Rudy Giuliani

If Hillary Clinton Belongs in Prison, So Does Rudy Giuliani

The would-be secretary of state brags about providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization.

|

C-SPAN

During the presidential campaign, Rudy Giuliani argued (correctly) that Hillary Clinton could be charged with a federal felony for mishandling classified information through her sloppy email practices as secretary of state even if she did not intend to break the law. But there is also a strong case to be made that the former New York City mayor, who reportedly is in the running for attorney general or secretary of state in the Trump administration, committed multiple federal felonies by assisting Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group that the State Department listed as a terrorist organization until September 2012.

"My ties to them are very open," Giuliani, a former U.S. attorney, recently told The New York Times. "We worked very hard to get them delisted." But under the broad understanding of the federal ban on "material assistance" to terrorist groups that the Supreme Court upheld in 2010, that work was pretty clearly a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

The "material support" statute, 18 USC 2339B, prohibits the provision of "training," defined as "instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill"; "expert advice or assistance," defined as "advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge"; "personnel," which means any person, including oneself, who works under the organization's "direction or control"; or any other "service," which is not defined at all. In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court said the law covers volunteer work aimed at helping listed organizations resolve their grievances through nonviolent means. While such advice and advocacy would ordinarily be protected by the First Amendment, the Court said, "the government's interest in combating terrorism" justifies the speech restrictions imposed by the ban on material support.

Notably, the Supreme Court refused to read the law as requiring an intent to further a terrorist organization's illegal activities. As long as someone knows he is assisting a "foreign terrorist organization" (FTO), it is no defense to say he only meant to promote its lawful activities. Giuliani, who "worked very hard to get [the MEK] delisted," obviously knew the group was considered an FTO.

Nor is it necessary that someone providing material support to an FTO receive compensation in return, although Giuliani apparently was paid handsomely for his speeches on behalf of the MEK. According to the Court, the difference between protected and prohibited advocacy is not whether money changes hands; it's whether the advocacy is "performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization." By announcing that "my ties to [the MEK] are very open," then, Giuliani is effectively confessing to a crime.

I am not saying Giuliani should go to prison for his efforts to rehabilitate the MEK. The State Department's list is arbitrary and shaped by political considerations, the MEK had a strong argument that it should no longer be considered an FTO, and in any case peaceful advocacy of lawful activities should never be treated as a crime. Knowingly providing material assistance to an FTO (which Giuliani did) is not necessarily the same as knowingly providing material assistance to terrorism. For the sake of fairness and freedom of speech, the law's mens rea requirement should be stronger.

The same goes for 18 USC 793, which Clinton arguably broke by allowing classified information to be removed "from its proper place of custody" through "gross negligence," a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A conviction under that law should require more than negligence, because it should not be possible to accidentally commit a crime. That is the main reason Comey gave for declining to recommend charges against Clinton: Although the law does not require criminal intent, justice does.

But Giuliani was not willing to cut Clinton any such slack. As far as he was concerned, she violated the letter of the law, so she should have been prosecuted. It did not matter whether she realized she was breaking the law. By that same reasoning, Giuliani should be prosecuted for providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. It does that matter that he did not view the MEK as a terrorist group; it's enough that the State Department did. Nor does it matter that he did not intend to promote terrorism, since the law does not include any such mens rea requirement. If Hillary Clinton belongs in prison, so does Rudy Giuliani.

Advertisement

NEXT: How Not to Build a Jail

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Coed prison?

    WOMEN BLEND IN WITH MEN AT ILLINOIS PRISON

    LINCOLN, Ill.? Officials and inmates were wary when the state prison here began housing women, as well as men, earlier this year. But of all the potential problems that crossed their minds, there is one that no one anticipated: how difficult it would be for the prison store to keep men’s cologne in stock.

