“One could argue that this particular section is too broad. Espionage itself is a deliberate act, and it seems extremely unlikely Trump was taking part in such an act.”
I agree he is almost certainly not a spy, but I don’t see why that has anything to do with an argument that this provision is too broad. I know you say “one could argue” this but do you argue it? And if you don’t, why mention it?
I assume two things to be true. First, you surely want it to be a crime for someone to willfully retain national defense information without authorization. Second, you agree that such a crime may be defined in something called the Espionage Act without requiring that the defendant be a spy.
If I’m wrong about either assumption, please tell me. But that would surprise me.
If I am right about both assumptions, what is the problem?
“One could argue that this particular section is too broad. Espionage itself is a deliberate act, and it seems extremely unlikely Trump was taking part in such an act.”
I agree he is almost certainly not a spy, but I don’t see why that has anything to do with an argument that this provision is too broad. I know you say “one could argue” this but do you argue it? And if you don’t, why mention it?
I assume two things to be true. First, you surely want it to be a crime for someone to willfully retain national defense information without authorization. Second, you agree that such a crime may be defined in something called the Espionage Act without requiring that the defendant be a spy.
If I’m wrong about either assumption, please tell me. But that would surprise me.
If I am right about both assumptions, what is the problem?