[HN Gopher] Jury finds former CIA programmer guilty of leaking C...
___________________________________________________________________
Jury finds former CIA programmer guilty of leaking CIA hacking
materials
Author : Trouble_007
Score : 205 points
Date : 2022-07-15 08:34 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thedissenter.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (thedissenter.org)
| bogomipz wrote:
| This article seems to use quotes and then provide no context for
| them which makes for confusing reading:
|
| >Assistant US Attorney Michael D. Lockard asserted that on April
| 20, 2016, Schulte "stole the entirety of the CIA's highly
| sensitive cyber intelligence capabilities." This occurred just
| days after the CIA "locked the defendant out of the secure
| restricted vault-like location on the network."
|
| So is the prosecution asserting that he hacked into the network
| after having his access revoked? In the next article the article
| states:
|
| >"Shortly after stealing this extraordinarily sensitive
| intelligence information, the defendant transmitted those backups
| to WikiLeaks, knowing full well that WikiLeaks would put it up on
| the internet," Lockard argued.
|
| Is the assertion here that the dump obtained via a local backup
| this the defendant made? This is really kind of a poorly written
| article.
| joshgroban wrote:
| peterkelly wrote:
| ... but finds CIA innocent of hacking
| hereforphone wrote:
| Because it's their job?
| leothecool wrote:
| That doesn't matter. Drug dealers, hitmen, prostitutes, etc.
| go to jail all the time even though its their job.
| upupandup wrote:
| All those ppl you listed serve themselves, not the state.
| can't believe i have to spell this out on HN.
| kennend3 wrote:
| Remember when the CIA was trafficking cocaine?
|
| So.. same thing?
|
| Drug dealers do it for themselves, and the CIA - who were
| they dealing drugs for again? The state? They were giving
| the proceeds of crime back to the US government?
| Schroedingersat wrote:
| So same as the CIA then.
| hereforphone wrote:
| Just wait until you hit your 30s or so, you'll understand.
| notch656a wrote:
| I'm in my 30s, so explain to me why supporting drug
| traffickers is better when the CIA does it.
| hereforphone wrote:
| Ah, I see. Put on that Anonymous mask, vote for Sanders,
| and change the world then.
| smiddereens wrote:
| When are the cops gonna be charged with kidnapping drunk
| drivers?
| unnouinceput wrote:
| Quote: "Schulte is now confined at the Metropolitan Detention
| Center in Brooklyn. He has several child pornography charges
| pending against him that stem from the FBI raid on his Manhattan
| apartment on March 15, 2017."
|
| Now that's just textbook setting up a patsy. If I had any doubt
| that the guy is innocent this one cleared that for me. I mean, at
| this moment, this is plain obvious it's just a CIA setup getting
| rid of a "no" man. They need them spineless, not actual thinkers.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _If I had any doubt that the guy is innocent this one cleared
| that for me_
|
| The Bayesian needle suddenly swings with force.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/07/14/how-josh-schulte-got-j...
|
| There is a lot here, and I think people should avoid leaping to
| conclusions.
| muglug wrote:
| That builds up to a conclusion that this guy is the sort of
| super-hacker you see in the movies. I don't believe he was
| stupid/clever enough to infect the trial judge's computer with
| a virus.
| Cenk wrote:
| Here's a good article about him:
| https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/13/the-surreal-ca...
| adrr wrote:
| Interesting this guy called for Chelsea manning to be executed
| on Twitter. Wonder if he will keep up that consistency during
| sentencing.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| He still claims innocence, so I doubt he thinks he deserves
| the same punishment.
| upupandup wrote:
| While he may not be executed, its a lot more serious than
| Mannings leak. It is far more damaging from the hacking
| tools he released. He's also going to become an example so
| they will make he sentencing more harsh.
|
| My estimate is 40 years minimum. No parole.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I think you're forgetting that Manning got a 35 year
| sentence, 40 isn't much more severe.
| [deleted]
| throwaway4good wrote:
| I find interesting that 'they' feel the need to do a character
| assination on the man (where they being the people who are the
| source for this and similar articles, I guess his former
| employer).
|
| The original article says:
|
| "But US prosecutors never presented any forensic evidence to
| specifically tie Schulte to the publication of the CIA hacking
| materials on WikiLeaks."
|
| Maybe the issue here is that the case isn't that strong after
| all.
| upupandup wrote:
| the_only_law wrote:
| asveikau wrote:
| I don't know anything about this case, but it seems from
| reading comments like evidence is pretty thin.
|
| You can't just say "he's a traitor" and it makes him
| guilty. Even if he is, he's also a human being. Labeling
| people as "traitor" and dismissing their humanity is pretty
| weak.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Character assassination? He assassinated his own character.
| Character suicide.
|
| He ran a child porn server:
|
| > At one point, he volunteered to grant his new friends
| access to the child-porn archive on his server.
|
| Sexually assaulted a passed-out roommate:
|
| > When F.B.I. investigators searched Schulte's phone, they
| found something especially alarming: a photograph that looked
| as though it had been taken inside the house in Sterling,
| Virginia, where he had lived while working for the C.I.A. The
| photograph was of a woman who looked like she was passed out
| on the bathroom floor. Her underwear appeared to have been
| removed and the hand of an unseen person was touching her
| genitals. State investigators in Loudoun County subsequently
| identified the woman and interviewed her. She has not been
| publicly named, but she told them that she had been Schulte's
| roommate and had passed out one night, with no memory of what
| had happened. The encounter in the photograph was not
| consensual, she assured them.
| skhr0680 wrote:
| Is there an enemy of the CIA who _isn't_ a pedo or rapist?
| googlryas wrote:
| Sure. But pedophilia is probably comorbid with
| psychological problems which lead people to believe they
| are in some kind of battle with the CIA, so one might
| expect it to appear a bit more commonly. No one's ever
| accused Jeffrey Sterling of being a pedo or rapist.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| In UK we sent over 100 people to jail because software
| was buggy, said they stole money, a private company knew
| about the problem but lied under oath and nobody checked.
|
| the chance that anyone would ever discover that
| someafiles were planted by an arm of the state seems to
| be zero.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scand
| al
| woodruffw wrote:
| You've avoided saying it directly, but the oblique claim in
| your post is that (1) the CIA is the New Yorker's source for
| the claims in the article, and (2) the New Yorker _acceeded_
| to an intentional character assassination.