    ”We’re acting more gentlemanly,” said Charles Johnson, a 27-year-old inmate serving time for murder at Logan Correctional Center. ”We want to look nice and smell nice, too.” #72 Women Among Inmates Logan, which began taking women in March to relieve overcrowding at the Illinois penitentiary for women, now has 72 women among 842 prisoners. While women have been imprisoned with men at work camps and minimum-security facilities, Logan is the nation’s only coed medium-security prison.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06…..rison.html

    1. go on…

    2. Wow you really had to dig deep into the archives for that one.

    3. Seems like there could be a screenplay in the works, or just a porn video.

    4. dude every jail in the country is coed. as are a huge chunk of its prisons. if by coed you mean men & women are kept in locked cages in separate facilities & never come into direct contact w/ one another. there is nothing unusual about this, other than the articles insistence on mocking the sexual frustrations of men who have been incarcerated for decades for such heinous crimes as having a plant the government doesnt like, excercising 2nd amendment rights while poor/black, technical probation/parole violations like having a beer can in your trash, etc. etc. Lets yuk it up at the slaves! Dont drop the soap, lololol!!1! I authoritarian groveling.

  2. Or, you could look at it as: If Giuliani is disqualified from holding a high position so is Hillary. Just like the concern CNN has over Trump’s refusing to completely cut any and all ties with his business interests rather than just turning control over to his family without mentioning there was another candidate in the race who had business interests she distanced herself from by turning control over to her family – and then still kept herself involved with despite her solemn promise she would not. Sauce for the goose and all that.

    1. Are you saying that CNN is…….disingenuous? I don’t want to live in such a world!

      1. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

    2. The Clinton Foundation is a business?

      1. Yes.

      2. Holy fuck are you that dumb or just that dishonest?

        1. Frog, meet Tony.

    3. One difference is in the legitimacy of the law itself (and its interpretation). Working to delist an organization that’s improperly listed (to right a wrong) should never be illegal. Clinton’s criminal behavior is something that EVERYONE who has ever held a security clearance clearly and fully understands.

      Perhaps Guiliani does deserve prison time. But if that’s the case, Clinton deserves to be drawn-and-quartered, burned at the stake, dipped in honey and fed to the ants, hung, shot, gassed, lethally injected – and thrown into an active volcano… and then imprisoned for life plus a billion years.

  3. Under Sullum’s reading of the law, can anyone argue that any organization, once designated a terrorist group, should be delisted? Is the deputy secretary of state sending out a memo to his boss committing the same crime that Sullum suggests Guliani committed?

    1. Its different when you’re one of the watchdogs.

    2. Jacob is just butthurt that Hillary lost and his fangs are out.

      He is comparing actual mishandling of classified information (Hillary) to trying to get a group delisted from a terror watch list (Guilliani)

      1. So wonderful to see Reason staffed by so many Hillary voters.

      2. Sullum’s behavior on display today is very unbecoming.

        1. Yeah, it’s almost like he’s not towing the line of libertarian orthodoxy, and is facing a backlash for not saying the right things the right way. This sounds vaguely familiar.

          1. Yeah, boy you sure nailed it.

            Thanks for being the insightful iconoclast that you are.

            1. Think about it the next time you want to blast college students for political correctness.

              1. Because noting that a senior editor at a ‘libertarian’ publication is making arguments in anything but a libertarian fashion makes me some sort of enforcer of groupthink, thereby excluding me from also criticizing other forms of groupthink?

                Boy you are just batting a thousand tonight.

                1. Yes, it makes you a hypocrite. The fact that you expected to come here and be fed nothing but a steady diet of your own personal feelings on the matter reflected right back at you, and became annoyed when someone expressed something besides exactly what you wanted to see, makes you hypocritical. You were looking for a safe space and couldn’t even handle a slight deviation – how is this article non-libertarian, anyway?

                  1. It’s called ‘providing feedback and commentary,’ aka speaking one’s mind, aka freedom of thought, aka liberty. I trust that Sullum understands this.

                    I do not expect to remain criticism free, that certainly would make me a hypocrite. I just expect that the criticism would have some, you know, substance and merit. Something your feeble attempts lack.

                    You might also wish to consider that my commentary on Sullum was purely descriptive, and clearly stated as opinion. It was in no way proscriptive and claimed no special authority.

                    Your butthurt is showing now.

  4. . . . the law covers volunteer work aimed at helping listed organizations resolve their grievances through nonviolent means. . . “the government’s interest in combating terrorism” justifies the speech restrictions imposed by the ban on material support.

    Makes sense. I mean, how can you be out there ‘combating terrorism’ if the terrorists are resolving grievances using non-violent means? Think of the children!

