Trump S Possession Of Intelligence Documents Raises National Security Fears

The affidavit used to secure a search warrant for Trump’s home released Friday reveals why the administration was so concerned: Among an initial batch of 184 classified documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago in January were secrets obtained from “ clandestine human sources,” information prohibited from sharing with foreign governments, and information obtained through monitoring of “foreign communications signals.” The discovery of 25 sets of highly classified materials was enough to prompt the Justice Department — after months of failed negotiations and subpoenaing Trump — to seek a search warrant, securing another 11 sets of documents that included more sensitive material. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) notified lawmakers over the weekend that it would begin work on a damage assessment to assess the fallout from what the Justice Department told Trump’s legal team in June that documents were not “handled appropriately manner or kept in a suitable location.” Former intelligence officials describe a painstaking process that will involve officials assessing whether classified documents were breached and by whom, in order to take steps to prevent further damage. “They will proceed from the worst-case assumption: that any/all classified material could have been exposed to a sophisticated adversary intelligence agency, and examine the documents from the perspective of what can be gleaned about what the US knows (or does not know) on a given issue,” James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence under the Obama administration, wrote in an email to The Hill. Clapper also said the intelligence community should look at the “chain of custody” of the documents, which would include assessing how they were handled since they were in the White House and by whom, as well as who had access to the documents and if they were photographed or copied. The federal government has strict rules governing classified information, and the Justice Department has prosecuted individuals for unauthorized disclosure of the nation’s secrets. A search warrant unsealed earlier this month suggests the search at Mar-a-Lago is connected to an investigation into possible violations of the Espionage Act, among other laws. In an interview, former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who served under Trump, recalled the instructions he received when he entered the administration about not releasing classified documents without proper certification and prohibiting the transfer of classified information outside of government buildings or receiving them. with you when you leave the service. “You don’t want to violate that requirement,” he said. “It can be dangerous if some of them aren’t handled the way they’re supposed to be.” “Everybody knows that going in. I’m sure the president was reminded of that by his legal team,” Coats said. Little is known about the documents themselves, but experts say the classification markings revealed on the unsealed documents suggest the information could pose a serious risk if it fell into the wrong hands. “That tells me that, under the legal definition of top secret, someone in a position of authority and knowledge classified this material because they believed that disclosure of such information could reasonably be expected to cause extremely serious harm to national security — that’s the definition in the Executive Order of Top Secret material,” said Steven Cash, an attorney at Day Pitney who specializes in national security and served in the CIA. A letter from Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to the chairs of the House Oversight and Reform Committee and the House Intelligence Committee says the agency that oversees the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies will begin a “classification review” of documents, including a ” assessment of the potential risk to national security that would arise from the disclosure of the relevant documents.” It is a remarkable effort made all the more extraordinary by the extraordinary circumstances. Such estimates usually follow the known leakage of information. But in this case, it is not clear who can access the documents. Mar-a-Lago may have an exclusive membership list, but it’s hardly the no-go area the intelligence community seeks to block classified material with members of the public playing golf. According to a report by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette recently, a woman under FBI investigation after posing as a wealthy socialite was spotted at Mar-a-Lago taking a photo with Trump and Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS. C.) in the course. The Justice Department requested security footage from Mar-a-Lago in June. However, the video dates back only 60 days, according to a New York Times report, and it is unclear how extensive the footage is and whether it includes video from the room or rooms where the documents were stored. Experts warn that the intelligence community may not be able to conduct a full damage assessment, which usually requires producing a report detailing what information was leaked, steps to mitigate the damage and how to stop something like this from happening. to happen again. “The utility of conducting a damage assessment here is overstated for two reasons. One is that they are not going to have good clarity about who had access to the documents, which is critical to assessing the damage. And then, two, most evaluations look at “lessons learned”: How did this happen? And how can we prevent it from happening again? There is no good answer to this question here. You can’t just say we won’t share sensitive information with the president in the future if it’s someone like Trump. This is not sustainable in our system of government,” said Brian Greer, a former CIA lawyer. However, even if the ODNI undertakes a less formal review, it still has questions to answer, mainly in an effort to protect numerous sources of information – including whistleblowers – who are now likely to be at risk. “Separate from the official damage assessment, the IC [intelligence community] it will also consider short-term risk mitigation measures. Do they need to undertake some sort of immediate damage control effort? For example, if there was information in the documents that could identify a human source, should we cite the source? Do we need to defuse them? Or should we just give them a warning to stop meeting their handlers for a while? Should we go cover our tracks?’ Greer said. “And then the same thing with a tracking platform. Should we consider taking it down so that an adversary doesn’t discover it?’ he added. The intelligence community has had access to some of the documents stored at Trump’s home since May. But the recovery earlier this month adds another batch of documents to the 184 already shared by the Justice Department. Energy & Environment — Court Rules Two Trump-Era Gulf Oil Leases Illegal Balance/Sustainability — An Eco-Friendly Dishwashing Solution Greer warns, however, that the damage has already been done. “They will err on the side of caution. In the absence of specific information about who had access to the documents, they will have no choice but to assume a compromise and take precautionary measures to protect our sources and collection capabilities,” he said. “This step in itself will harm national security,” he added.

