States, or a party that assists a party that is planning war against the United States.  War does not begin with the first shots fired, it begins with preparation.

Very few nations plan offensive war against the US. Russia is about it. Even the Chinese only plan for defensive war against the US.  The notion that they're has to be an ongoing armed conflict just simply isn't true--that sentiment is pants on head retarded.
 
2018-05-16 09:21:39 AM  

baorao: Am I wrong to be suspicious about how lately it seems that CP charges have accompanied the charges on case where the government has had a serious need to dig into a person's computer? The details escape me but I feel like this is the second or third time it's happened in the last 2-3 years.


the CP charges are likely BS, the Images are from a server he ran that others had access to.   Where is IS screwed however is FBI agents found images on his phone of someone sexually assaulting an apparently unconscious woman in a bathroom, and were able to identify the bathroom as his, the woman as his former roommate, and the hands as his.   So he's still farked
 
2018-05-16 09:24:05 AM  

This text is now purple: big pig peaches: AI will soon "fix" that and everything will be fine and dandy, until some AI algorithm decides saffron is a code with for uranium and you are thrown in a dark hole for sharing a paella recipe because those people who can't find their own dicks are in charge of vetting the information the computer spits out.

This is how machine learning renders art.
[img.fark.net image 850x320]


Such LSD. Much hallucination. Wow.
 
2018-05-16 09:24:42 AM  

baorao: Am I wrong to be suspicious about how lately it seems that CP charges have accompanied the charges on case where the government has had a serious need to dig into a person's computer? The details escape me but I feel like this is the second or third time it's happened in the last 2-3 years.


It's been my observation in life that most people who do something stupid enough to get their door kicked in by the FBI usually didn't stop being stupid after that one stupid thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report