> To date, no federal law enforcement officials have contacted the young group member.
If this is real, it’s insane that WaPo beat the DoJ to get to these people.
Also, how stupid are these kids to publicly talk to reporters about their involvement and receiving state secrets (the kid requested his voice not be masked!!). People have been imprisoned for receiving classified information and this is one heck of a clown show the DoJ will want to appear completely on top of.
For real, guys: don’t talk to police or reporters or anyone when you’re involved in a mess (even one much smaller than this). Get a lawyer and learn how to say “no comment!”
I guarantee these people are are under surveillance. The FBI likely knows a lot more than WaPo reports. Part of the process is to make sure you get everyone and get your arms around the entire leak.
I'm just impressed at the lack of control the DoD has over such sensitive information. It's incredible that this went on for so long. It does not leave me with a lot of confidence that they are competent enough to protect Americas secrets.
Law enforcement/IC always moves slower in these sorts of things than journalism.
Often because the FBI/spies prefer reading their emails and catching them surreptitiously before making overt plays, since they already know the latter will remain a sure thing if they wanted. At least until they get forced to play their hands by journos and public pressure. Or maybe they did already and the friends are privy to it.
Or just as likely we over value the competence of government workers.
USA has laws such as the cloud act or patriot act for that, so I would expect them to be able to get the data or to become very upset and make sure that they will never lack data from discord anymore.
The non-military citizens in the group are not breaking any law by possessing, discussing, or even distributing the classified material, as long as they didn't commit a crime to obtain it. It's protected speech, just like when WaPo published the Pentagon papers. However, despite no criminal liability, they could possibly be sued by the government.
On the other hand, the leaker, or anyone with a clearance, cannot legally possess or distribute the documents.
My understanding is that the Espionage Act literally continues not to allow other parties to possess or distribute classified documents, even if they weren't involved in the original leak. However, some observers have doubted that courts would agree that the strictest reading comports with the first amendment, if they actually had to decide the question.
I've also heard that, in recent decades, Federal prosecutors have not brought Espionage Act charges directly against those they agreed were acting as journalists, although they have been willing to try to force them to reveal the identity of their sources. (There are also court decisions limiting "prior restraint" of publication of classified material, e.g. via a court injunction, but that doesn't necessarily equate to prohibiting people from being punished for doing so after the fact.)
>My understanding is that the Espionage Act literally continues not to allow other parties to possess or distribute classified documents, even if they weren't involved in the original leak. However, some observers have doubted that courts would agree that the strictest reading comports with the first amendment, if they actually had to decide the question.
My impression is that it's very much a "leak one document, you have a problem, leak a million documents, the feds have a problem" situation wherein they'll happily prosecute people when the situation is mundane enough it won't draw serious scrutiny but when something is a media spectacle they don't tend to go hard except against the initial leaker.
That’s not correct. If you say find a cache of classified documents on the street or on some open FTP site and you sell it to China or leak it to the public you’ll be charged under the espionage act.
In general distribution of classified materials even those which have already been leaked is technically an offense.
The question is how likely you are to be prosecuted and in general found guilty.
So sharing a photo of a leaked document that was already been made public especially in the press on Twitter is probably ok form a legal perspective (unless you hold or plan to hold security clearance or a federal government job) but being in on it from the get go would likely land you a charge as a co conspirator under the espionage act.
Bullshit. You're just making things up. The actions you describe are generally not illegal. This is settled law at least since New York Times Co. v. United States.
>> It's protected speech, just like when WaPo published the Pentagon papers
Also not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Pentagon Papers case was about "prior restraint", meaning the government tried to prevent the Washington Post from publishing the information. They still could have been charged under existing laws on distributing classified information after publishing, the government considered that but did not charge them. And prior restraint is not always prohibited, the courts just decided that in the Pentagon Papers case, it was not appropriate.
Anyone involved in the leak in any way should only be talking to their lawyer right now.
Per the article he is also charged re: the espionage act.
In May 2019 and June 2020, the United States government unsealed new indictments against Assange, charging him with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and alleging a history of conspiring with hackers.
By admitting that they knew these documents were classified and did nothing they have now broken the law. If they shut up, they can plead ignorance “oh I figured it was role play, why would I trust stuff on the internet, etc”.
It is never in your interest to talk to anyone in cases like these. Get a Lawyer on retainer and wait.
The case which ruled they couldn't use the law to bar publication of classified documents? I'm not sure if that's relevant when charging an individual. The government certainly doesn't think so, hence the ongoing indictment against Assange.
Your link is the DoJ summary of the indictment, if you read the attached actual indictment they reference title 18 section 793 for count 1 then 3-18. Reading the indictment is how I found the relevant law.
Read it again. The core of the indictment is for conspiracy and incitement. If Assange had merely received unsolicited classified information and published it then he wouldn't have been indicted.
It repeatedly says that Assange "knowingly and unlawfully received documents" in charges 5-8. Something it could be argued these people did too.
And trying to argue "the law itself can be used to charge people, but not the subsections that clearly apply in this case despite the lack of case law striking them down" is silly. Those laws are on the books, and being used in an indictment. They definitely could be charged, though probably won't be.
Assuming that most of what was in the article is true, then I guarantee that the government now knows exactly who the leaker is and has no need to contact the person who was the source for this article. Message logs, ip addresses, user account info, and whatever else needed to identify this person all exists on Discord's servers, and I doubt law enforcement will have any trouble getting access to it (assuming they didn't already have it through other channels).
If the only contact the kid had with the leaker was through Discord, the FBI already knows literally everything the kid knows. If the leaker is on the run, perhaps they’re hoping the kid might keep talking to the leaker and lead them to him. He told the reporter already that he won’t cooperate with the FBI to catch the leaker.
Not saying it's the case here but for these kind of investigations it's a classic technique of law enforcement to play dumb. These people might very well be monitored 24/7 to collect further evidence while they think they're safe
What I don‘t get about the not talking to the police stuff is that it destroys all your plausible deniability. I get that if everyone would do it it would probably be great but realistically I don‘t see it being the optimal strategy in all cases
Plausible deniability ~= source of reasonable doubt in a jury case, which criminal cases fundamentally are.
The bar to convict is "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's not as far a stretch of a colloquialidm as you think, though I'd second your caution around ever relying upon it as a legal strategy, as you have no guarantees that your jury will see plausible the same you do.
> To date, no federal law enforcement officials have contacted the young group member.
If this is real, it’s insane that WaPo beat the DoJ to get to these people.
Also, how stupid are these kids to publicly talk to reporters about their involvement and receiving state secrets (the kid requested his voice not be masked!!). People have been imprisoned for receiving classified information and this is one heck of a clown show the DoJ will want to appear completely on top of.
For real, guys: don’t talk to police or reporters or anyone when you’re involved in a mess (even one much smaller than this). Get a lawyer and learn how to say “no comment!”