    Its all par for the course though – once you start using violence you may as well keep using it because if you mutate into a mainstream political movement the eschews violence for using the available political levers then you ‘will have won’. And we can’t let the terrorists win. Unless their Irish terrorists, I guess. Same logic we use to oppose legalization of drugs – all those nasty drug dealers *will get away with it!*

    1. “While such advice and advocacy would ordinarily be protected by the First Amendment, the Court said, “the government’s interest in combating terrorism” justifies the speech restrictions imposed by the ban on material support.”

      No law is valid if it requires me to waive any fundamentally protected right in any way in order to exercise any other right or alleged privilege. And no law can convert the free exercise of any right into a crime. F off SCOTUS.

  5. The same goes for 18 USC 793, which Clinton arguably broke by allowing classified information to be removed “from its proper place of custody” through “gross negligence,” a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A conviction under that law should require more than negligence, because it should not be possible to accidentally commit a crime. That is the main reason Comey gave for declining to recommend charges against Clinton: Although the law does not require criminal intent, justice does.

    Except Hillary didn’t “accidentally” place a home-cooked server in her residence to hide her communications regarding State Department and Clinton Foundation pay for play corruption. It was a deliberate act, in violation of the law, which exposed classified information to foreign powers.

    Quite a bit different from advocating that a group be de-listed as terrorists.

    1. Precisely this. Comey pretending that Clinton is literally retarded does not change the fact that she did what she did 100% intentionally. Feel free to make the argument that influence peddling shouldn’t be illegal or that there shouldn’t be any such thing as state secrets, but the false equivalence is dishonest, and exceptionally poorly done dishonesty at that.

    2. A ‘deliberate act, in violation of the law’ is not the same thing as ‘knew you were violating the law’. The latter is mens rea, the former is not.

      I’m not saying she didn’t know – I’m saying that deliberately doing something can still accidentally break the law.

      1. So, you’re saying she might be retarded

        1. There’s little question she is a psychopath.

      2. I was addressing Sullum’s “accidentally” nonsense. Of course it is obvious that Hillary knew she was breaking the law, otherwise she wouldn’t have tried to hide it and then repeatedly lie about it. She even made a State Department video explaining the handling of sensitive information.

        1. Is there a presumption of mens rea when the actor is an attorney?

          1. Bar licensed attorneys are typically officers of the court. Of course, being an officer of the court is only a good thing when you can get a bennie out of it. We wouldn’t want attorneys held to a high standard or anything.

          2. I don’t see why there would be. If *cops* can be ignorant of the law then there’s no reason why an attorney couldn’t be.

            Of course the difference here is that cops no longer have a requirement to know the law, only reasonably assume that something that is legal is illegal.

            Its kind of like the exact opposite of mens rea.

      3. While your quibble may be accurate in the technical sense it is irrelivant because you would have to be a moron to actually believe that somehow Hillary did not know that what she was doing was illegal

        1. Sure – when you’re talking about Clinton specifically. But let’s not let the *specific* taint the general. Clinton knew what she was doing, OJ’s a murderer – you can still deliberately do something without knowing its illegal.

        2. Well, if she stuck her fingers in her ears and shouted LALALALALA anytime anyone tried to explain to her the things that were illegal then you could hardly fault her for not knowing what was illegal, could you?

    3. “it should not be possible to accidentally commit a crime”

      So let’s also get rid of negligent homocide!!

      1. That’s not an accident. That’s being negligent.

    4. She accidently had Huma and the Filipino maid print off the classified documents so that she wouldn’t have to read them on her blackberry.

      But it wasn’t “gross negligence”. It was “extreme carelessness”. So everything is OK.

  6. Quite whining, Jake, it’s TrumpTown.

  7. Giuliani is a douche, but this post looks like the product of a wake and bake.

    1. Yeah, fuck Sullum for making me want to defend an asshole like Giuliani.

      1. Sullum and his ilk have got me rooting for Trump.

    2. Sullum is two for two this morning as far as stupid pants shitting articles based on bad analysis go.

      Fucking pathetic. At least at Slate, HuffPo, etc, they’re honest about being progtard shills.

    3. Giuliani should be subjected to stop and frisk every time he ventures out of his residence.

      1. Trump just wants to grab Giulani’s pussy.

    1. I’m going with the guy on the lower left.

      1. Is it the acne? I bet it’s the acne.

    2. gee what a bunch of tough looking hoodlums /s

      1. At least the hardcore gangbangers held over for long stretches at the jail have a few pass around packs to help relieve some stress. I wonder which one gets a spit roasting from two bikers?

