Shane Harris

And there are kinds of malware that they could get implanted on that phone. It could be very expensive, very sophisticated stuff that could allow them to read the messages on the phone as they're being typed. That's why a system like Signal, even though it's good intent encryption, is not approved for sharing classified information because it's on your phone, which can be hacked.

So there are a couple that it might. Conceivably, it could violate the Espionage Act, which despite the name, it's not just about spying. It's about the handling of what's called national defense information. So if this is considered national defense information, there are provisions of that law governing how you transmit it. Who's allowed to have it?

So there are a couple that it might. Conceivably, it could violate the Espionage Act, which despite the name, it's not just about spying. It's about the handling of what's called national defense information. So if this is considered national defense information, there are provisions of that law governing how you transmit it. Who's allowed to have it?

So there are a couple that it might. Conceivably, it could violate the Espionage Act, which despite the name, it's not just about spying. It's about the handling of what's called national defense information. So if this is considered national defense information, there are provisions of that law governing how you transmit it. Who's allowed to have it?

P.S., someone like Jeff who doesn't have a security clearance, not allowed to have it. So now these officials made this known to someone who wasn't cleared inadvertently. So that could be, you know, a mitigating piece of information. There's also a provision of the Espionage Act that governs what's called gross negligence in the handling or more precisely the mishandling of classified information.

P.S., someone like Jeff who doesn't have a security clearance, not allowed to have it. So now these officials made this known to someone who wasn't cleared inadvertently. So that could be, you know, a mitigating piece of information. There's also a provision of the Espionage Act that governs what's called gross negligence in the handling or more precisely the mishandling of classified information.

P.S., someone like Jeff who doesn't have a security clearance, not allowed to have it. So now these officials made this known to someone who wasn't cleared inadvertently. So that could be, you know, a mitigating piece of information. There's also a provision of the Espionage Act that governs what's called gross negligence in the handling or more precisely the mishandling of classified information.

This was the provision that the Justice Department looked at when deciding whether to charge Hillary Clinton for using a private email server. And ultimately they did not. And this provision of the law has only, to my knowledge, been successfully used once to prosecute someone because it's ambiguous. What do you mean by gross negligence? Was it grossly negligent to put it on signal?

This was the provision that the Justice Department looked at when deciding whether to charge Hillary Clinton for using a private email server. And ultimately they did not. And this provision of the law has only, to my knowledge, been successfully used once to prosecute someone because it's ambiguous. What do you mean by gross negligence? Was it grossly negligent to put it on signal?

This was the provision that the Justice Department looked at when deciding whether to charge Hillary Clinton for using a private email server. And ultimately they did not. And this provision of the law has only, to my knowledge, been successfully used once to prosecute someone because it's ambiguous. What do you mean by gross negligence? Was it grossly negligent to put it on signal?

Was it grossly negligent to add Jeff? The common sense reaction to that might be yes. So that's possible that that could implicate maybe Mike Waltz or Pete Hegseth even under the law. And then there's also the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act. And in this case, I think these text messages are both –

Was it grossly negligent to add Jeff? The common sense reaction to that might be yes. So that's possible that that could implicate maybe Mike Waltz or Pete Hegseth even under the law. And then there's also the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act. And in this case, I think these text messages are both –

Was it grossly negligent to add Jeff? The common sense reaction to that might be yes. So that's possible that that could implicate maybe Mike Waltz or Pete Hegseth even under the law. And then there's also the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act. And in this case, I think these text messages are both –

Federal records and presidential records because they're coming out of the White House in some cases. And the law says— Literally, one of the participants is the elected vice president of the United States. Another is the White House national security advisor.

Federal records and presidential records because they're coming out of the White House in some cases. And the law says— Literally, one of the participants is the elected vice president of the United States. Another is the White House national security advisor.

Federal records and presidential records because they're coming out of the White House in some cases. And the law says— Literally, one of the participants is the elected vice president of the United States. Another is the White House national security advisor.

And we quoted an expert in the story, an expert on these laws, who said, look, you know, if it's a presidential record, you have to maintain it. And what that means is in this case, a backup of these messages would need to be sent to some kind of government official account. Mm-hmm. If they were doing that, then they're complying.

And we quoted an expert in the story, an expert on these laws, who said, look, you know, if it's a presidential record, you have to maintain it. And what that means is in this case, a backup of these messages would need to be sent to some kind of government official account. Mm-hmm. If they were doing that, then they're complying.

And we quoted an expert in the story, an expert on these laws, who said, look, you know, if it's a presidential record, you have to maintain it. And what that means is in this case, a backup of these messages would need to be sent to some kind of government official account. Mm-hmm. If they were doing that, then they're complying.

But there are also DOD regulations about not putting classified information on an unclassified system, as clearly happened here as well. So you've got... couple laws, maybe two or three laws, provisions of those laws and regulations that this activity would seem to violate.