OK, This is Finally Starting to Make Some Sense

[320 Years of History]

The crime of NEGLIGENT Handling of Classified Material does NOT require intent, dude. That is the whole thing about negligence.

Read the Gorin decision. 793(f) does require intent.

Negligence requires intent?

roflmao, only a lawyer.

That's not what I said. I said, "Read the Gorin decision. 793(f) does require intent." Did you read it yet?

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's not what I said. I said, "Read the Gorin decision. 793(f) does require intent." Did you read it yet?

Nah, I'm not really into legalistic surreal fiction.

 

[320 Years of History]

That's not what I said. I said, "Read the Gorin decision. 793(f) does require intent." Did you read it yet?

Nah, I'm not really into legalistic surreal fiction.

Well, Gorin is a SCOTUS decision, and it's the one that governs the role of intent in applying 793(f), so it's hardly fiction.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's not what I said. I said, "Read the Gorin decision. 793(f) does require intent." Did you read it yet?

Nah, I'm not really into legalistic surreal fiction.

Well, Gorin is a SCOTUS decision, and it's the one that governs the role of intent in applying 793(f), so it's hardly fiction.

Intent to be required for negligence law is surreal and the SCOTUS must have all been drunk that day IF your interpretation of the decision is valid.

 

[320 Years of History]

That's not what I said. I said, "Read the Gorin decision. 793(f) does require intent." Did you read it yet?

Nah, I'm not really into legalistic surreal fiction.

Well, Gorin is a SCOTUS decision, and it's the one that governs the role of intent in applying 793(f), so it's hardly fiction.

Intent to be required for negligence law is surreal and the SCOTUS must have all been drunk that day IF your interpretation of the decision is valid.

So you say....prove it.