    3. Interesting gene pool.

      1. Yup. They’re all sisters.

        1. Four of them appear to have near identical shirts too.

    4. Is this a cast of extras from Trailer Park Boys? I thought the Trumpkins were supposed to be the rednecks

    5. AmSoc will be the dad of whichever one is the biggest pussy.

    6. They were paid to be protesters. I wonder if they get a bonus for being extra shit stirrers?

    7. Bottom left. He looks smarmy, retarded and has the air of someone who doesn’t pay his mortgage.

      1. None of them look like the types to even have a mortgage.

    1. The only good nigger gender traitor is a dead nigger gender traitor.

    2. I have no doubt that if Cankles and her cult members had their way the camps would be cranking up as we speak.

  8. If Hillary Clinton Belongs in Prison, So Does Rudy Giuliani

    OK, I’ve got no problem with that.

    1. +1 Panopticon

  9. Is Sulkum usually this bad?

    1. Fuck off cuck!

  10. Dare I? Sure. Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!

  11. Shorter Jacob Sullom: “Tu quoque!”

    1. Also, the reasoning as to why Rudy should be in jail is a massive fucking stretch. His efforts to get this group delisted should fall comfortably under the first amendment. Does Sullum even have an example of someone being prosecuted for similar actions? I don’t see one.

      OTOH, people get locked up All. The. Fucking. Time. for the same kind of shit Clinton pulled. Arguably, many have been locked up for far more innocent actions.

      1. Whether the law is wrong and the courts are wrong is one question.

        Whether Giuliani broke that law is another question entirely.

        Also, Sullum’s argument isn’t a tu quoque.

        He isn’t saying that it’s okay for Giuliani to break the law because Hillary did.

        He’s saying that if Hillary breaking the law means she should be prosecuted and convicted, then Giuliani breaking the law also means that he should be tried and convicted.

        An argument for consistency is not a tu quoque.

        A tu quoque would be saying that it’s okay for Giuliani to break the law because Hillary did.

        1. He isn’t saying that it’s okay for Giuliani to break the law because Hillary did.

          No, it sounds like he’s saying it’s okay for Hillary to break the law because Giuliani did, while using an extremely weak ass case for Giuliani breaking the law. Hence, Tu Quoque.

  12. Can we toss Peter King in the slammer?

    1. Haven’t heard that name in a while. Must not have been a Trumpler

    2. No shit. If we’re going to play the Republicans did it too game, he’s a much better choice for the aiding terrorists.

  13. Comey pretending that Clinton is literally retarded does not change the fact that she did what she did 100% intentionally.

    You cannot expect a woman to understand all those complicated rules. And besides, she would have had to keep track of two different phones. There’s no way.

    1. Not only that, Brooksie, but her defence was she didn’t even know how her desktop email client worked, much less those terribly complex Blackberries she was toting around. Simply preposterous. I suppose that’s why all those emails ended up on Pervthony Weiner’s lappy since Huma was handling all that new fangled tech communication For Shrill-Bot.

      1. And then, of course, her leaked speeches show that she was aware of at least the basics of cybersecurity. She knew exactly what she was doing.

  14. “OK, we’ll send Hillary to Tennis prison for a couple of years in trade for King going into Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison for …um, 9 years.”

  15. Look, just to be safe, we should probably throw ALL career politicians and bureaucrats into prison. It’s the only way to be sure.

    1. *nods slowly in agreement*

      1. Some of them, i assume, are good people. But they must renounce the State and all Its works if they want to rejoin society.

        1. +1 Godfather baptism

    2. *stands up with right arm raised all historical like*

      1. Ypu know who else….

    3. Hallelujah

    4. Guantanamo’s too good for them.

  16. My understanding of the Benghazi fiasco is as follows:

    A private security firm was providing security at the Benghazi compound. They were competent, well vetted, and had successfully provided security at other US interests. For reasons unknown ( yeah, right) that company lost the contract and instead it was awarded to a different, brand new company. I think it is called Blue Mountain. Blue Mountain had no employees. In a rush to fill the contract they grabbed some locals and put them on the security detail. These new, unvetted security guys turned out to be connected to Al Qeada in Libya. In fact, one of them is the brother of the head of Al Queda in Libya. Four of those persons actually opened the gates to the compound to let the attackers in and then took part in the attack themselves.