title: “Trump S Possession Of Intelligence Documents Raises National Security Fears Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-06” author: “Mary Ray”

The affidavit used to secure a search warrant for Trump’s home released Friday reveals why the administration was so concerned: Among an initial batch of 184 classified documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago in January were secrets obtained from “ clandestine human sources,” information prohibited from sharing with foreign governments, and information obtained through monitoring of “foreign communications signals.” The discovery of 25 sets of highly classified materials was enough to prompt the Justice Department — after months of failed negotiations and subpoenaing Trump — to seek a search warrant, securing another 11 sets of documents that included more sensitive material. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) notified lawmakers over the weekend that it would begin work on a damage assessment to assess the fallout from what the Justice Department told Trump’s legal team in June that documents were not “handled appropriately manner or kept in a suitable location.” Former intelligence officials describe a painstaking process that will involve officials assessing whether classified documents were breached and by whom, in order to take steps to prevent further damage. “They will proceed from the worst-case assumption: that any/all classified material could have been exposed to a sophisticated adversary intelligence agency, and examine the documents from the perspective of what can be gleaned about what the US knows (or does not know) on a given issue,” James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence under the Obama administration, wrote in an email to The Hill. Clapper also said the intelligence community should look at the “chain of custody” of the documents, which would include assessing how they were handled since they were in the White House and by whom, as well as who had access to the documents and if they were photographed or copied. The federal government has strict rules governing classified information, and the Justice Department has prosecuted individuals for unauthorized disclosure of the nation’s secrets. A search warrant unsealed earlier this month suggests the search at Mar-a-Lago is connected to an investigation into possible violations of the Espionage Act, among other laws. In an interview, former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who served under Trump, recalled the instructions he received when he entered the administration about not releasing classified documents without proper certification and prohibiting the transfer of classified information outside of government buildings or receiving them. with you when you leave the service. “You don’t want to violate that requirement,” he said. “It can be dangerous if some of them aren’t handled the way they’re supposed to be.” “Everybody knows that going in. I’m sure the president was reminded of that by his legal team,” Coats said. Little is known about the documents themselves, but experts say the classification markings revealed on the unsealed documents suggest the information could pose a serious risk if it fell into the wrong hands. “That tells me that, under the legal definition of top secret, someone in a position of authority and knowledge classified this material because they believed that disclosure of such information could reasonably be expected to cause extremely serious harm to national security — that’s the definition in the Executive Order of Top Secret material,” said Steven Cash, an attorney at Day Pitney who specializes in national security and served in the CIA. A letter from Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to the chairs of the House Oversight and Reform Committee and the House Intelligence Committee says the agency that oversees the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies will begin a “classification review” of documents, including a ” assessment of the potential risk to national security that would arise from the disclosure of the relevant documents.” It is a remarkable effort made all the more extraordinary by the extraordinary circumstances. Such estimates usually follow the known leakage of information. But in this case, it is not clear who can access the documents. Mar-a-Lago may have an exclusive membership list, but it’s hardly the no-go area the intelligence community seeks to block classified material with members of the public playing golf. According to a report by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette recently, a woman under FBI investigation after posing as a wealthy socialite was spotted at Mar-a-Lago taking a photo with Trump and Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS. C.) in the course. The Justice Department requested security footage from Mar-a-Lago in June. However, the video dates back only 60 days, according to a New York Times report, and it is unclear how extensive the footage is and