News

(WASHINGTON) — At the center of Donald Trump’s historic federal indictment is the Espionage Act, under which prosecutors have charged the former president with illegally keeping government information after leaving the White House and then refusing to give it back.

Trump pleaded not guilty during an appearance in court on Tuesday in Miami.

On social media, he called his indictment a “DARK DAY” for the country and insisted in a speech on Tuesday that he “did everything right” and “I had every right to have these documents,” an argument which has been disputed by outside legal experts.

What is the Espionage Act? How it’s used in Trump’s indictment

The vast majority of charges in the 37-count indictment against Trump were brought via the Espionage Act, a century-old law that, among other things, broadly outlines the type of information that is so sensitive to U.S. security that it becomes a crime to mishandle.

The Espionage Act predates the modern American system regulating the spread of the federal government’s secrets and does not use the term “classified information.”

Instead, the law makes reference to material known as “national defense information.”

U.S. courts have worked to define what qualifies as national defense information under the Espionage Act, but the exact parameters remain in question.

Signed into law in 1917, after the U.S. entered World War I, the act was aimed at cracking down on disloyal wartime activities.

Trump is specifically charged with 31 violations of Section 793(e) of the Espionage Act.

That section makes it illegal for anyone who has “unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over” national defense information — such as documents, blueprints, photos, plans and more — and who “has reason to believe [the information] could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation” then either shares it with unauthorized people or “willfully retains the same and fails” to return it.

Congress has tweaked the broader Section 793 multiple times, but since 1917, “the bulk of the text has remained the same,” according to nonpartisan congressional researchers.

Despite the law’s name — and despite what some Trump defenders, including GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, have suggested — Trump is not accused of spying on the U.S. — but rather of holding onto and not returning potentially damaging government information.

The other six charges Trump faces are not under the Espionage Act and include conspiring to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record, corruptly concealing a document or record, concealing a document in a federal investigation, scheming to conceal and making false statements and representations.

Espionage Act ‘not a weaponization’ here: Experts

Separate from Trump’s case, the Espionage Act has been criticized by some civil liberties advocates.

The American Civil Liberties Union has called the law overly broad, unfair and unconstitutional as it applies to information disclosed for the public.

Skeptics of the Espionage Act’s expansive language have also challenged how it makes no exception for whistleblowers — people who may share sensitive information in order to expose wrongdoing. Leakers like former National Security Agency contractors Reality Winner and Edward Snowden were both charged under the Espionage Act. (Winner agreed to a plea deal; Snowden now lives in Russia and has never been prosecuted.)

But Trump’s case is different because he was previously empowered to share government information as he saw fit, experts said.

“I think Trump is a completely distinct case,” Ben Wizner, the ACLU’s director for speech, privacy and technology, told ABC News. “He was president for four years. He had the ability and opportunity during that time to make public anything that he wanted to make public and could have done so if he thought it was in the public interest.”

Republicans have echoed Trump’s claims that the Biden administration has “weaponized” the Department of Justice, but outside law and policy experts said they did not share that concern, based on what prosecutors have disclosed.

“This looks like a case where there are a lot of receipts based on actual hard evidence and that is not a weaponization,” ABC News contributor and former FBI Special Agent Asha Rangappa said Tuesday. “And I don’t think that it is even controversial or debatable that this really presented a threat to our national security.”

Special counsel Jack Smith, who was named to oversee the DOJ investigations of Trump after Trump launched his 2024 White House campaign, said on Friday that “this indictment was voted by a grand jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida, and I invite everyone to read it in full to understand the scope and the gravity of the crimes charged.”

George Washington University Law School professor Stephen Saltzburg told ABC News that the U.S. has a history of carefully prosecuting Espionage Act cases.

“We don’t get many of these [Espionage Act] cases,” Saltzburg said. “And when we do get cases, it’s generally because there’s outrageous behavior.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who became infamous for leaking the Pentagon Papers to news outlets in 1971, has died, according to his family. He was 92 years old.