    Who owns Blue Mountain? What other companies does Blue Mountain own? Who are these individuals and do they have any connection to Clinton personally or to her Foundation? Did they give any money to the CF?

    Technically both broke the law, so yeah, maybe they should be prosecuted. Gulliani gave a speech on behalf of a group trying to overthrow one of the evilest regimes in the world, a regime who is the sworn enemy of the US and who enslaves an entire nation. Did Clinton sell out her country and get an ambassador killed?

    There is no moral equivalence here.

    1. Amendment: What was the nature of Gulliani’s speech? Was the speech in furtherance of having MEK delisted? If so, then he was exercising, reasonably, his 1A right and committed no crime.

      1. He did address that point:

        “In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court said the law covers volunteer work aimed at helping listed organizations resolve their grievances through nonviolent means. While such advice and advocacy would ordinarily be protected by the First Amendment, the Court said, “the government’s interest in combating terrorism” justifies the speech restrictions imposed by the ban on material support.”

        1. I happen to strongly disagree with the court. The 1A addresses this directly, explicitly and specifically forbids it.

          1. When the law says “shall not infringe” and government makes 50,000 laws meant to keep guns away from the citizenry, or that people only count as 3/5ths of a whole human for official purposes, or peaches are vegetables, we are suppose to realize the court’s whim of the moment supercedes established legal theory and facts and reality.

            1. peaches are vegetables

              You meant they aren’t? Oh dear, I’ve been doing this all wrong…

            2. I know I am kidding myself.

            3. Um, the 3/5 compromise was intended to check the power of slave holders. It wasn’t a dehumanizing of blacks. Quite the opposite.

              1. ” It wasn’t a dehumanizing of blacks. Quite the opposite.”

                Cant.Tell.If.Sarcasm…

                1. Its not sarcasm and it is perfectly accurate.

                  1. Counting them for purposes of apportionment, while denying them votes, as well as liberty hardly counts as acknowledging their humanity. Might as well have counted horses as 2/5ths as well.

          2. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

            Ruling that the government can prevent people from peaceably assembling and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances because government interests makes the BOR not worth the paper it is printed on.

            Woodchipper.

            1. Sad commentary on the state of Reason that a commentator must make this argument, and that the author didn’t.

    2. Is all this really true and where can I read about it?

  17. If Gulliani is helping you, can that really be considered help? Or is it like the toddler who wants to help mommy with the dishes?

    1. Giuliani was an undercover brother.

  18. What, precisely, is Sullum arguing here?

    That everyone breaks the law, so get over it?

    More mens rea for everyone? (I quite like that.)

    1. Reminds me of a song:

      ??Hallelujah, it’s raining mens rea??

      1. 5 on scale of 10

        1. I’ve only had two cups of coffee this morning. Don’t razz me, bro.

    2. But Booosh….

    3. Something about how somebody may have technically violated the worst law even written.

    4. If only more people 1) understood mens rea and 2) thought it was a good idea.

      Every time I hear someone say, “ignorance of the law is no excuse…” I want to throw up. A couple times I’ve even asked, “if the law is so obtuse and unknowable that I could do something and not know it was illegal, then why is it even a law?”

    5. I’m honestly not entirely sure, Dooms over my Hammy.

      But, if I am reading this correctly, Sullum is arguing the, “What’s good for the goose, is good for that gander.” Which is a terrible, and rather partisan argument. Sullum hasn’t thought this one through very well, especially since:

      A) The group in question was officially de-listed in 2012, thus not officially a threat for a number of years;

      B) If Sullum wants to take this argument to its logical conclusion and distribute it equally, then Edward Snowden should cross Sullum off his Christmas and Hanukkah card list, since the case against him is far stronger than the one against G Rudes.

    6. I think he’s arguing more mens rea for everyone. Because the people defending Clinton because ‘she didn’t know’ are ignoring Giuliani’s admission that *he did know*.

  19. Han wasn’t Solo

    http://nbc4i.com/2016/11/16/ca…..ison-ford/

    1. I find this infinitely more interesting than Sullum’s article.

  20. If Hillary Clinton Belongs in Prison, So Does Rudy Giuliani

    The list of politicians and TOP. MEN. who should be in prison but aren’t is several orders of magnitude longer than the list of ones who shouldn’t be.