|
| These are extraordinary claims, ones that you haven't
| presented correspondingly extraordinary evidence for.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| >Maybe the issue here is that the case isn't that strong
| after all.
|
| It doesn't need to be. It just needs to be _someone._ Imagine
| you 're the head of a department and everyone up to the
| president is breathing down your neck about how this data
| made it out of your supposedly air-gapped system. Do you
| simply blame it on the Russians or Chinese, essentially
| admitting that a foreign intelligence service was able to
| walk past your security with all that confidential data? Or
| do you pick the weakest link among your own? Someone who will
| soothe superiors, can't really stand up for himself and will
| absorb all the blame?
| leoh wrote:
| Tell them the best thing we can do is prevent it from
| happening again by auditing systems and adding safeguards.
| paganel wrote:
| > I find interesting that 'they' feel the need to do a
| character assination on the man
|
| That's par for the course for the mainstream US (and Western,
| more generally, I would say) media nowadays. It wasn't always
| like that, but the last few years and especially the current
| war against Russia have accelerated this trend.
| lakomen wrote:
| War against Russia? I'm not aware the US or EU declared war
| against Russia
| jessaustin wrote:
| USA didn't declare war against DPRK, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
| That's not something we do. However, "serious
| politicians" have "mistakenly" mentioned that we're at
| war with Russia for months.
|
| https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/ukraine-nato-
| rus...
| googlryas wrote:
| Yes, but in all those instances the US sent troops there
| with weapons and they fired those weapons at the other
| side, which is how most people visualize "war". That's
| not what is happening here. We're sending weapons and
| money, not men. It would be like saying America entered
| WWII when they signed the Lend-Lease act, not after Pearl
| Harbor.
| jessaustin wrote:
| USA military and CIA had been present in Korea and
| Vietnam for years, with little fanfare, before those wars
| really got going. Their roles in Laos, Indonesia, Iran,
| Nicaragua, etc. were never acknowledged. They are
| currently present though unacknowledged in dozens of
| nations, with the hopes of kicking off future wars for
| the profit of armaments manufacturers. USA "special
| forces" have been embedded with various more-or-less-
| official military units in Donbas for years, during which
| time UN estimates that 14,000 people died in violent
| military action including more than 3,000 civilians. Over
| the same time, various American and western European neo-
| nazis also found their way to Donbas, forming a
| convenient cover for the "operators".
|
| Americans have been in Ukraine for a long time, and
| that's not even to mention e.g. Victoria Nuland. This is
| a stupid argument anyway. Congress has committed to
| spending Russia's entire annual military budget to fill
| Ukraine with deadly weapons. That doesn't count the
| billions we already spent over the last 15 years. A
| president was impeached because he proposed (without
| actually doing) a temporary slowdown of the flow of
| American weapons to Ukraine. Our masters wanted a war,
| and now they have what they wanted. Very few mammalian
| Americans want a war, but after twenty years of stupid
| wars it's clear that the peace we want doesn't matter.
| trasz wrote:
| So it's USA's fault that Russia became a fascist country
| and decided to invade?
| googlryas wrote:
| > Our masters wanted a war, and now they have what they
| wanted.
|
| How does sending weapons to a country encourage another
| country to attack it? Wouldn't it decrease the chances
| they attacked it - since it is fairly clear that the
| Ukraine could not invade Russia.
|
| > Very few mammalian Americans want a war
|
| As opposed to reptilian Americans? I'm just joking, I
| assume this is a typo but I can't figure out what it is
| meant to be.
|
| Do Americans actually want peace between the Ukraine and
| Russia(if it would just mean acceding to Russia's
| demands)? Granted I live in a fairly liberal area, but I
| see blue and yellow flags all over the place right now.
| watwut wrote:
| Just to mention, Russia invaded Ukraine and never
| declared it war. Russians are also comiting genocide in
| Ukraine. Russians call it special operation, it is
| illegal to call it war in Russia.
|
| USA offered to fly Ukrainian president to safety.
| Ukrainian president refused and Ukrainian army started to
| fight. USA did very decent thing after - supported
| Ukrainian army with guns.
|
| Not a single American Army soldier fought.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| > Just to mention, Russia invaded Ukraine and never
| declared it war.
|
| So you agree with jessaustin?
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| Every serious person acknowledges that what's going on in
| Ukraine is a NATO proxy war.
|
| Here's Leon Panetta (former Def Sec and CIA Director)
| saying it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWu7cPPVv0
| trasz wrote:
| Of course it is - but it's a defensive proxy war. The
| aggressor is Russia, not NATO.
| sophacles wrote:
| I don't understand this perennial thread of "No one
| declared it, it's not a war" when armies are trying their
| hardest to exterminate each other. What makes the magic
| words "i declare war" by some old buffoon who just wants
| the children of his nation to die in cruel ways make a
| magical difference?
|
| Seriously - if you look at pictures of the children
| dismembering each other in Ukraine during ww2 and the
| children dismembering each other in Ukraine in 2022, the
| only major differences are fashion and how effective
| technology lets them be at cruelty.
|
| The legalistic bullshit of needing magic words sounds
| like something the monsters that want dead children say
| to each other to get a little distance from the fact that
| the dead children are still their fault.
| watwut wrote:
| I think that the commenter takes issue with the
| implications that USA is in war with Russia rather then
| Russia being in aggressive war against Ukraine.
|
| It is popular framing among pro-russia people - trying to
| frame it as if Ukraine did not mattered at all. Or as if
| did not even existed.
| trasz wrote:
| ,,War against Russia" is a rather strange way to describe
| defense against Russian invasion.
| jamespo wrote:
| The New Yorker story suggests there was some digital
| evidence, not of upload to wikileaks but of unauthorised
| access and download:
|
| And, on the sixth day of the trial, prosecutors laid out what
| they regarded as a coup de grace--the digital equivalent of
| fingerprints at a crime scene. Even after Schulte was
| stripped of his administrative privileges, he had secretly
| retained the ability to access the O.S.B. network through a
| back door, by using a special key that he had set up. The
| password was KingJosh3000. The government contended that on
| April 20, 2016, Schulte had used his key to enter the system.
