THREAD. Unpacking the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C., Chapter 36. We are concerned here with Section 793 — Gathering, Transmitting, or Losing Defense Information. Pardon me while I pour myself a drink
2. Section 793 (and 794, which I briefly note below) of the Espionage Act concern “information related to the national defense.” This is info which the person who has them has reason to believe could a) be used to the injury of the U.S. or b) to the advantage of a foreign gov
3. Importantly, there is no requirement that such information officially be classified. Still, I’m waiting for confirmation from some Navy folks who work on nuclear submarines to clarify whether nuclear info is always TS/SCI (which by definition means it needs to be in a SCIF)
3. In any case, it appears that nuclear secrets cannot be unilaterally declassified…which makes sense, bc you can imagine that we might not want to leave secrets that could involve blowing up the entire planet in the hands of one individual
5. (#3 above should have been #4) Let’s first turn to Section 793(e), which concerns individuals not authorized to possess the national defense info. I.e., Donald Trump. More detail on that from @petestrzok 👇🏽
6. But EVEN IF, somehow, Trump were to successfully argue that he *was* legally authorized to possess it, the Espionage Act has an identical subsection for that, too — 793(d)
7. Either way, it is a violation of the Espionage Act to willfully retain such information and fail to turn it over to an official who is lawfully entitled to receive it. Like NARA, when they asked nicely. Or the Counterintelligence and Export Control section of DOJ w subpoena
8. That is, it appears, what Trump has done…AT A MINIMUM. If he affirmatively conveyed it to a foreign government (no evidence of that, just explaining), it would be a violation of Section 794…which is super serious and can carry the death penalty (see, e.g. Rosenbergs)
9. Given the seriousness of all this, keep in mind that NARA and DOJ tried a) to obtain voluntary compliance and b) a subpoena. And yet, he hung on to these. Why??? A former POTUS would surely understand the disastrous potential of having these secrets unsecured
10. DOJ, for its part, has frankly shown a willingness to risk national security, at least temporarily, in order to show some deference and courtesy (and benefit if the doubt) to a former POTUS. I think it’s fair to say that if you or I tried this, we’d be arrested on Day 1
11. But the point here is it is NO WONDER that the FBI executed a warrant. The focus now should be not on the search, but why the 🤬 Trump hung on to these documents, and why his supporters think that is very legal and very cool /END
11. P.S. Navy nuclear sub officers: “Yes. TS/SCI and a codeword…[these are] Special Access Programs that are uber sensitive and you have to be read into and actively working to have access to.” So.
P.S. (got misthreaded) Navy nuclear sub officers: “Yes. TS/SCI and a codeword…[these are] Special Access Programs that are uber sensitive and you have to be read into and actively working to have access to.” So.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Asha Rangappa

Asha Rangappa Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AshaRangappa_

Aug 13
LINT. Welcome to being hoisted by your own petard of the unitary executive. This theory holds that ALL executive power emanates from the office of the president. It’s why, e.g, they claim that he can stop/start investigations at will (and it wouldn’t be obstruction) 1/
2. NARA and DOJ are executive branch agencies. They clearly believe that the docs in Trump’s possession were classified. Since they are extensions of the president’s will, they are reflecting his position. And since Biden is the ultimate OCA, his determination is binding on Trump
3. If Trump had actually taken the steps to officially declassify the docs, then Biden might have to go through official steps to rescind it. But if Trump merely “wished” the declassification into existence, then by this same power, Biden can “wish” it back. He apparently did.QED
Read 5 tweets
Aug 12
THREAD. Whatever POTUS’ “powers” might be to declassify docs, there are good policy and practical reasons for them to follow a process, and for that process to be documented and reflected on the document markings themselves
2. The first one is accountability, which is indispensable in a democracy. To declassify a doc is to make a judgment call about its danger to our nat sec, and the person making that call needs to explain that rationale – so that those whom it affects, including public, know why
3. Having a documented basis not only allows for objections from others if the reasoning is based on an incorrect premise (and will harm nat sec), it also allows people to see if there are specious or suspicious reasons why someone is taking these steps or overriding objections
Read 8 tweets
Aug 9
THREAD. Will Trump be charged with a crime, following the search at Mar-a-Lago? Ehhhh...if you look at it through a national security lens, maybe not. A quick explainer to manage expectations:
2. I learned something new from @petestrzok today: That typically, the government does not use subpoenas to recover classified info from those not authorized to receive it. I'll let him explain why, but it has implications for potential criminal charges moving forward
3. As I've mentioned repeatedly today, unauthorized possession or storage of classified documents are, by definition, a threat to national security. And the government must neutralize that threat. If a subpoena is not an option, then the government has a dilemma
Read 10 tweets
Aug 9
THREAD. Because the FBI search concerned classified docs, this is a national security investigation. That can help explain why DOJ was willing to move on this, and to do so regardless of what may be going on with the 1/6 investigation
2. First, assuming that this involves mishandling or unauthorized removal of classified information, their presence at Mar-a-Lago is ipso-facto evidence — in other words, the substance of the documents are not what the FBI is interested in; it’s whether they are there, period
3. Also, on this point, I have to wonder whether the FBI has a source in MAL, to confirm the presence and location of docs. Staff? Secret Service? I can’t imagine them taking a chance to search a former president’s home and coming up empty handed (😬)
Read 7 tweets
Aug 8
Given how early it seems in the DOJ’s investigation of the Eastman/fake elector scheme as it pertains to Trump, my guess is that this is about the WH removal of classified documents, which I suspect is a separate investigation and one that likely has been going on for a while
Remember that a search warrant has to demonstrate probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found in the places and things searched. If the crime is mishandling classified docs, the evidence are THE DOCS THEMSELVES (and them being at Mar-a-Lago) 2/
If it is about the conspiracy to obstruct, etc. I would think they'd be taking his devices (or searching his toilet) to get the substance of communications. That seems like a much more intrusive step and one that would likely come a bit later, but that's just my initial take /END
Read 4 tweets
Jul 19
@BradMossEsq @MuellerSheWrote @maddow I don’t think this is exactly true. Applied to the Russia investigation: The FBI counterintelligence division opened investigations into Trump associates who had contacts with Russian intelligence (“contact cases” — which is SOP). If the AG wanted to quash these 1/
@BradMossEsq @MuellerSheWrote @maddow S/he would have to take affirmative steps to *close* an investigation that was already opened otherwise had proper predication, and justify and sign his/her name to it. This creates *more* accountability (and a paper trail for potential obstruction) 2/
@BradMossEsq @MuellerSheWrote @maddow By making the required approval rest all the way with the AG, the opening itself could be quashed. This gives the AG *more* power (in cases where s/he is more likely to have a self interest) and *less* accountability. That was the whole point, wrt Barr 3/
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(