whether it includes video from the room or rooms where the documents were stored. Experts warn that the intelligence community may not be able to conduct a full damage assessment, which usually requires producing a report detailing what information was leaked, steps to mitigate the damage and how to stop something like this from happening. to happen again. “The utility of conducting a damage assessment here is overstated for two reasons. One is that they are not going to have good clarity about who had access to the documents, which is critical to assessing the damage. And then, two, most evaluations look at “lessons learned”: How did this happen? And how can we prevent it from happening again? There is no good answer to this question here. You can’t just say we won’t share sensitive information with the president in the future if it’s someone like Trump. This is not sustainable in our system of government,” said Brian Greer, a former CIA lawyer. However, even if the ODNI undertakes a less formal review, it still has questions to answer, mainly in an effort to protect numerous sources of information – including whistleblowers – who are now likely to be at risk. “Separate from the official damage assessment, the IC [intelligence community] it will also consider short-term risk mitigation measures. Do they need to undertake some sort of immediate damage control effort? For example, if there was information in the documents that could identify a human source, should we cite the source? Do we need to defuse them? Or should we just give them a warning to stop meeting their handlers for a while? Should we go cover our tracks?’ Greer said. “And then the same thing with a tracking platform. Should we consider taking it down so that an adversary doesn’t discover it?’ he added. The intelligence community has had access to some of the documents stored at Trump’s home since May. But the recovery earlier this month adds another batch of documents to the 184 already shared by the Justice Department. Energy & Environment — Court Rules Two Trump-Era Gulf Oil Leases Illegal Balance/Sustainability — An Eco-Friendly Dishwashing Solution Greer warns, however, that the damage has already been done. “They will err on the side of caution. In the absence of specific information about who had access to the documents, they will have no choice but to assume a compromise and take precautionary measures to protect our sources and collection capabilities,” he said. “This step in itself will harm national security,” he added.

title: “Trump S Possession Of Intelligence Documents Raises National Security Fears Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-04” author: “Mackenzie Reynoso”

The affidavit used to secure a search warrant for Trump’s home released Friday reveals why the administration was so concerned: Among an initial batch of 184 classified documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago in January were secrets obtained from “ clandestine human sources,” information prohibited from sharing with foreign governments, and information obtained through monitoring of “foreign communications signals.” The discovery of 25 sets of highly classified materials was enough to prompt the Justice Department — after months of failed negotiations and subpoenaing Trump — to seek a search warrant, securing another 11 sets of documents that included more sensitive material. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) notified lawmakers over the weekend that it would begin work on a damage assessment to assess the fallout from what the Justice Department told Trump’s legal team in June that documents were not “handled appropriately manner or kept in a suitable location.” Former intelligence officials describe a painstaking process that will involve officials assessing whether classified documents were breached and by whom, in order to take steps to prevent further damage. “They will proceed from the worst-case assumption: that any/all classified material could have been exposed to a sophisticated adversary intelligence agency, and examine the documents from the perspective of what can be gleaned about what the US knows (or does not know) on a given issue,” James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence under the Obama administration, wrote in an email to The Hill. Clapper also said the intelligence community should look at the “chain of custody” of the documents, which would include assessing how they were handled since they were in the White House and by whom, as well as who had access to the documents and if they were photographed or copied. The federal government has strict rules governing classified information, and the Justice Department has prosecuted individuals for unauthorized disclosure of the nation’s secrets. A search warrant unsealed earlier this month suggests the search at Mar-a-Lago is connected to an investigation into possible violations of the Espionage Act, among other laws. In an interview, former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who served under