  21. Not getting Sullum’s point. In fact, it “feels” like a weak attempt at somehow creating a sober ‘on the other hand’ take.

    More than that, it’s a sloppy and clunky false equivalence. What’s the angle? To make Hillary less contemptible? Know what I think, as an outsider, Jacob? You’re country dodged a huge bullet. She would have used her position to further Clinton Inc. and if the choice came between YOU and the American people I think her corrupted record speaks as to where her allegiances lie. True, Trump is a wild card, but it would take quite a bit of sleazy corruption and ineptness in four years to match what she did in 30 years.

    Quick, tackle Jacob! Someone in the Hillary thug machine got him!

    1. If it is illegal for someone who is likely to get the job of deciding who should and shouldn’t be on the terrorist watch list can’t criticize the watch list without breaking the law, then the courts got it wrong and the law needs to be changed.

      If Giuliani took money from a group on the terrorist watch list, then he should be disqualified from a position whose responsibilities include deciding who should and shouldn’t be on the terrorist watch list–just like Hillary had no business being in a position to approve arm sales to countries that had given money to the Clinton Foundation.

      That being said, whether Hillary should have been prosecuted wasn’t the central question of the election. The central question was whether she should have been elected President of the United States.

      1. Giuliani, if true, should shut his mouth. Still, while fair to bring up, it doesn’t detract from what Hillary did.

        Let her hang on her own decisions and choices. I wouldn’t waste a single ounce of intellectualism on her.

        1. Yeah, and I think Trump should let that sleeping dog lie.

          It becomes a real problem if Attorney General Giuliani goes after former Secretary Hillary Clinton for things he himself seems to have done.

          But prosecuting Hillary is probably out of the question at this point. I expect Obama to pardon her on his way out of office anyway. Remember that Obama wrote to Hillary on her illegal email server under a pseudonym–apparently because he knew her server was insecure and illegal–and those communications were classified.

          If what Hillary did was illegal, then what Obama did in sending that email was illegal, too. Obama may be defending Hillary to save his own ass. He’ll pardon Hillary just to squash the whole investigation.

          That’s another reason why Loretta Lynch was never going to prosecute. That’s why Obama will probably pardon Hillary.

          Hillary was never going to be prosecuted. It was never a possibility.

          1. Justice, huh.

    2. Trump is looking for security clearances for his children. He is surrounded by white supremacists. Nobody knows exactly how he’s going to separate his private business from his office. He’s also an incompetent buffoon.

      Hillary had a private email server. How fucking stupid are you people or what?

  22. A conviction under that law should require more than negligence, because it should not be possible to accidentally commit a crime.

    So involuntary manslaughter should no longer be a crime?

  23. If Hillary Clinton belongs in prison, so does Rudy Giuliani.

    The imprisonment of Clinton and Giuliani is definitely a cause I can get behind.

  24. “As far as he was concerned, she violated the letter of the law, so she should have been prosecuted. It did not matter whether she realized she was breaking the law. By that same reasoning, Giuliani should be prosecuted for providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. It does that matter that he did not view the MEK as a terrorist group; it’s enough that the State Department did. Nor does it matter that he did not intend to promote terrorism, since the law does not include any such mens rea requirement.

    My problem with Hillary had to do with her accepting money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. My complaint was always that if accepting that money was perfectly legal, then that was beside the point–that accepting money from foreign countries while Secretary of State is unacceptable regardless of whether it was legal.

    My complaint about Hillary was that if we voted her into office after we knew she undermined the rule of law by accepting money from foreign governments while Secretary of State and approving arm sales to countries that had made large donations to the Clinton Foundation–after we knew that Comey had granted immunity to her cronies and destroyed evidence that might be damning–that voting her into office would be effectively giving her a popuar mandate to undermine the rule of law.

  25. The standard for me wasn’t whether what Hillary did was technically legal, and I never believed she would go to jail. I believed that because she was a crook, we should vote against her and deny her office by way of the ballot box.

    Meanwhile, isn’t deciding who should be and who shouldn’t be on various terrorist watchlists the very responsibility of the FBI, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Department of Homeland Security?

    If advocating that some group should be taken off the terrorist watchlist is a crime, then it sounds like we’ve criminalized criticizing the decisions of public officials–even by people whose very jobs include the responsibility of deciding whom should and shouldn’t be on the list.