| The files were backed up every day, and while he was logged
| on Schulte accessed one particular backup--not from that day
| but from six weeks earlier, on March 3rd. The O.S.B. files
| released by WikiLeaks were identical to the backup from March
| 3, 2016. As Denton told the jurors, it was the "exact backup,
| the exact secrets, put out by WikiLeaks."
| throwaway4good wrote:
| Ahh.
|
| The password was 'KingJosh3000'.
|
| That is just the password some professional working in IT-
| security and cutting edge hacking would pick ... in
| particular if they were about to commit treason by leaking
| states secrets.
| md_ wrote:
| Sounds like exactly the kind of password an emotionally
| immature junior employee subject to poor judgment would
| pick, though.
|
| Whether that's a fair description here, I can't say--but
| the New Yorker story is certainly _internally_ consistent
| (and, it must be said, doesn 't exactly make the CIA look
| good, either).
| jamespo wrote:
| If you think the Government created this back door to
| frame him why would they choose that password?
| nyolfen wrote:
| contains his name, lines up with their descriptions of
| him as a deranged narcissist. it honestly does seem a
| little pat
| hannasanarion wrote:
| It lines up with his _history_ as a deranged narcissist.
|
| > In a 2009 exchange... one person Schulte interacted
| with went by "hbp." Another went by "Sturm." Josh's
| username was "Josh." At one point, he volunteered to
| grant his new friends access to the child-porn archive on
| his server. He had titled it /home/josh/http/porn. Sturm,
| taken aback, warned Schulte to "rename these things for
| god's sake."
| game-of-throws wrote:
| Also how do they know the password at all? Is the CIA
| storing passwords for classified material in plain text?
| snickerbockers wrote:
| its (allegedly) his backdoor, nit the CIA's
| jxcole wrote:
| I bet it was a co worker who wanted to leak but also
| didn't want to be blamed. Or maybe even a coworker who
| had a grudge against the defendant and didn't care about
| the leaks at all.
|
| It would be pretty easy to set up. If you work in the
| same room or building as a coworker how hard is it to set
| up a camera or a physical key logger to steal their
| password? Once you have someone's username and password
| you can make it look like they did anything. You could
| even do something nefarious on their computer when they
| went home for the evening.
|
| You may think that as security professionals they would
| definitely notice a key logger, but do you honestly think
| _anyone_ checks the back of their computer every time
| they come back from a lunch break?
| always2slow wrote:
| Right? From the article it sounded like Amol had motive,
| got revenge by framing Josh. Who knows.
| rougka wrote:
| I don't know about how strong the case is, but the stories
| about his character makes sense in the context of someone who
| would leak that.
|
| Notice who you call as 'they' didn't portray him as a self-
| proclaimed idealist, but someone with an unstable personality
| and who weaponizes workplace bureaucracy for petty fights
|
| We do know for a fact that he filed for a restraining order
| against his coworker, that seems extremely weird to me, and I
| don't work for the CIA.
|
| Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
| criley2 wrote:
| >"But US prosecutors never presented any forensic evidence to
| specifically tie Schulte to the publication of the CIA
| hacking materials on WikiLeaks."
|
| I mean, getting into forensic evidence of what he did at the
| CIA would likely require exposing top secret classified
| material in a court room. Suffice to say, prosecutors
| generally can't do this except as a last resort.
|
| When the guy left his phone full of passwords, and his
| computer full of encrypted child sex assault material, I'm
| not so sure the prosecutor feels the need to burn CIA secrets
| in court anymore.
| mandmandam wrote:
| "Sprinkle some crack on him Johnson" -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ESzLDC4B14
| aaaaaaaaata wrote:
| A CIA hacker "left his phone full of passwords, and his
| computer full of encrypted child sex assault material".
|
| This doesn't sound weird to you?
| formerkrogemp wrote:
| Does it seem plausible that someone would be that stupid?
| Sure. Is it convenient for the CIA to attack this
| person's character? Also reasonable.
| criley2 wrote:
| Not really, opsec is a fascinating thing but in my
| personal experience very very few people, even trained
| professionals, actually go through the hassle of rigorous
| opsec for their personal projects and lives. The idea
| that a CIA hacker didn't follow rigorous opsec is about
| as believable as the idea that the NSA left their hacking
| tools publically available
| https://thehackernews.com/2016/09/nsa-hacking-tool-
| exploits....
|
| Although, based on the strength of the assumption that it
| must be planted, I would say that working for the CIA
| would be a strong cover for a pedophile, since it's
| apparently impossible in the public eye for someone there
| to authentically trade in CSAM
| dang wrote:
| Discussed here:
|
| _A CIA hacker's revenge_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31639354 - June 2022 (252
| comments)
| l2silver wrote:
| This is also one of the best reads of the year.
|
| One of the guy's nicknames at work was "the nuclear option"...
|
| And don't forget the child pornography charges.
| jamal-kumar wrote:
| My favorite part was how insanely petty the whole thing
| sounded... How he insisted his nickname should be "Badass"
| but people called him what you mentioned as well as
| "Voldemort" more often than his self appointed nickname...
| What a goof. If this article is accurate it paints a picture
| of an incredibly socially immature workplace where people who
| didn't advance past the point of high school in that aspect
| left the guy feeling bullied enough that he did the leak.
| This was something like my first and only experience doing
| government contracting at a large corporation, on my tour of
| the offices one of the things I pointed out to my boss were
| these print out clip art stop signs that said "STOP BULLYING"
| on the walls everywhere and that I hadn't seen something like
| that since high school. He rolled his eyes pretty hard at
| that one but these people were responsible for systems that
| enormous amounts of people's lives depended on. I remember
| when these systems failed multiple times over multiple
| incidences and just thought of the stop sign shit.
| md_ wrote:
| Hah. I was deeply struck by how immature the whole thing
| sounds.
|
| Nobody here looks good, of course. But even top flight tech
| companies have this sort of time-wasting, so it's not
| exactly a surprise you'd find it at a TLA as well.
