Time to Rally Around Trump Against Selective Prosecution under Ridiculous Espionage Act

Trump Prosecution Is Not Credible

Commentary

Whether you love Donald Trump or despise him as a fascist lunatic, the selective prosecution of Donald Trump under the Espionage Act should be opposed. (See Special Counsel Jack Smith, U.S. Department of Justice.)

The Espionage Act cannot be enforced impartially, for the the Espionage Act is tyrannical caprice meant to punish or silence perceived enemies of the state. 

Since World War I, the Espionage Act was used just twice up to the Obama administration which used the Act with "unprecedented vigor, prosecuting more people under that law for leaking sensitive information to the public than all previous administrations combined," (AP).

In modern times, only the Nixon administration in its infamous prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo dared use this despicable device, until Obama, Trump and then Biden used the Act with apparent glee to control information and stop the press from reporting on administration abuses, outside of spying cases.

Hillary Clinton, David Petraeus, Sandy Berger and Joe Biden have all all skated despite often acting in spectacular fashion, but liberal establishment wants Trump, no matter the cost.

Enough. Deliver massage to Biden administration: You go through with this sick indictment, you lose political support.
---
I urge folks to read Scott Horton's piece on spotting politcal prosecutions. From Scott Horton, Harper's  Magazine, Feb. 2008; link follows.

Several red flags with current indictment.

Identity of the Subject. Is the subject an opposition political figure of some sort?

Nature of the Charges. Espionage Act, a ridiculous tool of oppression, brought back from life by Democrat administrations.

Timing and Circumstances of Criminal Investigations and Charges. Timing coincides with effort to stop Trump from running and winning in 2024.

Circumstances of Investigation; Arrest and Detention; Media Dealings. When political figures are involved, has an intrusive investigations been conducted? That is, does the investigation appear geared to disrupting the political figure’s work, for instance, as a parliamentarian or local official?

State Secrecy. Was state secrecy invoked in any aspect of the case? Yes.

Parallel Public Campaigns. Consider carefully whether the prosecution tracks any political campaign which is being run by the Government or the Government party? Yes.

Media Coverage. Particularly where the media is controlled or manipulated by the state (this includes almost every country in the region) or aligns itself with the political party which holds the prosecutorial power, consider carefully the tone and tenor of the media coverage. Ahh, yes.
--

See also Glenn Greenwald, Political Prosecution: Trump Indictment Upends Decades of Lax Classified Docs Precedent and What Is the Espionage Act? A Brief & Repressive History.

Support Fox News Washington Correspondent, James Rosen and Stephen Jin-Woo Kim

Is prior restraint from the Obama administration just around
the corner, are intimidation and persecution enough?

Zealous, careerist-minded US DoJ attorneys and the mindless continuation of the worst aspects of the War on Terror may bring down the legacy of another president, just as surely as the Vietnam War brought down Johnson and Nixon

The Washington Post has the sad story that the Fourth Amendment and First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press are imperiled in the United States, specifically in the case of Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, the U.S. DoJ, and the work of journalist, James Rosen.

The Kim/Rosen revelations follow the AP and seizure of phone records story.

From Mr. Kim's legal defense website, reads the statement from counsel, Abbe D. Lowell:

On August 27, 2010 the Justice Department and U.S. Attorney’s office charged Stephen Kim with illegally disclosing national defense information (classified information) to someone [Fox's James Rosen] in the media. The government has not alleged that Stephen gave away any document, that he was paid to do anything, that he stole the information, or that he acted in secret. It does not allege that Stephen was a spy or that he acted to assist an enemy of the United States. And, it does not allege that Stephen engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Rather, the case against Stephen Kim seems to be based on a prosecutor’s theory that Stephen talked to someone in the media about a topic of current events and – in that one and only conversation – disclosed classified information. It is a 'leak' case. Along with many who have commented, we think an unfounded one.

Notes Ann E. Marimow in The Post:

The case also raises new concerns among critics of government secrecy about the possible stifling effect of these investigations on a critical element of press freedom: the exchange of information between reporters and their sources.

No one believes the Tea Party much cares about or understands constitutional rights. That's unfortunate.

Because what is happening under President Obama and Eric Holder's DoJ shows the depths to which the United States has fallen, now using the Espionage Act as its crusading, anti-terror tool in the administration's rapacious project against government leakers.

This is a scandal: Obama's war on whistleblowers.

Ask Bradley Manning. Or, as Eli Lake correctly characterizes this: "Obama's war on jounrnalism."

Writes Glenn Greewald in The Guardian:

But what makes this revelation particularly disturbing is that the DOJ, in order to get this search warrant, insisted that not only Kim, but also Rosen - the journalist - committed serious crimes. The DOJ specifically argued that by encouraging his source to disclose classified information - something investigative journalists do every day - Rosen himself broke the law. Describing an affidavit from FBI agent Reginald Reyes filed by the DOJ, the Post reports [emphasis added]:

"Reyes wrote that there was evidence Rosen had broken the law, 'at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator'. That fact distinguishes his case from the probe of the AP, in which the news organization is not the likely target. Using italics for emphasis, Reyes explained how Rosen allegedly used a 'covert communications plan' and quoted from an e-mail exchange between Rosen and Kim that seems to describe a secret system for passing along information. . . . However, it remains an open question whether it's ever illegal, given the First Amendment's protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so."

Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this.