AG Sessions, DNI Coats Jointly Announce Greater Prioritization and Resources for Leak Investigations; Promise Prosecutions

Words are not action, but I have a good feeling about Jeff Sessions.

The problem is: So many executive employees are leaking that any investigation will undoubtedly turn up friends of the investigators. And the investigators themselves may be leakers.

(Does anyone think the leaker James Comey was obeying the president's order to find the leakers?)

So, I don't know if you trust anyone currently in the government to aggressively investigate their John McCain-style Good Friends.

Still, worth the effort.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other top administration officials lashed out Friday against illegal leaks and issued a stern warning that offenders will be "held accountable," announcing new efforts to hunt them down.

"No government can be effective when its members cannot speak in confidence" with other government and foreign leaders, Sessions said, referring specifically to the bombshell leak a day earlier of President Trump's conversations with foreign leaders.

He said referrals of classified leaks from U.S. intelligence agencies have "exploded" this year.

"We are taking a stand," the attorney general said. "This culture of leaks must stop."

Session said criminals who have leaked classified information are "being investigated and will be prosecuted." He added that four people have already been charged with leaking classified material and related counts, and investigations have tripled.

Sessions repeatedly referred to "criminals" in discussing leaks.

He also said he'd be re-examining the guidelines for subpoenaing the media -- to make them give up their criminal sources.

I think the Washington Post's reporters who published the transcripts of Trump's phone calls will be the first test case for these subpoenas, and for subsequent incarceration for contempt of court when they refuse to comply. This happened with Judith Miller, after all, in a fairly trivial case.

I don't see how a judge can say that gratuitously leaking a transcript of a confidential phone call with a world leader- - which makes all other world leaders fear if they can speak to Trump and have their own words remain confidential -- is not a national security concern and then refuse to hit a non-complying reporter with time in jail until he divulges his sources.

Well, actually, I can see that, but given that judges do this a fair amount in less serious cases, the judge refusing to do that would essentially be announcing an insurrection.

The other outfit that needs to worry is the New York Times, which outrageously disclosed the name of the CIA's Iran team for no reason except #TheResistance.

Again, no judge can claim that did not jeopardize national security or expose intelligence operatives to risk.

After those two low-hanging fruit cases -- assuming judges do their duty and jail reporters until they divulge sources, and assuming subsequent prosecutions of the leakers -- there would be a very serious reconsideration among #TheResistance as to whether they really have the guts for full treason and insurrection, and really have the fortitude to bear the traitor's penalty.

posted by Ace at 12:18 PM

| Access Comments