| jamal-kumar wrote:
| I got reprimanded one time at a previous job for
| pretending to throw a bee at my supervisor. A nest had
| formed in some concrete overhang in the building, he
| freaked out and got adrenaline ampules at the pharmacy
| (epipen shortage year) like "you need to inject me with
| this if I get stung". So later on, I walked up to him
| sitting next to a coworker with nothing in my hands and a
| shit eating grin on my face. "What's that?" "A BEE!" as I
| opened my hands with nothing in them... He fell over in
| his chair and everyone in the office stood up and pointed
| and laughed at him. It was ultra funny though he insisted
| I was insane for this and demanded I see a psychiatrist
| if I wanted to keep my job. Just ended up getting xanax
| pills I really didn't want or need. This was close to a
| decade ago and I wouldn't pull something like that now,
| but I mean what do you expect out of hiring people in
| their early 20s?
| yolovoe wrote:
| I certainly wouldn't expect this from any of my coworker
| in their early 20s. This is bullying. I would have
| reported a coworker to HR for this.
| lizardactivist wrote:
| The world should move to recognize the CIA as the state-sponsored
| terrorist organization it is.
| upupandup wrote:
| dr-detroit wrote:
| lakomen wrote:
| Tell me again why we're the good guys?
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| we keep the spice flowing
| harry8 wrote:
| Because "we" aren't the CIA. Perhaps it's "they" as in. Are
| they the enemy of the people just like the KGB or GRU?
| president wrote:
| Because there are worse people trying to do worse harm than the
| US? The real world is a dog eat dog world and if you're not up
| to snuff, there will always be someone else trying to eat your
| lunch.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Hmm. I'd better steal that guy's lunch before some meaner kid
| does it.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| History is written by the victors.
| kleer001 wrote:
| Define "we" and define "good", be as exhaustive and precise as
| philosophically possible.
| NoGravitas wrote:
| A very successful propaganda machine.
| psiops wrote:
| Off topic: Anybody else get a weird optic movement effect looking
| at the picture of the courthouse in the article?
| ecef9-8c0f-4374 wrote:
| yes
| pessimizer wrote:
| The entire ledge/cornice above "United States Court House" is
| dancing.
| r721 wrote:
| Recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32089814
| edm0nd wrote:
| A great read!
|
| https://github.com/sterling0x1/CIA-Hacking-Tools
|
| tl;dr they use a lot of RATs and also do a lot of supply chain
| intercepts on hardware before it arrives to their targets. They
| will insert malicious hardware like charging cables or adapters
| or actually infect the HDD or phone with a backdoor.
| rob_c wrote:
| And again another one gets hot with a CP charge that nobody
| questions after a character assassination... Something KGB about
| all that imo.
| [deleted]
| turnsout wrote:
| After he was charged for child pornography, he called it a "a
| non-violent, victimless crime." So, even if it was planted...
| this guy is the worst.
| davidro80 wrote:
| [deleted]
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _about all that_
|
| ? If your reference is to Yuri A, the "charge" is "mental
| illness".
| tunap wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| "lack of evidence is not evidence of innocence."
|
| Wow.
| x86x87 wrote:
| orangepurple wrote:
| CP is the nuclear weapon of the Internet that nobody questions
| when it shows up on someone's devices. It's radioactive;
| anybody that comes in contact with it immediately gets slammed.
| Absolute guarantee Assange is going to get hit with a CP charge
| to socially discredit him when they get a hold of him too.
| rob_c wrote:
| I'm surprised they're dragging his situation out so much, I
| think the intent now is that he's the living example if how
| they will screw with you if you seriously step out of line
| even for the right reasons. That, or he will learn to love
| the party and accept we were always at war...
| orangepurple wrote:
| They are grinding him through the bureaucracy as much as
| possible until he eventually runs out of time and dies.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _is going to get hit_
|
| I very clearly remember he got hit in that direction, almost
| immediately... And again the general reaction was "You must
| have a very diversified public, if you believe that boosts
| credit instead of doubts".
| nobleach wrote:
| > There was scant coverage of both trials from the US news media
|
| And yet there were days of trial coverage for an actor and his
| actress ex.
| [deleted]
| anonym29 wrote:
| I find the US government guilty of making secret malware that was
| deployed against both US citizens and friendly allies.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| What Julian Assange is teaching us is that the intelligence and
| military apparatus can do whatever they want, but exposing them
| is a serious crime worthy of life in prison.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| > But US prosecutors never presented any forensic evidence to
| specifically tie Schulte to the publication of the CIA hacking
| materials on WikiLeaks.
|
| Makes you wonder how he was found guilty. The accused have a big
| disadvantage at trial. He also represented himself (probably a
| huge mistake)
| icare_1er wrote:
| So your credentials to access an internal repo at the CIA's
| office does not count as evidence enough ?
| dylan604 wrote:
| I would hope not. Just because I have a key to unlock a door
| does not mean that I did unlock the door. It just means when
| the door is unlocked, I'm one of the people that gets called
| in to discuss if I had done it or not.
| [deleted]
| badrabbit wrote:
| Juries are notoriously 50/50 outcome regardless of what went on
| during trial. He should have picked bench trial.
| nojito wrote:
| Why do you need to show that he uploaded information to
| Wikileaks?
|
| All they need to show is that he had unauthorized access to the
| information and downloaded that information.
| bonzini wrote:
| I guess some charges only kick in if the information is
| redistributed.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| why do I need to prove you stabbed someone.
|
| All I need to show is that you have a kitchen knife
| weberer wrote:
| Maybe we'll find out how they got him in the next leak.
| sha256sum wrote:
| This was the third trial. The first two were declared
| mistrials. So yes, certainly makes one wonder.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| The government can do infinite retrials, starving you of
| resources to maintain adequate representation
|
| I think we need greater protections against this
|
| And the dual sovereignty loophole in our protection against
| double jeopardy should be addressed as well
| panda-giddiness wrote:
| No, they can't. If the defendant is acquitted, that's the
| end of the line (barring a few dual sovereignty loopholes,
| as you mentioned, but those also aren't limitless).
| yieldcrv wrote:
| If acquitted or convicted correct
|
| But a hung jury can be retried infinitely
|
| I think hung should be just as good as acquittal, or at
| least ONE other try or something different than
| potentially infinite retries until the prosecutor gets a
| tap on the shoulder to move on
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| > _But a hung jury can be retried infinitely_
|
| A hung jury is just one of the causes of a mistrial; and
| the net effect of a mistrial is that no verdict is
| reached. The common law has no prohibition on retrying a
| defendant after a mistrial.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| well the argument is that if the state is so inconpetent
| that it keeps mistrying an individual, then that's
| potentially harrasment of an innosent person and can't be
| allowed
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| You get mistrials due to defendant counsel misconduct, or
| juror misconduct, too.