Trump, recalled the instructions he received when he entered the administration about not releasing classified documents without proper certification and prohibiting the transfer of classified information outside of government buildings or receiving them. with you when you leave the service. “You don’t want to violate that requirement,” he said. “It can be dangerous if some of them aren’t handled the way they’re supposed to be.” “Everybody knows that going in. I’m sure the president was reminded of that by his legal team,” Coats said. Little is known about the documents themselves, but experts say the classification markings revealed on the unsealed documents suggest the information could pose a serious risk if it fell into the wrong hands. “That tells me that, under the legal definition of top secret, someone in a position of authority and knowledge classified this material because they believed that disclosure of such information could reasonably be expected to cause extremely serious harm to national security — that’s the definition in the Executive Order of Top Secret material,” said Steven Cash, an attorney at Day Pitney who specializes in national security and served in the CIA. A letter from Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to the chairs of the House Oversight and Reform Committee and the House Intelligence Committee says the agency that oversees the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies will begin a “classification review” of documents, including a ” assessment of the potential risk to national security that would arise from the disclosure of the relevant documents.” It is a remarkable effort made all the more extraordinary by the extraordinary circumstances. Such estimates usually follow the known leakage of information. But in this case, it is not clear who can access the documents. Mar-a-Lago may have an exclusive membership list, but it’s hardly the no-go area the intelligence community seeks to block classified material with members of the public playing golf. According to a report by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette recently, a woman under FBI investigation after posing as a wealthy socialite was spotted at Mar-a-Lago taking a photo with Trump and Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS. C.) in the course. The Justice Department requested security footage from Mar-a-Lago in June. However, the video dates back only 60 days, according to a New York Times report, and it is unclear how extensive the footage is and whether it includes video from the room or rooms where the documents were stored. Experts warn that the intelligence community may not be able to conduct a full damage assessment, which usually requires producing a report detailing what information was leaked, steps to mitigate the damage and how to stop something like this from happening. to happen again. “The utility of conducting a damage assessment here is overstated for two reasons. One is that they are not going to have good clarity about who had access to the documents, which is critical to assessing the damage. And then, two, most evaluations look at “lessons learned”: How did this happen? And how can we prevent it from happening again? There is no good answer to this question here. You can’t just say we won’t share sensitive information with the president in the future if it’s someone like Trump. This is not sustainable in our system of government,” said Brian Greer, a former CIA lawyer. However, even if the ODNI undertakes a less formal review, it still has questions to answer, mainly in an effort to protect numerous sources of information – including whistleblowers – who are now likely to be at risk. “Separate from the official damage assessment, the IC [intelligence community] it will also consider short-term risk mitigation measures. Do they need to undertake some sort of immediate damage control effort? For example, if there was information in the documents that could identify a human source, should we cite the source? Do we need to defuse them? Or should we just give them a warning to stop meeting their handlers for a while? Should we go cover our tracks?’ Greer said. “And then the same thing with a tracking platform. Should we consider taking it down so that an adversary doesn’t discover it?’ he added. The intelligence community has had access to some of the documents stored at Trump’s home since May. But the recovery earlier this month adds another batch of documents to the 184 already shared by the Justice Department. Energy & Environment — Court Rules Two Trump-Era Gulf Oil Leases Illegal Balance/Sustainability — An Eco-Friendly Dishwashing Solution Greer warns, however, that the damage has already been done. “They will err on the side of caution. In the absence of specific information about who had access to the documents, they will have no choice but to assume a compromise and take precautionary measures to protect our sources and collection capabilities,” he said. “This step in itself will harm national security,” he added.

