If you inadvertently obtain DOD Classified material, as a private citizen what is the proper protocol going forward??

[Paul158]

Are there legal rules in place for (private citizen) handling DOD classified information that has been acquired inadvertently?

What is the proper protocol for military and government employees for handling DOD classified information that they have acquired inadvertently?  

[Bigbrog]

I was wondering this same thing

[1032004]

I don’t see how there could be any penalties for something that was given to someone that they did not obtain illegally.  

[Paul158]

  On 3/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, Bigbrog said:

I was wondering this same thing

Expand  

Where is WKN when we need him. Maybe Vak.

[Paul158]

  On 3/26/2025 at 7:45 PM, 1032004 said:

I don’t see how there could be any penalties for something that was given to someone that they did not obtain illegally.  

Expand  

I guess it is more what you do with it after the fact. If you call a law an enforcement official and hand it over right away is one scenario. Then there are a couple of scenarios that could get you in a lot of trouble. Selling the info to the highest bidder or using it for blackmail. Being a federal employee or in the military I would think is a little more dicer. 

[Bigbrog]

Admittedly I don't know the ins and outs of what is classified and what isn't in this case, but it seems if this information was so sensitive/classified that if someone received it inadvertently maybe it shouldn't be publish for everyone to see??  Or is it more important to get a gotcha on a group of people you dislike politically versus doing what's right for the country??  Like "Hey, I don't think I should have received this, maybe you need to look at how you are communicating sensitive/classified information?", report that it happened, but leave it at that without all the details??

And just so everyone is clear and people don't feel the need to comment on this aspect of it....I am not giving Hegseth and team a pass on this, this should be investigated and if there were serious breaches of protocol then people should be held accountable...but that is a different thread...I just don't want some of the usual suspects hijacking Paul's thread.

[1032004]

  On 3/26/2025 at 7:53 PM, Paul158 said:

I guess it is more what you do with it after the fact. If you call a law an enforcement official and hand it over right away is one scenario. Then there are a couple of scenarios that could get you in a lot of trouble. Selling the info to the highest bidder or using it for blackmail. Being a federal employee or in the military I would think is a little more dicer. 

Expand  

Agree, I’m sure selling it would be a no no.  Publishing it probably not.

[Paul158]

  On 3/26/2025 at 7:58 PM, 1032004 said:

Agree, I’m sure selling it would be a no no.  Publishing it probably not.

Expand  

You might need some really good lawyers if you publish classified information.

[WrestlingRasta]

Waiting until after the attack to bring this out out in the open is exactly the right thing to do.  THAT is the role of the media in our constitution. Being the government watchdog.  Not covering up for pumping up your favorite candidate while finding anything you can do to trash the other side.  
 

It’s been so long since the media has actually performed their given role in the Constitution, we don’t know what to think of it when it happens.  

[Paul158]

  On 3/26/2025 at 8:09 PM, WrestlingRasta said:

Waiting until after the attack to bring this out out in the open is exactly the right thing to do.  THAT is the role of the media in our constitution. Being the government watchdog.  Not covering up for pumping up your favorite candidate while finding anything you can do to trash the other side.  
 

It’s been so long since the media has actually performed their given role in the Constitution, we don’t know what to think of it when it happens.  

Expand  

I'm curious how Goldbergs number would be on any Signal app on any of the individuals who were on the group chat. It seems kind of odd. I would think he would be the last person who would be put on it.

[jross]

  On 3/26/2025 at 6:22 PM, Paul158 said:

Are there legal rules in place for (private citizen) handling DOD classified information that has been acquired inadvertently?

What is the proper protocol for military and government employees for handling DOD classified information that they have acquired inadvertently?  

Expand  

Yes, laws apply.

 

Private Citizen:

• Don’t share (18 U.S.C. § 798), don’t keep (18 U.S.C. § 793). Report to FBI, return it.
• https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Military/Government Employee:

• More strict than private citizen.  Secure it, report to security officer, don’t share. Follow DOD rules (5200.01), return or destroy as directed.
• https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/520001m_vol3.pdf

[Paul158]

  On 3/26/2025 at 8:27 PM, jross said:

 

Yes, laws apply.

 

Private Citizen:

• Don’t share (18 U.S.C. § 798), don’t keep (18 U.S.C. § 793). Report to FBI, return it.
• https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Military/Government Employee:

• More strict than private citizen.  Secure it, report to security officer, don’t share. Follow DOD rules (5200.01), return or destroy as directed.
• https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/520001m_vol3.pdf

Expand  

So, Goldberg violated (18 U.S.C. S798) and (18 U.S.C. S 793) nor did he report it to the FBI, nor did he return it. If I or you had done the same thing, we would I be typing this from our jail cells? We would need some really good lawyers and a lot of money.

[Paul158]

  On 3/26/2025 at 8:27 PM, jross said:

 

Yes, laws apply.

 

Private Citizen:

• Don’t share (18 U.S.C. § 798), don’t keep (18 U.S.C. § 793). Report to FBI, return it.
• https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Military/Government Employee:

• More strict than private citizen.  Secure it, report to security officer, don’t share. Follow DOD rules (5200.01), return or destroy as directed.
• https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/520001m_vol3.pdf

Expand  

Nice job. Thanks. 

