This is lunatic. Chaffetz is suggesting Clinton’s *attorneys* could be prosecuted for *seeing* classified material in client e-mails?
-
-
Replying to @normative
by letter of the law he's right, no? But that points to the absurdity of the Espionage Act, not her lawyers' conduct.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @trevortimm
Even by the letter of the law, no. How would her attorneys even KNOW what unmarked material was classified?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @normative
granted I'm not watching the hearing so don't know the context. But Esp Act doesn't say 'classified info,' it's broader than that
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @trevortimm
No, but there's still a requirement that they know they're in reciept of qualifying info.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
isn't it only 'reason to believe'? (But anyways, obviously absurd if chaffetz is suggesting that that they SHOULD be prosecuted)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @trevortimm @normative
FWIW, Chaffetz didn't suggest it. He explicitly stated they should be. (~4:21:30 on C-Span's timestamp/transcript.)
3 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
He went DEEP into this rabbit hole. It was wild.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.