The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the Lawfair Podcast,

become a material supporter of Lawfair at Patreon.com slash Lawfair. That's Patreon.com

slash Lawfair. Also check out Lawfair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, lawfare no bull, and the aftermath.

And then when the American public tried to kind of engage after the fact with a coming

to terms with an adjudication of what had gone wrong with the policy, there is no meaningful way to do so because

members of the CIA are able to classify a lot of the information.

They kind of then can wage a kind of war of public relations, selectively disclosing

particular stories about why it was or wasn't effective, and people who try to publish

information that without approval face Espionage Act charges.

So you know to me I agree that there will probably be deep debates, maybe irreconcilable about what the American public is willing to stomach in terms of a national security policy.

But the secrecy regime means you don't even get that debate in the first instance the game is kind of already

set by those who control information of the source. I'm Scott R Anderson and this is

the Lawfare Podcast for December 29th, 2023. Former President Trump's prosecution for mishandling classified documents at his Marilago estate

has brought an old law back to the front pages, the Espionage Act.

Enacted more than a century ago, parts of that law allowing for the prosecution of those who mishandle

or unduly disclosed sensitive national security information have helped provide the legal infrastructure

for the modern classification system used to protect our country's most important secrets, and by some

accounts to limit debate over some of its most controversial policies.

In his new book State of Silence, George Mason University history professor Sam Lebevick provides

a fast-paced an eminently readable

account of the Espionage Act from its early 20th century origins through the

...