Thomas Drake’s Public Domain Motion

There’s something else that has been going on as the case against Thomas Drake has gotten narrowed because the government withdrew some of its exhibits. Drake’s lawyers have been arguing that some of this information–and, I believe, some of the information that subsequently got withdrawn–has already been discussed by government officials.

I noted this filing the other day. It basically challenged the government’s claim that this information was “closely held” by pointing out that NSA itself, the Director of National Intelligence, Congress, DOJ, and “the White House” had already introduced the information the government accuses Drake of leaking into the public domain.

In his memorandum, Mr. Drake submitted evidence that information found in the documents in his home and considered classified by the National Security Agency is not “closely held.” Indeed, the evidence shows that the allegedly classified information has been officially released and discussed by numerous agencies and officials of the United States government, including NSA, the Director of National Intelligence, the United States Congress, the Department of Justice, and the White House. This “public domain” evidence was provided to the Court in response to the Court’s request during the Section 6(c) hearing. During the hearing, counsel represented that the defense will introduce evidence that some of the allegedly classified information found in the documents charged in the Indictment can be found in the public domain.

But there’s another key detail in this passage: it describes this information as “information found in the documents in his home and considered classified by the National Security Agency.”

While this is quite vague, I think it may suggest that the information in question consisted of the three documents from the box in Drake’s basement which he retained as part of his Inspector General complaint. I say that because the NSA no longer considers the emails he allegedly kept classified, and because the documents physically in Drake’s home were the ones in the box in his basement.

And that’s potentially significant because those appear to be the documents that Ellen Nakashima appears to confirm are the same ones the government has withdrawn in full or in part.

So if I’m right, it means the following happened:

June 2: Drake’s team warns it will introduce that entities including the DNI and the White House introduced the charged information into the public domain already

June 2: On the same day Drake’s team says it will show the information is already in the public domain, it also submits a sealed document with 8 exhibits

June 3: Judge Bennett rules that the government has to provide more explicit descriptions of the technology in question to allow Drake to defend himself

June 5: The Government announced it was withdrawing a series of documents, including (if I understand Nakashima correctly) two of the charged documents

June 7: Judge Bennett makes an additional ruling on admissibility of classified information

June 7: Drake’s team submits another sealed document

June 8: Government files response to June 2 sealed document with 8 exhibits

June 8: Drake’s team modifies the June 7 sealed document

Now, obviously, we can’t read anything into all this sealed discussion. Some of it may be a response to the government’s withdrawal of several documents. Some of it may relate to entirely unrelated pre-trial issues (mixed in here is also a sealed Drake subpoena).

But I wonder whether Drake didn’t submit exhibits proving his point–that the White House, DNI, and others had already discussed some of this information on June 2. And I’m wondering whether one of the government’s concerns, here, is that Drake will show the extent to which this discussion already happened.

Recall that the reason the AIPAC trial got dismissed–which in the way it used the Espionage Act resembles this one–was because the defendants were going to subpoena people like Condi Rice to show they were already leaking the charged information. The only hint Drake might have subpoenaed one of these people is the sealed subpoena. But by focusing attention on the public statements of top officials (I suspect these would have occurred in the context of the FISA Amendments Act debate), Drake would not only do serious damage to the government’s case, but also focus attention on precisely what the government claims is so secret.

Perhaps just as importantly, it would demonstrate the degree to which the government selectively prosecutes only some leakers.

In any case, if any of this is accurate (and it’s very speculative at this point), it may suggest that one reason the government wanted to withdraw these documents was because it would neutralize Drake’s public domain arguments.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

0 Responses to Thomas Drake’s Public Domain Motion

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Emptywheel Twitterverse
JimWhiteGNV RT @DCreDC: Please note, #MI03, @RepJustinAmash's brave (1 of 8) and humane No vote tonight against funding the 5%-effective #IronDome whil…
3hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @drunkenpredator: "Also, we blew some folks up with robots. Lotta folks, come to think of it."
4hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @Pedinska Indeed. Then it turns into what we call UFC grooming.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Just saw my first @RubenGallego commercial on TV, was at 6:51pm on @CNN Good to see, need more. Go Ruben!
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz It is really brave of High Holy Civil Rights Constitutional Law Scholar+Humanitarian Obama to "condemn" the Palestinians in face of genocide
4hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV This grooming session looks peaceful for now, but is likely to escalate to violence. http://t.co/gdcySOJOkN
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Apparently Director of "Intelligence" Clapper doesn't remember that just 5 years ago govt declassified more than 480 pages of torture docs.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @ChadPergram: DNI Clapper: The redactions were the result of an extensive & unprecedented interagency process..to protect sensitive clas…
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Casual_Obs Most of what @onekade is riffing on is in this post. http://t.co/HBWMUN6eR9 I was riffing too.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Casual_Obs No, I used that. It's the mid-point of estimates, but as @onekade notes, some estimates are 3X that.
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @jilliancyork You had me worried! @EFF
6hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Kittfornow Well, sure. But faking accountability while protecting the powerful comes naturally to Bayh. Like breathing. @onekade
6hreplyretweetfavorite
June 2011
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930