    Sounds like that law should be changed, sounds like enforcing that law against Giuliani would be unconstitutional.

    1. You sure you want to be in the position of defending a Trump administration this early?

      1. Tony’s so out of it, he doesn’t know I’m condemning the Trump administration if they appoint Giuliani to a position with control of the watch list.

        1. “we should vote against her and deny her office by way of the ballot box.”

          There was only one other option. And he’s 1,000 more corrupt, no matter what your friends on fart-joke rightwing radio have filled your tiny brain with.

          1. You have no idea what you or anyone else is talking about.

  26. “If Hillary Clinton Belongs in Prison, So Does Rudy Giuliani”

    Yeah, sure, lock ’em both up. Sounds good to me.

  27. it’s getting harder and harder to read Reason and a LITTLE easier to read National Review (Victor Davis Hansen particularly).

    But in the end it’s getting hard to take the Republicans as Democrat-lite and Reason becoming more Slate-lite.

  28. OK. On the one hand we have Giuliani, who very publicly campaigned to have a group taken off of a Terrorist Watchlist (which lists Reason has fairly consistently criticized for having scant basis in actual evidence). On the other we have a woman who appears to have willfully ignored security regulations so she could hide her pay-for-play correspondence … or who is so fundamentally clueless she should be locked up for her own protection. And who then committed surgery. Multiple times.

    I see a difference. Anyone else?

    1. Committed surgery? She’s talented.

    2. I make that distinction myself, more or less . . .

      The problem is that Giuliani accepted money from an organization on the terrorist watch list.

      Just as Hillary should not have been accepting money from foreign governments while in a position, as Secretary of State, to approve arms sales to those foreign countries, Giuliani shouldn’t be considered for a position whose responsibilities include determining who should and shouldn’t be on the terrorist watch list–after he’s taken money from an organization on the terrorist watch list.

      It isn’t about the criminality; it’s about impropriety.

      Judges recuse themselves for less.

      That’s a bad law and the courts got it wrong. Whether Giuliani should be prosecuted is a separate question.

      Whether Giuliani should be appointed to a position with control of the terrorist watch list is another matter. He disqualified himself when he accepted that money, and as a former prosecutor who put away mafia figures and inside traders, no one knows that better than Giuliani himself.

  29. Also;

    Shrillary deserves to be in prison because;

    1) She’s a Democrat. The Democrats are a criminal conspiracy to raise up a political aristocracy. For our on good, of course.

    2) She’s a Progressive. As such she is an accessory to the 100,000,000 murders committed by various Communist States in the 20th century, while the Progressives ran cover for them.

    3) She’s a Clinton.

    1. Behind every libertarian is an authoritarian who wants to eliminate his political opponents.

      1. I’m not a Libertarian. I’m a Crank.

      2. I love that the satire OF you is completely lost ON you.

  30. Sorry, I can’t get past MEK meaning Methyl Ethyl Ketone

    1. +1 Dye job.

  31. C:

    There were drones over Afghanistand and Guiliani is going to jail.

    That is all.

  32. A conviction under that law should require more than negligence, because it should not be possible to accidentally commit a crime.

    Drunk drivers involved in fatal crashes everywhere should only be charged criminally with the DUI? Or wait, even better, since drinking alcohol removes consent when it comes to sex, shouldn’t it also remove consent to driving? After all, they didn’t mean to drive drunk when they were sober and their drunkenness removed their capacity to consent. So they shouldn’t be charged with anything.

    1. The mens rea is in intentionally and willfully disregarding other people’s safety by getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.

      I suspect you’d have a hard time trying to convince a jury that a defendant was so drunk, he didn’t know he was getting behind the wheel of a car, but he was sober enough to find his keys, put it in the ignition, start the car, put it into gear, and make it out of the parking lot.

    2. The mens rea is in intentionally and willfully disregarding other people’s safety by getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.

      I suspect you’d have a hard time trying to convince a jury that a defendant was so drunk, he didn’t know he was getting behind the wheel of a car, but he was sober enough to find his keys, put it in the ignition, start the car, put it into gear, and make it out of the parking lot.

  33. I can’t find any fault in the argument here, but it’s obviously wrong and bad.

  34. “A conviction under that law should require more than negligence, because it should not be possible to accidentally commit a crime. ”
    Then why is vehicular homicide a crime? She gave a legally binding oath to do something and didn’t do it, and this was her fault. The same is true of corporate executives who negligently poison people, they get charged with criminal negligence.