| md_ wrote:
| Plenty of other countries allow conviction by simple or
| supermajorities.
|
| I'm far from a punitive-justice kind of person, but
| arguing that a single dissenting juror should be
| sufficient to acquit strikes me as not at all obvious.
|
| As long as I can convince one in twelve that I'm
| innocent, I should be considered innocent?
| catskul2 wrote:
| Just to clarify, in the US at least, juries don't
| determine innocence, but rather "not guilty", aka,
| inefficient evidence of guilt.
|
| From cornell law website:
|
| > _A not guilty verdict does not mean that the defendant
| truly is innocent but rather that for legal purposes they
| will be found not guilty because the prosecution did not
| meet the burden._
| alasdair_ wrote:
| As an interesting quirk, Scottish law has three verdicts:
| "guilty", "not guilty" and "not proven" where the latter
| is basically "we think you're guilty but the prosecution
| sucked so we have to let you go"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
|
| This turned out to be a big deal because of the trial of
| the Lockerbie bombers who blew up a Pan-Am flight over
| Scotland and were ultimately tried under Scots law. There
| was a real possibility that the bombers could have gone
| free with a "not proven" verdict.
| giobox wrote:
| While its true Megrahi and co were tried under Scottish
| law, it wasn't in a court room in Scotland. There are a
| number of features of how the Megrahi case was tried by
| Scottish judges in an area of the Netherlands on a US
| airforce base that was legally declared part of Scotland
| that are unusual, it was a very unique process that has
| never been repeated:
|
| > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Court_in_the_Net
| herla...
|
| > https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/apr/07/lockerbie
|
| There are aspects of how that trial unfolded that have
| long been subject of concern even from victims families
| (Dr Jim Swire famously); politically a "not proven"
| verdict would have been so unpalatable I'm honestly not
| sure how much chance there ever was of that occurring -
| politics is how we ended up in the bizarre Scottish
| courtroom in the Netherlands situation in the first
| place. Even the way in which the judges deliberated is
| not standard for a typical High Court of Justiciary case
| in its normal home in Scotland.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| This reminds me of video games where you can report
| players for "harassment", "cheating", and "low skill".
| "Low skill" reports go to /dev/null.
|
| Moral of the story is: Sometimes you need to give people
| the button they really want to push, even if it does
| nothing.
| md_ wrote:
| Of course. I should have said "acquitted", as opposed to
| a hung jury.
| [deleted]
| jxcole wrote:
| Having been on a jury in the US one time (attempted
| murder), the purpose of this system is probably not at
| all obvious. The idea is to put 12 people in a room and
| force them to agree to the same thing. You can deliberate
| almost any amount of time you want. If you try to tell
| the judge after a single day of delibrations that you are
| a hung jury, the judge will force you to stay longer.
| Only in extreme cases where the jury has been hung for a
| very long time does the judge allow a mistrial.
|
| So the idea is to force 12 people to convince each other
| of one idea or the other.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >So the idea is to force 12 people to convince each other
| of one idea or the other.
|
| You said nothing to contradict the GP. If someone is on
| trial, all they need is one of the twelve to not be
| convinced of guilt. Your phrasing of "force" that one
| person to change their mind is absolutely insane to me.
| md_ wrote:
| Well, I think the clarification is important. It's not
| like you just go for a vote, and if there's no consensus
| outcome, boom, mistrial.
|
| Judges aim for consensus, and juries are intended to
| debate/discuss until they can reach it. So the complaint
| about "well, prosecutors can just keep trying" rings a
| little more hollow in that case.
|
| (Again, there are a ton of _other_ reasonable complaints
| --bullshit forensic "science", the fact that expert
| witnesses cost money that defendants don't have,
| mandatory minimum sentences, federal prosecutors'
| aversion to risking losses at trial, the awful penal
| system, etc. But this is a weird one to be hung up on, I
| think.)
| jcadam wrote:
| Having been stuck on several courts-martial panels in the
| military as well as a civilian jury later for an assault
| trial, I found the military court system seemed, in many
| ways, more fair to the accused.
|
| On the flip side, the verdict does not have to be
| unanimous.
| chasil wrote:
| In the final play of the Orestia trilogy by Aeschylus,
| the goddess Athena convenes a jury of twelve citizens to
| decide the guilt of Orestes in the murder of his mother,
| Clytemnestra.
|
| The jury is evenly split, and Athena adds a final vote
| for innocence, calling it her precedent.
|
| It is unfortunate that the United States did not follow
| this ancient judicial custom EDIT: to acquit if half the
| jury refuses to convict.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oresteia#The_Eumenides
|
| (I live in a midsize U.S. town that happens to have the
| oldest community theater that performs Greek plays in
| mask every year.)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It is unfortunate that the United States did not follow
| this ancient judicial custom.
|
| Requiring a simple majority of the jury for a serious
| criminal conviction, but splitting ties for the defense,
| rather than the US practice of requiring a unanimous
| verdict for conviction?
| muststopmyths wrote:
| To play devils advocate, if unanimity is required for
| guilt why doesn't lack of unanimity mean innocence?
| md_ wrote:
| Sure, maybe. I guess you can argue two things:
|
| 1. That outcomes should be binary, i.e. "guilty" or
| "innocent" with no mistrials. 2. That outcomes should be
| decided by unanimous, supermajority, majority, or some
| other arrangements.
|
| I don't think either of those arguments are especially
| fundamental. My point was only that it's a bit hyperbolic
| to view the whole hung jury rule as some sort of Bill of
| Rights violation.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| The high bar for acquittal is what makes the hung jury
| rule look like a Double Jeopardy problem.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| It gives too much power to one person. It only takes one
| hold out to hang a jury.