Ellsberg died Friday of pancreatic cancer, which he was diagnosed with in February, his family said.

Ellsberg worked as an analyst for the RAND Corporation in the late 1950s and early ’60s, before working in the Pentagon and in the State Department, for which he traveled to South Vietnam for two years. He rejoined RAND in the late 1960s and worked on secret documents about the Vietnam War for the U.S. government. Those documents would come to be known as the Pentagon Papers.

The Harvard graduate and former Marine would eventually become sympathetic to the antiwar movement in the U.S. against involvement in Vietnam.

After attempting to call attention to the classified documents — which showed the U.S. did not believe it could win the war in Vietnam despite claims to the contrary from the administration — among politicians, Ellsberg eventually passed the documents to The New York Times, which published them on the front page in June 1971.

“Daniel was a seeker of truth and a patriotic truth-teller, an antiwar activist, a beloved husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, a dear friend to many, and an inspiration to countless more,” Ellsberg’s wife, Patricia, and three children — Mary, Robert and Michael — said in a statement. “He will be dearly missed by all of us.”

The government sued The New York Times to stop publishing of the Pentagon Papers, but the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually rule in favor of the Times and the publication would resume. Ellsberg would leak the documents to The Washington Post days before the Supreme Court ruling.

The leak by Ellsberg would eventually set in motion the downfall of President Richard Nixon. The leak was the impetus for the White House to set up the so-called “White House plumbers,” who would try to discredit Ellsberg and eventually take part in the Watergate break-in.

The story was retold in the HBO miniseries “White House Plumbers,” which aired just weeks before Ellsberg’s death. The opening episode features stars Woody Harrelson, as E. Howard Hunt, and Justin Theroux, as G. Gordon Liddy, breaking into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office — as actually happened on Sept. 3, 1971.

Ellsberg was survived by his wife and three children as well as five grandchildren and one great-grandchild.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(AUSTIN, Texas) — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was impeached on May 27, becoming the state’s first statewide official to be impeached since 1917.

The proceedings were sparked by claims from former employees in Paxton’s office that he was misusing his power to aid a friend and donor. The impeachment also underlines the conflict between Paxton and a number of other Republicans, many of whom voted in the state House for his impeachment.

In a defiant statement last month, Paxton called the proceedings “unjust” and a partisan “sham,” labeling the state House Speaker Dade Phelan a traitor.

Phelan, for his part, has defended the process. “What happened this week is nothing I take pride in. It is not anything I was proud of. But it was necessary,” he said before the impeachment vote.

Who is Ken Paxton?

Paxton was suspended while serving his third term as Texas attorney general, the state’s top law enforcement officer, after holding office in the Texas House and Senate for approximately 10 and two years, respectively. Before that, he worked as a corporate lawyer and in private practice.

During his career as attorney general, Paxton has brought several significant lawsuits against both the Obama and Biden administrations, including an effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which shields some immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. as kids.

As an outspoken supporter of former President Donald Trump, Paxton led an unsuccessful lawsuit contesting the 2020 presidential election results in four states.

While Paxton easily won two of his three attorney general elections, his time in office has also been marred by scandal.

When did the impeachment begin and what is Paxton accused of?

The case for Paxton’s impeachment traces back to 2020, when top aides accused him of abuse of office to benefit donor Nate Paul, himself and Paxton’s alleged mistress. That led to an ongoing FBI probe and multimillion-dollar whistleblower lawsuit, with some of those Paxton staffers claiming they were fired for speaking out.

An attorney for Paul declined to comment to ABC News. Paul has previously denied any wrongdoing.

Earlier this year, Paxton agreed to a $3.3 million settlement with the former staffers and to apologize for calling them “rogue,” but he said he was settling in order to move past the allegations and that he’d done nothing wrong. He also sought to have the state — taxpayers — cover the cost. After that, state House lawmakers began looking into him, they have said.

