politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: If Hillary Clinton Belongs in Prison, So Does Rudy Giuliani
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2016/11/16/ ... y-clinton-belongs-in-prison-so
Published: Nov 16, 2016
Author: Jacob Sullum
Post Date: 2016-11-17 05:05:22 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 7987
Comments: 20
During the presidential campaign, Rudy Giuliani argued (correctly) that Hillary Clinton could be charged with a federal felony for mishandling classified information through her sloppy email practices as secretary of state even if she did not intend to break the law. But there is also a strong case to be made that the former New York City mayor, who reportedly is in the running for attorney general or secretary of state in the Trump administration, committed multiple federal felonies by assisting Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group that the State Department listed as a terrorist organization until September 2012. "My ties to them are very open," Giuliani, a former U.S. attorney, recently told The New York Times. "We worked very hard to get them delisted." But under the broad understanding of the federal ban on "material assistance" to terrorist groups that the Supreme Court upheld in 2010, that work was pretty clearly a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison. The "material support" statute, 18 USC 2339B, prohibits the provision of "training," defined as "instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill"; "expert advice or assistance," defined as "advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge"; "personnel," which means any person, including oneself, who works under the organization's "direction or control"; or any other "service," which is not defined at all. In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court said the law covers volunteer work aimed at helping listed organizations resolve their grievances through nonviolent means. While such advice and advocacy would ordinarily be protected by the First Amendment, the Court said, "the government's interest in combating terrorism" justifies the speech restrictions imposed by the ban on material support. Notably, the Supreme Court refused to read the law as requiring an intent to further a terrorist organization's illegal activities. As long as someone knows he is assisting a "foreign terrorist organization" (FTO), it is no defense to say he only meant to promote its lawful activities. Giuliani, who "worked very hard to get [the MEK] delisted," obviously knew the group was considered an FTO. Nor is it necessary that someone providing material support to an FTO receive compensation in return, although Giuliani apparently was paid handsomely for his speeches on behalf of the MEK. According to the Court, the difference between protected and prohibited advocacy is not whether money changes hands; it's whether the advocacy is "performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization." By announcing that "my ties to [the MEK] are very open," then, Giuliani is effectively confessing to a crime. I am not saying Giuliani should go to prison for his efforts to rehabilitate the MEK. The State Department's list is arbitrary and shaped by political considerations, the MEK had a strong argument that it should no longer be considered an FTO, and in any case peaceful advocacy of lawful activities should never be treated as a crime. Knowingly providing material assistance to an FTO (which Giuliani did) is not necessarily the same as knowingly providing material assistance to terrorism. For the sake of fairness and freedom of speech, the law's mens rea requirement should be stronger. The same goes for 18 USC 793, which Clinton arguably broke by allowing classified information to be removed "from its proper place of custody" through "gross negligence," a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A conviction under that law should require more than negligence, because it should not be possible to accidentally commit a crime. That is the main reason Comey gave for declining to recommend charges against Clinton: Although the law does not require criminal intent, justice does. But Giuliani was not willing to cut Clinton any such slack. As far as he was concerned, she violated the letter of the law, so she should have been prosecuted. It did not matter whether she realized she was breaking the law. By that same reasoning, Giuliani should be prosecuted for providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. It does that matter that he did not view the MEK as a terrorist group; it's enough that the State Department did. Nor does it matter that he did not intend to promote terrorism, since the law does not include any such mens rea requirement. If Hillary Clinton belongs in prison, so does Rudy Giuliani. Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a nationally syndicated columnist. 
C-SPAN
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
It's panic time in Clintonville. David Jesse Speaking at President Gerald Ford's alma mater, The Rev. Jesse Jackson called for President Obama to issue a blanket pardon to Hillary Clinton before he leaves office, just like Ford did for Richard Nixon. Stopping short of saying Clinton did anything wrong, Jackson told a large crowd of University of Michigan students, faculty and administrators gathered at daylong celebration of his career that Obama should short-circuit President-elect Donald Trump's promised attempt to prosecute Hillary Clinton for use of a private e-mail server. "It would be a monumental moral mistake to pursue the indictment of Hillary Clinton," Jackson said. He said issuing the pardon could help heal the nation, like Ford's pardon of Nixon did. [...] Now, if she could only get a presidential pardon for the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, CHAI, and other Clinton "charities."
That would be hilarious. If she accepts it that will be an admittance of guilt. Trump already says he is not going after her.
No he didn't.
I suspect Trump's choice of Sessions just raised the panic level for Bill and Hill.
Shhh! We want to keep everyone thinking that Trump really likes the Clintons ... until it's too late for Obama to pardon them.
If Obama pardons them, Trump should simply revoke the pardons. After Obergefell v. Hodges and King v. Burwell, it's not like the Constitution means anything anymore anyway.
And if Americans nod their collective heads in agreement, then the Trump kids need to interpret that as a green light to use their dad as a means to expand their business worldwide in a massive pay-for-play scheme. That's illegal? Drag it out for four years then issue pardons after raking in billions. Will the same Americans again nod their collective heads in agreement?
Or have his kids rob the Clinton Foundation assets, then pardon them. Lots of possibilities...
There are no replies to Comment # 19. End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestJesse Jackson: Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton
Detroit Free Press
November 16, 2016; 8:27 p.m. EST
#11. To: nolu chan (#5)
Speaking at President Gerald Ford's alma mater, The Rev. Jesse Jackson called for President Obama to issue a blanket pardon to Hillary Clinton before he leaves office, just like Ford did for Richard Nixon.
#14. To: TrappedInMd (#11)
"Trump already says he is not going after her."
#15. To: misterwhite (#14)
No he didn't.
#16. To: Roscoe (#15)
"I suspect Trump's choice of Sessions just raised the panic level for Bill and Hill."
#17. To: misterwhite (#16)
Shhh! We want to keep everyone thinking that Trump really likes the Clintons ... until it's too late for Obama to pardon them.
#18. To: Roscoe (#17)
"If Obama pardons them ..."
#19. To: misterwhite (#18)
Replies to Comment # 19.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]