Study: Conspiracy theory believers tend to endorse other unsubstantiated beliefs as well

Jul 2019
Comey re-wrote the law? He must be the most powerful single person in all the US.
yeah there used to be a whole process for that

Comey had the power to change federal law willy-nilly and that's what he did with it?
Sep 2015
Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Comey re-wrote the law? He must be the most powerful single person in all the US.
Go look it up.....Section 793 of the federal penal code: “…Whomever being entrusted with, or having lawful possession of “ they didn’t say send or receive “…unlawful possession or control of any information relating to the national defense…” "says nothing about "intent"
Jul 2008
Virginia Beach, VA
Well if you look at the Mueller report it came up empty, unless you think that was a conspiracy as well.

About all they have on him is possible obstruction for something that apparently never happened,.

If that is the hill you want to die on, so be it.
It doesn’t matter if the underlying crime happened or not, obstruction is still against the law.
Dec 2015
How about this? How about we start talking about the 2020 election? Any conspiracy theories about that?
Is Daddy Vladdy going to help his little friend, Daddy Donny, or will he opt for the Democratic nominee--just for kicks?
I think it's only fair play...and PLAY is the perfect word. Why doesn't Putin's cat and mouse game with the USA bother those on the Right? We all know who the REAL winner was...don't we??

Here's what I think and just chime it. I think Putin is going to UP HIS GAME. I think this is more than a fight for the presidency. I think it's a fight for the entire country--both parties. I think the Russians are still working behind the scenes and have been all along and I"m not the only one who thinks this.

Example: Mark Warner statements--I think there ought to be an affirmative obligation that if a foreign government, the Kremlin, offers you campaign help, your obligation ought to be not to say thank you, but to report to the FBI. I think we ought to make sure that every polling station in America has a paper ballot backup so that if a machine was hacked, you've still got the ability to protect the integrity of the voting system. And I haven't met anyone that doesn't think we need some basic guard rails around the manipulation of Facebook, Twitter, and Google by foreign entities and others. So at least there ought to be the requirement that if somebody advertises on a political basis on Facebook, but in truth, it's a foreign government, they ought to have the same disclosure requirements as somebody who advertises on radio or television.

What does DTT say?
  • Like
Reactions: Lyzza
Nov 2005
Go look it up.....Section 793 of the federal penal code: “…Whomever being entrusted with, or having lawful possession of “ they didn’t say send or receive “…unlawful possession or control of any information relating to the national defense…” "says nothing about "intent"
You need to look beyond that into the SCOTUS history on the subject...

On July 5, FBI Director James Comey announced that he was not going to recommend the filing of criminal charges against Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server. Comey said there was insufficient evidence to show Clinton had malicious intent. Comey reasoned:

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States… We do not see those things here.

Many commentators have criticized Comey’s decision, arguing the statute Clinton was accused of violating, 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), requires only “gross negligence,” not intent. Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy has gone so far as to say that replacing the words “gross negligence” with “intent” rewrites that statute to serve political ends.

McCarthy and others are mistaken. The issue of mens rea, or intent, is not as simple as it seems on the surface, and intent is the correct standard. Comey was right not to recommend filing charges and to base his decision on the absence of evidence that Clinton had the necessary intent.

Section 793(f) makes it a felony for any person “entrusted with… information relating to the national defense” to allow that information to be “removed from its proper place of custody” through “gross negligence.” On its face, the law does not appear to require intent, but it turns out the key phrase in 793(f) is not “gross negligence.” The key phrase is “related to the national defense.”

Section 793(f) is a subsection of the Espionage Act, a controversial statute enacted during World War I in order to combat efforts by German agents to undermine the American war effort. The Act has been amended and renumbered many times, but its core provisions have not substantively changed. The Espionage Act has only sparingly been used to file criminal charges, but when it has been used it is often in high-profile cases. Eugene Debs was jailed under the Espionage Act for anti-war activities during World War I. The Rosenbergs were charged under the Espionage Act when they sold nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. More recently, both Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were charged under the Espionage Act for providing classified material to WikiLeaks.

The law has been controversial since its inception and prosecutions under the Act have been challenged as unconstitutional in several instances. The most famous of these cases is probably Schenck v. United States (1919), where the government charged two men with obstructing registration for the military draft by distributing leaflets urging young men not to register. The Supreme Court heard the case and unanimously upheld the convictions and the statute. It was in Schenck that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote that it is not protected speech to “yell fire in a crowded theater.”

But as time went by, feeling towards the Espionage Act began to sour. Later in 1919, the Supreme Court heard Abrams v. United States. That case involved the distribution of leaflets by anarchists who urged factory workers to refuse to participate in production of war materiel. In Abrams, the Court again upheld the convictions, but this time the decision was not unanimous. Holmes, who had written the majority opinion in Schenck, was one of the dissenters. Two years later, the Sedition Act, a 1918 amendment to the Espionage Act that imposed criminal sanctions for anti-war speech, was repealed by Congress in its entirety.

The Espionage Act was left on the books, however, in the years after the war it was used only sparingly. When it was used, it was often controversial because it resulted in prosecutions that civil libertarians believed infringed on press freedom and the right to political protest. Perhaps the most famous of these cases is the prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon papers The courts too grew wary of the Espionage Act and as a result their readings of it narrowed the scope of the law and limited when it could be used.

This helps provide context as to why James Comey insisted that intent was required to satisfy the requirement of 793(f). Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction.

In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States. In that case, the defendant was charged with selling information “relating to the national defense” to a foreign power. The defendant argued on appeal that the phrase “relating to the national defense” was unconstitutionally vague, so much so that the defendant was deprived of the ability to predetermine whether his actions were a crime.

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:

The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.

In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).​
Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, is the Standard in Clinton Case
  • Like
Reactions: Lyzza
Dec 2016
Study: Conspiracy theory believers tend to endorse other unsubstantiated beliefs as well

Trump taps into this. It amazes me how Trump can toss out a claim he provides no substantiation to, but he is in a position to provide such evidence if it actually existed.
Yes, the proof is believers in the WMD in Iraq conspiracy theory started a major war that got one million Iraqis killed, over two thousand American soldiers and cost trillions of dollars, and many of the same Neocon players went into hding for a little while and resurfaced with Russiagate.....which at present levels of hysteria will have nukes launched at any time! Damn conspiracy theorists!