| namelessoracle wrote:
| This almost never happens. The jury basically has to not
| make up its mind for at least a week. (and the judge can
| keep it going as long as they want) Its almost never just
| 1 person either. But if one person is willing to hold
| their ground for a week it means there is something going
| on. Either that person is a committed ideological actor,
| saw something, or had some major bias. It takes an
| immense will to deal with 11 other people for a week
| straight who all want to go home and get back to their
| lives, usually if its just one person they give in after
| a few days to the social pressure. So if a jury hangs it
| usually points to more than 1 disagreeing. This is where
| we get into "compromise" verdicts, where maybe 1 person
| is being stubborn but will go along with the group if
| they are allowed to win on one point, which is why
| prosecution throws the kitchen sink at criminal
| defendants.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Who cares about statistics I saw it happen and finally
| the next presidential administration appointee hit up the
| prosecutor to stop on or after the third trial
| salawat wrote:
| >Either that person is a committed ideological actor, saw
| something, or had some major bias.
|
| ...Or they haven't been convinced beyond a reasonable
| doubt.
|
| You realize as a juror, your job isn't to kowtow to the
| state. You're literally the last bulwark between said
| state and your fellow man. If anything, ypu need to be
| picking hard at any case you get presented, especially if
| it smells like a political/railroad case.
| [deleted]
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| Only an acquittal, meaning the jury agreed that guilt was
| not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One mistrial makes
| sense. Perhaps there was someone with doubts, but those
| doubts were unreasonable. Or there was one person who
| believed the accused was guilty and that person was
| unreasonable. This could be fixed with a new jury.
|
| After two mistrials (for failure to reach a consensus)
| it'd appear that reasonable minds may differ and the case
| must not have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
| ianhawes wrote:
| Often times, when a mistrial is declared and a retrial
| occurs, prosecutors will change strategy. Additionally,
| rulings from the previous trial are not automatically
| carried over, so suppressed evidence (for example) can be
| potentially displayed during a trial if the judge rules
| differently.
|
| Another factor, which is more common in state courts, is
| the lesser charge consideration. Upon a retrial, the
| judge can instruct the jury to find a defendant guilty of
| a lesser crime in lieu of the originally charged crime.
| For example, manslaughter instead of murder.
|
| Overall it's obviously stacked against the defendant in
| federal court. Adding in unlimited retrials basically
| guarantees a defendant will be found guilty eventually.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Don't you just love how first you learn about the Bill of
| Rights, and then you learn that there's a bullshit
| loophole our judicial system uses to bypass every goddamn
| rule in the entire Bill of Rights?
| md_ wrote:
| I mean, there are a _ton_ of problems with the criminal
| justice system, but white, well-off defendants who can
| afford non-court-appointed lawyers getting convicted
| after a single mistrial isn 't really top of the list, is
| it?
|
| I read https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/13/the-
| surreal-ca... and, well, this guy's not exactly a poster
| child for "the system is out to get you."
|
| I think the "our system is rigged" argument is a bit more
| compelling when looking at, say, the mandatory minimum
| sentences for crack possession.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| How on Earth is "other people have it worse" supposed to
| be some kind of counterargument?
|
| No shit other people have it worse. I'd put Speedy and
| Public Trial and Due Process (Civil Asset Forfeiture)
| problems as the top of the list, with Double Jeopardy
| erosion a ways down. Mandatory minimums sound like they
| belong on the list too, but I'm not familiar enough to
| know exactly where to place them -- probably high on the
| list. In any case, one bad thing on a list certainly does
| not invalidate another bad thing on the list. That's an
| even more dogshit idea than the loopholes themselves.
|
| > this guy's not exactly a poster child
|
| Standing up for rights means standing up for bastards.
| Always has, always will, because that's when rights get
| tested.
| from wrote:
| Interestingly, the federalists tried to argue against the
| Bill of Rights by essentially saying if an individual
| right was not mentioned in the Bill of Rights than that
| omission could set a precedent that the individual did
| not have that right. Of course now we know that
| everything that isn't explicitly protected has been taken
| from us so I guess it's good they ultimately lost that
| debate.
|
| On a somewhat positive note, there are things like the
| Speedy Trial Act that mandate charges be dismissed if a
| trial is not brought quickly enough. But it's often not
| very effective because they are allowed to delay the
| trial basically indefinitely if the judge finds it is in
| the "ends of justice" to do so. There also have been
| major cases thrown out over Brady (evidence disclosure)
| violations recently which is a step in the right
| direction. I think defendants now probably have more
| rights than they ever did but the problem is that 1)
| there are way more laws to break today than ever before
| 2) federal prosecutors are less interested in the public
| good and more in their political ambitions and careers
| instead 3) good legal representation has become
| incredibly expensive.
| jfengel wrote:
| _Of course now we know that everything that isn't
| explicitly protected has been taken from us so I guess
| it's good they ultimately lost that debate._
|
| And even the things that are explicitly protected are
| subject to the interpretation of the Constitution, via
| the ouija board that the Supreme Court uses to contact
| the "founders".
| md_ wrote:
| > Standing up for rights means standing up for bastards.
| Always has, always will, because that's when rights get
| tested.
|
| What right of his do you think was violated?
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| How is this person's race relevant?
|
| Also, if he represented himself, is he really a "well off
| defendant who can afford non-court-appointed lawyer"?
| md_ wrote:
| He had a lawyer in his first trial.
|
| Race is, of course, relevant, since case outcomes
| dramatically differ by race.
| [deleted]
| willcipriano wrote:
| The best part is magically none of these cases make it to
| the Supreme Court. We have had several decades of open
| and shut constitutional violations including mass
| warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without
| trial, civil asset forfeiture, executive order overreach.
| No ruling on any of it.
| tannhauser23 wrote:
| The defense also gets to retool its strategy in light of
| the evidence. Defense also gets to make evidentiary
| motions. Retrials don't always favor the prosecution.
|
| I think the most retrials I've seen (stemming from hung
| juries, not reversals) is the John Gotti Jr. case, where
| he got four mistrials. Prosecutors decided not to seek
| retrial after that.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| They can intentionally mess up the trial, or refuse to
| prosecute. There are people who get swept up in some old
| but reopened case investigation launched by a DA that
| wants to look tough. Trail might have died 10 years ago
| with essentially an acquittal, but it can be set up so it
| can be reopened at any point.
| saghm wrote:
| I think judges are allowed to dismiss cases "with
| prejudice" (i.e. not allow for a retrial), and I feel
| like this _should_ be done if the prosecution purposely
| punts to try again later, but I'm not sure how often this
| happens in practice
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| I think the point is, while there are limits, most of
| those will last longer than the resources anyone would
| have to defend themselves. It doesn't have to be
| limitless, only a bit longer than anyone can "survive".
| joshuamorton wrote:
| This guy got a hung jury on his first trial with a public
| defender. The government was paying for his defense.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| "The government can do infinite retrials, starving you of
| resources to maintain adequate representation"
|
| I remember reading about a guy who had 5 or 6 trials for
| murder. The prosecutor just kept trying.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| You would have to give more details, because in general,
| that's the very definition of double jeopardy.
|
| Was it five or six hung juries?
