[mmcdermott]

That's a false dichotomy. The severity depends on what the individual attempted to remove. Nuclear secrets might be unacceptable to allow him to leave. Something more administrative might not be worth the jurisdiction hassle to prosecute but still get the individual flagged against re-entry.

[lovich]

Explain the false dichotomy.

If he stole documents I don’t want my government only flagging him for denial to reentry. If he stole documents from our nuclear labs I want him in cuffs.

How am I being inconsistent if your “false dichotomy” claim persists?

[mmcdermott]

I didn't say anything about Inconsistency, so I will set that to the side.

My entire point is that these things are seldom so black and white as put forward. The US administration has a self serving answer, but so do the French and this anonymous scientist. Which do you think is less professionally damaging for a European, being denied entrance due to views on American politics or being denied based on mishandling of classified material?

In an ideal world, I would prefer to see any mishandling of classification prosecuted, that seldom is how it works.

Without knowing a timeline, it isn't even clear which administration was running things under which events.

[lovich]

Nothing in your response outlined a possibility that was not in 1 of the 2 options given by my own government.

I don't give a fuck what the French or Europeans think. I am holding my own government accountable to what are ostensibly the values we share(freedom of speech and national security) and finding them lacking. It requires zero input from the French scientist in question for me to be upset with the situation

And no, I don't need a timeline to understand this because my problem with the government's own explanation does not have a time based component