[1032004]

  On 3/26/2025 at 8:08 PM, Paul158 said:

You might need some really good lawyers if you publish classified information.

Expand  

Even if the Director of National Intelligence and Director of the CIA have specifically said it was not classified?

Edited March 26 by 1032004

[PortaJohn]

  On 3/26/2025 at 8:37 PM, Paul158 said:

So, Goldberg violated (18 U.S.C. S798) and (18 U.S.C. S 793) nor did he report it to the FBI, nor did he return it. If I or you had done the same thing, we would I be typing this from our jail cells? We would need some really good lawyers and a lot of money.

Expand  

Goldberg is totally in the clear and did not violate any laws.  He also should be credited for being quite the professional during this ordeal

Edited March 26 by PortaJohn

[Paul158]

  On 3/26/2025 at 8:41 PM, 1032004 said:

Even if the Director of National Intelligence and Director of the CIA have specifically said it was not classified?

Expand  

If in fact Goldberg is correct, and it is deemed classified information he would be subject to the above violations. If he is wrong and it is deemed just regular information, he would be ok. It probably would have to go to a court of law to figure it out.

[red viking]

Once the operation is completed, I don't see a lot of harm in sharing so not sure if those rules would apply. He may have also been ignorant to the legitimacy of what was being told, until after the attack occurred just as planned in the text exchange. 

If these idiots send me something, I'm doing the same thing as Goldberg did. Media all the way. The American people deserve to know!!! 

Edited March 26 by red viking

[Paul158]

  On 3/26/2025 at 8:51 PM, PortaJohn said:

Goldberg is totally in the clear and did not violate any laws.  He also should be credited for being quite the professional during this ordeal

Expand  

If it is deemed classified information, he didn't follow proper protocol in handling said information. This is according to Us law as stated above. It doesn't matter what anyone else did or did not do. I'm not a lawyer but the law is the law. Unless you can afford some really good lawyers and can get a pardon from the President.

[PortaJohn]

  On 3/26/2025 at 8:56 PM, Paul158 said:

If in fact Goldberg is correct, and it is deemed classified information he would be subject to the above violations. If he is wrong and it is deemed just regular information, he would be ok. It probably would have to go to a court of law to figure it out.

Expand  

You have the administration publicly stating it was not classified information.  Gabbard and Ratcliffe stating it in a Senate testimony.  The Trump administration committed to this narrative.  They can't backtrack now

[fishbane]

  On 3/26/2025 at 9:03 PM, Paul158 said:

If it is deemed classified information, he didn't follow proper protocol in handling said information. This is according to Us law as stated above. It doesn't matter what anyone else did or did not do. I'm not a lawyer but the law is the law. Unless you can afford some really good lawyers and can get a pardon from the President.

Expand  

If it is deemed classified information wouldn't it be a pretty strong case against those sharing information with Goldberg in the signal chat?

[Paul158]

  On 3/26/2025 at 8:51 PM, PortaJohn said:

Goldberg is totally in the clear and did not violate any laws.  He also should be credited for being quite the professional during this ordeal

Expand  

Goldberg doesn't have some sort of special Security clearance that I am aware of. Just because he is a reporter. Or does he?

[PortaJohn]

  On 3/26/2025 at 9:07 PM, Paul158 said:

Goldberg doesn't have some sort of special Security clearance that I am aware of. Just because he is a reporter. Or does he?

Expand  

 

  On 3/26/2025 at 9:06 PM, PortaJohn said:

You have the administration publicly stating it was not classified information.  Gabbard and Ratcliffe stating it in a Senate testimony.  The Trump administration committed to this narrative.  They can't backtrack now

Expand  

Reposting this response.  This is a shut and closed case for Mr. Goldberg.  He's totally in the clear legally

Edited March 26 by PortaJohn

[fishbane]

  On 3/26/2025 at 9:07 PM, Paul158 said:

Goldberg doesn't have some sort of special Security clearance that I am aware of. Just because he is a reporter. Or does he?

Expand  

Sounds like Goldberg would be an unauthorized person by the definition in USC 18-798.  Those that shared the information with him if classified better have a good lawyer.

[fishbane]

  On 3/26/2025 at 8:37 PM, Paul158 said:

So, Goldberg violated (18 U.S.C. S798) and (18 U.S.C. S 793) nor did he report it to the FBI, nor did he return it. If I or you had done the same thing, we would I be typing this from our jail cells? We would need some really good lawyers and a lot of money.

Expand  

Where does it say anything about the FBI in either section?  Goldberg clearly communicated with at least some government department before releasing the transcript. He said the name of a covert CIA agent was used in the chat and that he did not release that by request of the CIA.

There is likely a weak case that Goldberg violated either section, but it seems pretty cut and dry that the people sharing the information with Goldberg violated these.  How crazy would it be to try and prosecute Goldberg, but not the people who actually leaked the information to an unauthorized person in the first place?!?

[Paul158]

  On 3/26/2025 at 9:12 PM, fishbane said:

Sounds like Goldberg would be an unauthorized person by the definition in USC 18-798.  Those that shared the information with him if classified better have a good lawyer.

Expand  

It's not that he got the info. It is all in how he handled the information once he got it. There is certain protocol on handling this material. You can't keep it. You can't share it. You must turn it over to the FBI. Isn't that violating the law as stated? Journalists do not have special classified information clearance.