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Flowers is one
| example.
|
| Convicted four times, but with conviction overturned on
| appeal (including one time to the Supreme Court), plus
| two mistrials. The new DA declined to seek a seventh
| trial.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Ah, that makes more sense. It isn't double-jeopardy when
| a conviction is remanded for re-trial (although _why_ it
| 's not is unclear to me in a common-sense sense).
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| You usually cannot appeal simply on the basis that you
| believe the jury made the wrong decision, i.e. on the
| basis of an error of fact.
|
| There has to be an error of law (e.g. the judge have a
| wrong jury instruction, or evidence was inappropriately
| allowed/excluded, or the trial was allowed to continue
| when a mistrial should have been declared) or other
| constitutional basis, like ineffective counsel.
|
| In some cases, appeal courts will decide that there could
| be no basis for conviction once the flaw is corrected (in
| which case a conviction can be reversed), but oftentimes
| the appropriate outcome is to remand the case back to the
| lower court for retrial.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| It was Gotti, leader of one of the mafia families in NYC.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| Two mistrials? Sounds like justice /s
| giaour wrote:
| The article claims that this was the second trial, not his
| third. He was convicted on some counts in his first trial,
| but the jury was hung on the Espionage Act charges:
|
| > This was the second trial against Schulte. In March 2020,
| his first trial ended in a mistrial on several Espionage Act
| charges, but he was found guilty of contempt of court and
| lying to the FBI.
| sha256sum wrote:
| You are correct, there were two trials. In the first, the
| jury convicted him of 1) contempt of court and 2) making
| false statements to the FBI.
|
| > In March 9, 2020, after hearing four weeks of testimony
| and deliberating for six days, the jury convicted Schulte
| on two counts: contempt of court and making false
| statements to the FBI. However, jurors were deadlocked on
| eight other counts, including the most serious of illegal
| gathering and transmission of national defense information.
| Although the judge declared a mistrial, the government
| chose to retry the case.
| jlkuester7 wrote:
| > he had told the jury the "lack of evidence is not evidence of
| innocence."
|
| Wait, what? Since when in the US legal system did the defendant
| need to prove "evidence of innocence"? I am really getting tired
| of hearing BS like this from the prosecution team on high-profile
| cases! If they are pulling this crap when everyone is watching,
| what chance do any of us normal folks have at getting a fair
| shake from the Justice system if we ever end up in the
| defendant's chair?
| the_only_law wrote:
| It's the CIA, they can basically whatever the fuck they want,
| with little regard for law or justice.
| m348e912 wrote:
| If you like that one, wait until you hear what's in store for
| Julian Assange.
| [deleted]
| avsteele wrote:
| If he's guilty this is a more or less normal process. The real
| shocker is the stuff surrounding the leak in the article:
|
| _It was one of the largest leaks of information in the history
| of CIA and a huge embarrassment for then-CIA Director Mike
| Pompeo, who responded by labeling WikiLeaks a "non-state hostile
| intelligence agency" and developing "secret war plans" against
| the media organization that included kidnapping or even killing
| WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange._
|
| Just so we are clear: if you are a member of an org, anywhere in
| the world, with no particular obligation to keep the CIA's
| secrets, but who's only mission is to make public CIA actions /
| capabilities, they may try to extra-judicially murder you.
|
| Real _are we the baddies?_ vibes. If you work there, or for them
| as a contractor, please consider putting your abilities to more
| ethical use.
| wayfromeast wrote:
| >If you work there, or for them as a contractor, please
| consider putting your abilities to more ethical use.
|
| Yes, we need more of the best and brightest to be contributing
| to addictive social media apps and algorithms to subvert
| artificial quirks in financial systems.
| the_only_law wrote:
| Nah instead, we need to contribute to the organization that's
| committed some of the worst atrocities against US citizens
| and gets away with it.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| And we get off easy compared to the rest of the world.
| ta988 wrote:
| There are so many other things to do in between. And it is
| really sad your snarky and fallacious comment doesn't reflect
| that
| nonameiguess wrote:
| You should always be asking yourselves these questions, but I
| can't agree with the implications of no one should ever work
| for the CIA. Out of full disclosure, I have been a US Army
| officer and have also done technical contracting work for IC
| agencies (not the CIA, purely collection-tasked agencies that
| didn't perform any kind of field ops). So take from that what
| you will. Maybe I'm just a bootlicker that doesn't want to
| think of myself as evil.
|
| But I'm well aware that the military and intelligence services
| of the US have done some evil things. As far as I can tell,
| every military and intelligence service has done evil things,
| and maybe in some idealized world, that means these services
| shouldn't exist, but right now, as a purely practical matter,
| if every American simply refused to ever join the military or
| work for an intelligence service (as opposed to objecting to
| and refusing to obey illegal orders), we would just not have a
| military or any intelligence services. But doing that would not
| get rid of the others. We'd just be abdicating the global stage
| to China. Personally, I don't believe that would make the world
| better than it is now.
| mandmandam wrote:
| Is the choice between having no intelligence service at all,
| and one that consists of warmongering, drug-running, black
| site torturing, extrajudicial assassinating, media
| infiltrating, Epstein exonerators?
|
| Is that the only way to maintain a presence on the "global
| stage"? Are we in a stronger position for having spent
| trillions to replace the Taliban with... the Taliban? Was
| Vietnam smart? Was all that murder in South America for
| corporate profits justifiable?
|
| > Maybe I'm just a bootlicker that doesn't want to think of
| myself as evil.