On May 24, the state House’s investigative committee brought 20 articles of impeachment against Paxton alleging misconduct, including bribery, obstruction of justice and misappropriation of public resources.

By that Saturday, he was impeached and temporarily suspended from office, as required under state law, pending his trial in the state Senate.

He faces other legal troubles, too.

In 2015, he was charged with securities fraud related to investments in a tech company and has pleaded not guilty, though he has yet to stand trial. That case is referenced in the impeachment charges against Paxton.

Separately, last year, Paxton was also sued by the state bar over alleged professional misconduct for backing the lawsuit against the 2020 election results. “Texas Bar: I’ll see you and the leftists that control you in court,” he said then.

The state House investigating committee, which recommended the impeachment, held a public forum in May detailing the whistleblower claims. The evidence presented to legislators included three hours of testimony from investigators.

Afterward, the House voted to impeach Paxton in a bipartisan 121-23 majority vote.

What’s next?

Paxton awaits trial in the state Senate, which must start by Aug. 28. The chamber will review a set of trial rules on Tuesday, to be proposed by a seven-member committee chosen by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick who, like Paxton, has historically aligned himself with Trump.

One rule the committee will determine is whether the attorney general will be allowed to present a defense, which is an allowance that was not made for the state House proceedings and that Paxton criticized.

“My office made every effort to present evidence, testimony, and irrefutable facts that would have disproven the countless false statements and outright lies,” Paxton wrote on Twitter in May.

Where do legislators stand?

While a majority overwhelmingly supported Paxton’s impeachment in the state House, the Republican-controlled upper chamber requires two-thirds support to convict him, which would permanently remove and bar him from holding future Texas office.

State senators have largely remained mum on the pending trial, likely because of a commitment to protect the integrity of the proceedings, where they will essentially function as jurors, as stressed by the lieutenant governor, who presides over the Senate. In a streamed event with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Patrick spoke directly to the press, saying he couldn’t speak further on the case and asking for privacy as the trial proceeds.

“This is very serious. These are very serious people, and the Senate is going to do our job in a professional way,” he said.

The potential jurors include one unusual member, should she not recuse: the attorney general’s wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton. The Paxtons have long supported one another’s political endeavors: She could be found with a guitar in hand singing at his events and he gave a $2 million loan toward her state Senate campaign in 2018. She has not yet commented on the impeachment and has not been accused of doing anything wrong.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican, has called the impeachment a “travesty” and defended the attorney general on Twitter. “Virtually all of the information in the articles was public BEFORE Election Day, and the voters chose to re-elect Ken Paxton by a large margin,” Cruz wrote.

Most state House Republicans voted for the impeachment. One of them, Rep. Stan Kitzman, issued a statement calling the charges “a slap in the face to every Texan who believes in the rule of law and the integrity of our public offices.”

In the legislative session that recently ended, the state House was able to pass multiple conservative priorities it set forth, like banning hormonal treatments for children under the age of 18. But it also failed to agree on other proposals, like more stringent immigration legislation — an example of the disagreements between the party’s more centrist and more hard-line wings.

The state GOP chair, Matt Rinaldi, alluded to that tension in a statement about Paxton: “The impeachment proceedings against the Attorney General are but the latest front in the Texas House’s war against Republicans to stop the conservative direction of our state.”

What could happen to Paxton?

Until Paxton’s trial, while he remains suspended, John Scott has been appointed interim attorney general by Gov. Greg Abbott.

Should the state Senate not reach a two-thirds majority to remove Paxton, he will continue to serve in his role as before, albeit alongside legislators, many from his own party, who voted to impeach him.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — It was a history-making moment Tuesday when special counsel Jack Smith and former president Donald Trump appeared together for the first time in the same Miami courtroom.

Then, hours later, after Trump pleaded not guilty to federal charges, he got on stage in front of supporters at his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club, and blasted the man who oversaw his indictment as a “deranged lunatic.”