title: “Trump S Possession Of Intelligence Documents Raises National Security Fears Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-08” author: “Scott Lindsey”

The affidavit used to secure a search warrant for Trump’s home released Friday reveals why the administration was so concerned: Among an initial batch of 184 classified documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago in January were secrets obtained from “ clandestine human sources,” information prohibited from sharing with foreign governments, and information obtained through monitoring of “foreign communications signals.” The discovery of 25 sets of highly classified materials was enough to prompt the Justice Department — after months of failed negotiations and subpoenaing Trump — to seek a search warrant, securing another 11 sets of documents that included more sensitive material. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) notified lawmakers over the weekend that it would begin work on a damage assessment to assess the fallout from what the Justice Department told Trump’s legal team in June that documents were not “handled appropriately manner or kept in a suitable location.” Former intelligence officials describe a painstaking process that will involve officials assessing whether classified documents were breached and by whom, in order to take steps to prevent further damage. “They will proceed from the worst-case assumption: that any/all classified material could have been exposed to a sophisticated adversary intelligence agency, and examine the documents from the perspective of what can be gleaned about what the US knows (or does not know) on a given issue,” James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence under the Obama administration, wrote in an email to The Hill. Clapper also said the intelligence community should look at the “chain of custody” of the documents, which would include assessing how they were handled since they were in the White House and by whom, as well as who had access to the documents and if they were photographed or copied. The federal government has strict rules governing classified information, and the Justice Department has prosecuted individuals for unauthorized disclosure of the nation’s secrets. A search warrant unsealed earlier this month suggests the search at Mar-a-Lago is connected to an investigation into possible violations of the Espionage Act, among other laws. In an interview, former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who served under Trump, recalled the instructions he received when he entered the administration about not releasing classified documents without proper certification and prohibiting the transfer of classified information outside of government buildings or receiving them. with you when you leave the service. “You don’t want to violate that requirement,” he said. “It can be dangerous if some of them aren’t handled the way they’re supposed to be.” “Everybody knows that going in. I’m sure the president was reminded of that by his legal team,” Coats said. Little is known about the documents themselves, but experts say the classification markings revealed on the unsealed documents suggest the information could pose a serious risk if it fell into the wrong hands. “That tells me that, under the legal definition of top secret, someone in a position of authority and knowledge classified this material because they believed that disclosure of such information could reasonably be expected to cause extremely serious harm to national security — that’s the definition in the Executive Order of Top Secret material,” said Steven Cash, an attorney at Day Pitney who specializes in national security and served in the CIA. A letter from Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to the chairs of the House Oversight and Reform Committee and the House Intelligence Committee says the agency that oversees the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies will begin a “classification review” of documents, including a ” assessment of the potential risk to national security that would arise from the disclosure of the relevant documents.” It is a remarkable effort made all the more extraordinary by the extraordinary circumstances. Such estimates usually follow the known leakage of information. But in this case, it is not clear who can access the documents. Mar-a-Lago may have an exclusive membership list, but it’s hardly the no-go area the intelligence community seeks to block classified material with members of the public playing golf. According to a report by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette recently, a woman under FBI investigation after posing as a wealthy socialite was spotted at Mar-a-Lago taking a photo with Trump and Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS. C.) in the course. The Justice Department requested security footage from Mar-a-Lago in June. However, the video dates back only 60 days, according to a New York Times report, and it is unclear how extensive the footage is and whether it includes video from the room or rooms where the documents were stored. Experts warn that the intelligence community may not be able to conduct a full damage assessment, which usually requires producing a report detailing what information was leaked, steps to mitigate the damage and how to stop something like this from happening. to happen again. “The utility of conducting a damage assessment here is overstated for two reasons. One is that they are not going to have good clarity about who had access to the documents, which is critical to assessing the damage. And then, two, most evaluations look at “lessons learned”: How did this happen? And how can we prevent it from happening again? There is no good answer to this question here. You can’t just say we won’t share sensitive information with the president in the future if it’s someone like Trump. This is not sustainable in our system of government,” said Brian Greer, a former CIA lawyer. However, even if the ODNI undertakes a less formal review, it still has questions to answer, mainly in an effort to protect numerous sources of information – including whistleblowers – who are now likely to be at risk. “Separate from the official damage assessment, the IC [intelligence community] it will also consider short-term risk mitigation measures. Do they need to undertake some sort of immediate damage control effort? For example, if there was information in the documents that could identify a human source, should we cite the source? Do we need to defuse them? Or should we just give them a warning to stop meeting their handlers for a while? Should we go cover our tracks?’ Greer said. “And then the same thing with a tracking platform. Should we consider taking it down so that an adversary doesn’t discover it?’ he added. The intelligence community has had access to some of the documents stored at Trump’s home since May. But the recovery earlier this month adds another batch of documents to the 184 already shared by the Justice Department. Energy & Environment — Court Rules Two Trump-Era Gulf Oil Leases Illegal Balance/Sustainability — An Eco-Friendly Dishwashing Solution Greer warns, however, that the damage has already been done. “They will err on the side of caution. In the absence of specific information about who had access to the documents, they will have no choice but to assume a compromise and take precautionary measures to protect our sources and collection capabilities,” he said. “This step in itself will harm national security,” he added.