    What Hillary did should be criminal, what Guiliani did (at least what’s referenced in this article) should not be. If you sign something saying you’ll take care you are legally obliged to take care, she did not.

    1. “A conviction under that law should require more than negligence, because it should not be possible to accidentally commit a crime.”

      Sullum is saying that if it’s purely accidental, then vehicular homicide shouldn’t be a crime.

      I can get behind that, and, in practice, I suspect that even in negligence cases, you probably need to persuade a criminal jury–beyond a reasonable doubt–that the defendant willfully disregarded someone’s safety.

      Even if he didn’t willfully run over the pedestrian, if he knew his brakes were faulty, and he willfully took off for the movies in it anyway, the crime may be because he ran over a pedestrian unintentionally, but real crime was in willfully disregarding other people’s safety when he willfully chose to drive with bad brakes.

      P.S. You could read Sullum’s whole piece as an indictment against the law that Giuliani broke.

  35. Oh, for the love of all the gods–

    Sullum is saying “WAAAAAHHH!!!!!!

  36. Giuliani should go to prison for whatever will put him there.

  37. RE: If Hillary Clinton Belongs in Prison, So Does Rudy Giuliani
    The would-be secretary of state brags about providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization.

    Spare me.
    How often do you seen an Ivy League scumbag going to prison?
    They rarely, if ever, do.
    They’re all part of the ruling elitist class that employs the ol’ boy networks who protect each other with missionary zeal.
    The more ruling elitist filth take turns changing offices, the more the status quo stays the same.

  38. It’s hard for me to get excited about a violation of a regulation enacted by a group of politicians–a federal technicality. More important is to point out what harm was done by Giuliani’s actions, if any.
    Giuliani was exposed as a blowhard bully and war-monger, and defeated soundly by the rEVOLution for opposing The Golden Rule and Dr. Paul. We should probably select someone who will be respected, instead of disrespected, for his past actions, especially since Ron Paul’s campaign was well-known in other countries and I’m sure they remember the incident. He’s not qualified: that’s a reason not to select him.

  39. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  40. While in general, I would agree that “it should not be possible to accidentally commit a crime,” I think it’s a bit different in the case of mishandling classified materials. In that particular case, one “opts in,” so to speak, obtaining a clearance which is helpful to their chosen career in exchange for making a promise to keep classified material safe. If you are prosecuted for grossly negligent handling of that material, it’s more a prosecution for breaking that promise than for the negligence itself.

  41. You can make a libertarian case against Giuliani’s career as a big-time prosecutor or a mayor of New York (though if something like the mayor of New York has to exist, he improved the lives of his charges far better than most), and you can certainly make a libertarian case against the overreach of this and many anti-terrorist laws, but it is surely the height of perversity to largely bypass these criticisms to mount the defense of a woman who, not ignorantly but very knowingly and deliberately, endangered her country’s secrets merely to avoid FOIA requests and to facilitate the obstruction of justice she knew she would have to engage in to protect her ongoing influence-peddling. The woman’s a whore, and there’s an end on’t.

  42. Happy New Year 2017
    New Year Wishes for Fiance 2017, we have collected some of amazing sayings, images, greetings, sms and wishes. You can wish your loved ones by sending love quotations and greetings. If you want to see your partner happy than it’s your responsibility make him/her happy by making her/his single moment
    http://hnewyear.com/

  43. And they wonder why people don’t take you seriously.

  44. “I am not saying Giuliani should go to prison…”

    OK… I’ll say it.

  45. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  46. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>> http://www.centerpay70.com

  47. Mother’s day is a special occasion to honour mothers and influential mother-like figures.
    Mothers Day messages from daughter
    Happy Mothers Day pictures free

  48. Great post. Thanks for Posting. Its very impressive and interesting.
    memorial day thank you quotes syings
    happy memorial day sayings

  49. Thanks for the information about this Really nice Post.
    memorial day pictures images
    memorial day weekend 2017

  50. Ohio State Fair is just Ready to Began For More Details Visit: USA State Fair
    or Read this Blog Here: Ohio State Fair 2017

  51. I really really appreciate this article Thanks For Sharing People also like this
    UNO GAME RULES Awesome post

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.