“He’s a raging and uncontrolled Trump-hater, as is his wife,” Trump said.

As part of his strategy to discredit the investigation, Trump has repeatedly gone after Smith and his wife, who produced a 2020 documentary about Michelle Obama, as well as documentaries about other high-profile figures.

Trump’s repeated attacks on Smith and his family follow a familiar pattern of his lashing out at those leading probes into his conduct. His inflammatory comments about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and the judge overseeing his hush-money criminal case in New York prompted questions about whether a gag order would be issued.

“Trump has done this with [New York Attorney General] Letitia James, he has done this with [Fulton County District Attorney] Fani Willis, just every prosecutor that’s investigated him,” Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, told ABC News. James has sued Trump for alleged fraud and Willis is looking into Trump’s efforts to interfere with the presidential election in Georgia.

Trump has entered a not guilty plea to the fraud charges and had repeatedly denied all allegations of wrongdoing.

Smith, a career prosecutor, was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November to oversee the investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving office as well as his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The special counsel probe resulted in a 37-count indictment against Trump accusing him of willfully retaining documents containing the nation’s top secrets and obstructing authorities seeking to get them back.

Then on Tuesday, in court, the first public encounter between Smith and Trump unfolded. Smith sat in the first row, not far from Trump, who at times frowned and looked down at the floor, but never looked back at Smith.

That evening, Trump slammed Smith as a “thug” and accused him of doing “political hit jobs.”

Various legal experts have pushed back on claims by Trump and GOP congressional allies that the Smith’s prosecution is political “weaponization” of the Justice Department.

“His main focus as a prosecutor is, ‘Can I prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt?’ And what we’ve seen with him, just looking at who he’s prosecuted, he’s prosecuted people in all parties,” Steve Friedland, a law professor at Elon University and a former federal prosecutor, said of Smith.

Former colleagues of Smith lauded his experience and temperament in previous interviews with ABC News, with one calling him “completely apolitical.”

“This is someone that is not doing this for political reasons,” Rahmani said. “There’s plenty of evidence to support these charges.”

J. Michael Luttig, a retired conservative federal appeals court judge, shared that view in a Twitter post on Tuesday: “There is not an Attorney General of either party who would not have brought today’s charges against the former president.”

Garland, speaking on the Trump indictment for the first time Wednesday, also came to Smith’s defense on the weaponization claims, although he didn’t comment specifically on Trump’s attacks.

“Mr. Smith is a veteran career prosecutor,” Garland said. “He has assembled a group of experienced and talented prosecutors and agents who share his commitment to integrity.”

Government prosecutors on Tuesday did not ask the magistrate judge overseeing his arraignment to warn Trump to stop the attacks, nor have they asked the judge handling the case to do so, as a judge in New York warned Trump about comments he made about Manhattan District Attorney Bragg.

Trump and his defenders have taken aim at Smith’s cases involving one-time Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who was charged in an alleged plot to violate campaign finance laws, and former Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, who was indicted on corruption charges. The Edwards case ended in a hung jury, while McDonnell’s conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court.

“He destroyed that man and he destroyed that family,” Trump said of Smith’s prosecution of McDonnell. “And by the way, I will tell you, I’m here and I love you all. And I can take it. But what these thugs have done to my family is a disgrace.”

Smith has not responded to Trump’s disparaging remarks.

“Smith is not going to play this case out in public,” said Friedland, who closely followed the Edwards case in 2011. “And we’ve seen that with John Edwards. We’ve seen that in other cases, and that’s true for most prosecutors.”

In his statement after charging Trump, in which he urged the public to read the indictment and emphasized the defendants — Trump and his personal aide Walt Nauta — he said they “must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.”

“We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone,” Smith said. “Applying those laws. Collecting facts. That’s what determines the outcome of an investigation. Nothing more. Nothing less.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.