this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
33 points (97.1% liked)
Politics
561 readers
1 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's possible. My impression is that from the audio alone, it's not clear that he allowed others to actually read the documents. He seems to be showing them to others, but it'd be difficult to prove from the audio alone.
What is clear, however, is that he knew he had the documents, he knew they were classified, he knew he had not declassified them, and he knew that he couldn't do it anymore. He lied repeatedly about these things, and to my knowledge, that's the crux of the case against him. I'm certainly no legal expert, though.
I imagine that having the other parties testify about what he showed them, couple with the audio, would suffice to establish dissemination. It's not clear to me that he would even have to show them. If the audio has him revealing info from those documents, such as the number of troops called for in the attack plan, that may be enough for a guilty charge.