FLASHBACK 2017: Congressional Research Service- Criminal Prohibitions on Leaks and Other Disclosures of Classified Defense Information →

-PDF

🔷’U.S.C. Section 641 punishes the theft or conversion of government property or records for one’s own use or the use of another. Violators may be fined, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, unless the value of the property does not exceed the sum of $100, in which case the maximum prison term is one year. The statute also covers knowing receipt or retention of stolen or converted property with the intent to convert it to the recipient’s own use.’
🔷‘Section 793(f) of the Espionage Act is unique in that it punishes the loss or removal of national defense information resulting from “gross negligence.” This standard has been described in other contexts as “the failure to exercise even a slight degree of care.”’
🔷’The Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 50 U.S.C. Section 3121, provides for the protection of information concerning the identity of covert intelligence agents. It generally covers persons authorized to know the identity of such agents or who learn the identity of covert agents as a result of their general access to classified information, but can also apply to a person who learns of the identity of a covert agent through a “pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents” and discloses the identity to any individual not authorized to access classified information with reason to believe that such disclosures would impair U.S. foreign intelligence efforts… To be convicted, a violator must have knowledge that the information identifies a covert agent whose identity the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal.’
🔷’18 U.S.C. Section 1924 prohibits the unauthorized removal of classified material by government employees, contractors, and consultants who come into possession of the material by virtue of their employment by the government. The provision imposes a fine of up to $1,000 and a prison term of up to one year for offenders who knowingly remove material classified pursuant to government regulations concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States, with the intent of retaining the materials at an unauthorized location.’
🔷’50 U.S.C. Section 783 penalizes government officers or employees who, without proper authority, communicate classified information to a person who the employee has reason to suspect is an agent or representative of a foreign government.’
🔷’The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. Section 2274, prohibits disclosure of information relating to nuclear energy and weapons. The act creates criminal penalties for anyone who “communicates, transmits, or discloses” documents or information “involving or incorporating Restricted Data” with the “intent to injure the United States” or advantage a foreign nation, or who has “reason to believe such data” would have that effect.’
🔷’U.S.C. Section 952 punishes employees of the United States who, without authorization, willfully publish or furnish to another any official diplomatic code or material prepared in such a code by imposing a fine, a prison sentence (up to 10 years), or both… The removal of classified material concerning foreign relations with the intent to store it at an unauthorized location is a misdemeanor under 18 U.S.C. Section 1924, which also applies only to U.S. government employees.’

FLASHBACK 2008: Congressional Research Service- Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege- History, Law, Practice and Recent Developments →

-PDF

🔷‘In Nixon v. Sirica, the first of the Watergate cases, a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit rejected President Nixon’s claim that he was absolutely immune from all compulsory process whenever he asserted a formal claim of executive privilege, holding that while presidential conversations are “presumptively privileged,” the presumption could be overcome by an appropriate showing of public need by the branch seeking access to the conversations. In Sirica, “a uniquely powerful,” albeit undefined, showing was deemed to have been made by the Special Prosecutor that the tapes subpoenaed by the grand jury contained evidence necessary to carrying out the vital function of determining whether probable cause existed that those indicted had committed crimes.’
🔷On the other hand, the court explained, the presidential communications privilege is rooted in “constitutional separation of powers principles and the President’s unique constitutional role” and applies only to “direct decisionmaking by the President.” The privilege may be overcome only by a substantial showing that “the subpoenaed materials likely contain important evidence” and that “the evidence is not available with due diligence elsewhere.” The presidential privilege applies to all documents in their entirety and covers final and post-decisional materials as well as pre-deliberative ones. Turning to the chain of command issue, the court held that the presidential communications privilege must cover communications made or received by presidential advisers in the course of preparing advice for the President even if those communications are not made directly to the President. The court rested its conclusion on “the President’s dependence on presidential advisers and the inability of the deliberative process privilege to provide advisers with adequate freedom from the public spotlight” and “the need to provide sufficient elbow room for advisers to obtain information from all knowledgeable sources.” Thus the privilege will “apply both to communications which these advisers solicited and received from others as well as those they authored themselves. The privilege must also extend to communications authored or received in response to a solicitation by members of a presidential adviser’s staff.’

FLASHBACK 2015: Trump believes in God, but hasn’t sought forgiveness →

-CNN ‘Moderator Frank Luntz asked Trump whether he has ever asked God for forgiveness for his actions. “I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don’t think so,” he said. “I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t.”
Trump said that while he hasn’t asked God for forgiveness, he does participate in Holy Communion.
“When I drink my little wine – which is about the only wine I drink – and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed,” he said. “I think in terms of ‘let’s go on and let’s make it right.’”’