|
| I hope you really ask yourself that.
| notch656a wrote:
| Of course not. It's a false dichotomy. And I don't know why
| anyone would want the US government in its current
| incarnation "on the global stage."
| trasz wrote:
| Problem is not that some people do bad things; problem is
| that Americans who do evil things go unpunished. It wouldn't
| look so bad if you weren't so fixed at protecting your war
| criminals from justice.
|
| Also funny that you mention China, a country with
| incomparably better track record when it comes to foreign
| policy.
| Tostino wrote:
| This seems entirely in line with what I've read about the
| history of the CIA.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| wollsmoth wrote:
| Well it's... information warfare. People live and die based on
| what intel these agencies can keep and lose. I'm not saying
| they should have murdered him, but I'm unsurprised that they
| considered it as an option.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| I do respect a good "Are we the baddies?" reference :-)
|
| https://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU
| ho_schi wrote:
| We shall always ask this ourselves.
|
| Before, during and after an argument. Before, during and
| after a conflict.
| [deleted]
| tootie wrote:
| I think the article is being deliberately misleading. Assange
| is still only charged with the Cablegate leak, not this one.
| And if his extradition is ever served he may fave additional
| charges for his relationships with GRU and Roger Stone.
| heresie-dabord wrote:
| > Are we the baddies?
|
| Well, the history of the CIA is clear. But that's not the
| point.
|
| This whole story is about failed management of a deranged
| employee. The lesson for employers is to stop _toxic_ antics
| and attitudes. You don 't need to be "woke" to know that when
| employees are insulting and bullying one another, it will in
| time destroy a project and maybe even ruin lives.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| I agree with your comment. Though there's enough people here
| and elsewhere dying on the hill for the CIA that even their
| history isn't clear. Like seeing all the coups as unselfish
| acts of bringing freedom to the disenfranchised global south.
|
| Nice bio too
| the_only_law wrote:
| > This whole story is about failed management of a deranged
| employee
|
| I thought this as just par for the course with the CIA.
| heresie-dabord wrote:
| Ha!
|
| Deranged management of failure may also explain a few
| things.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| It is just developing plans, which is not as bad as developing
| the plan and carrying it out like the Saudis.
| toyg wrote:
| The plans you hear of, those are the failures.
|
| A well-executed assassination is one that is never linked
| back to them.
| albatross13 wrote:
| This person gets it.
| AyyWS wrote:
| Julian Assange was not murdered, but we're hearing about
| it.
| toyg wrote:
| Yes, that's a double failure. And it will be triple when
| he's locked away - the US will suffer a reputational hit
| as big as (or even bigger than) the one it suffered from
| the material that him and Chelsea Manning surfaced.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| Doubt it.
|
| Assange is a bad faith actor that has shown that he has
| no problem kissing Russian boots to attack the US.
|
| With Russia's invasion and desire to genocide Ukraine,
| associations with Russia are looked upon much less
| kindly.
| toyg wrote:
| He's still effectively a journalist being thrown in jail
| for doing journalism. From Europe, even given all that's
| going on, the optics are terrible.
| jhgb wrote:
| Guilt by association is a terrible mindset.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| What do you mean?
|
| WikiLeaks has intentionally not published documents
| damaging to the Russian govt
| jhgb wrote:
| Uh...and? That has no bearing on the fact that Russia --
| not Wikileaks -- is responsible for "Russia's invasion
| and desire to genocide Ukraine". I may not like Wikileaks
| a lot but I won't blame them for invasions and genocides.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| Furthering Russia's interests over the past few years
| does not make them culpable for Russia's invasion but it
| does show that they are more allied with Russian
| interests than the US's
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Well, you can still hear of it -- JFK and Shinzo Abe spring
| to mind -- but yes, the "never linked back" part is key.
| catskul2 wrote:
| What would be the point of killing Abe after he's already
| out of office?
| chubbnix wrote:
| Perhaps threat messaging to current leaders who feel safe
| and protected by the spotlight of political coverage. It
| would have to be paired with additional messaging to
| indicate the bad actors demands but I imagine most
| politicians anticipate and hope for life after office.
| jhgb wrote:
| In many countries, the preparation of many serious crimes,
| (murder included) is criminal on its own.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I was being sarcastic to juxtapose the public reaction of
| Saudis or MBS murdering Kashoggi (which is horrible no
| doubt) to the US planning basically the same thing.
| ta988 wrote:
| Or Russia in UK and elsewhere.
| janandonly wrote:
| Accidentally, today an "are we the baddies?" post was also
| discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32105908
| sofixa wrote:
| Wow that thread is a dumpster fire with showdead on.
| president wrote:
| If preventing future leaks by any means would ensure security
| for you, your country, and your future generations, would you
| do whatever it took to make sure it never happened again? I'm
| not agreeing or disagreeing with it, I'm just saying people
| that have a knee-jerk reaction to casting a negative
| perspective on something because "CIA bad" never seem to think
| what might the world look like without these agencies. I also
| certainly don't think we're getting the full picture of what
| transpired from just that quote.
| trasz wrote:
| Yeah, I wonder, what the world would look like without
| destabilizing most of South America and Middle East.
| shapefrog wrote:
| _Just so we are clear: if you are anywhere in the world, they
| may try to extra-judicially murder you._
|
| All the extra words were surplus to requirements.
| mherdeg wrote:
| What is the Calyx Institute's interest in providing trial
| transcripts here? That's an interesting service:
| https://calyxinstitute.org/schulte
| giobox wrote:
| Access to trial transcripts in many jurisdictions is often
| behind complex paywalls/distribution agreements or some really
| archaic time consuming process to get official copies. It's not
| unheard of for an interest group to reshare these materials
| relevant to their objectives.
|
| Its similar to the situation with scientific papers and the
| sci-hub site trying to remove blockers to access; people have
| tried before to make sci-hub clones for trial transcripts/court
| decisions/published legislation but there is huge money in this
| industry for companies like LexisNexis etc who often litigate
| to shut them down. Legal firms who need access to these details
| just see deals with companies like LexisNexis as standard cost
| of doing legal business - much like you might need a github
| account for every software engineer, lawyers will usually need
| individual accounts for services like LexisNexis to get latest
| court decisions and legislation.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-15 23:02 UTC)