Case 9:22-mj-08332-BER Document 102-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2022 Page 22 of 38
59.
60. [1]
61. On June 8, 2022, DOJ Counsel sent FPOTUS Counsel 1 a letter, which reiterated that the Premises are not authorized to store classified information and requested the preservation of the Storage Room and boxes that had been moved from the White House to the Premises. Specifically, the letter stated in relevant part:
As I previously indicated to you, Mar-a-Lago does not include a secure location authorized for the storage of classified information. As such, it appears that since the time classified documents were removed from the secure facilities at the White House and moved to Mar-a-Lago on or around January 20, 2021, they have not been handled in an appropriate manner or stored in an appropriate location. Accordingly, we ask that the room at Mar-a-Lago where the documents had been stored be secured and that all of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with any other items in that room) be preserved in that room in their current condition until farther notice.
- ↑ 18 U.S.C. § 793(3) does not use the term “classified information,” but rather criminalized the unlawful retention of “information relating to the national defense.” The statute does not define “information related to the national defense,” but courts have construed it broadly. See Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19, 28 (1941) (holding that the phrase “information relating to the national defense” as used in the Espionage Act is a “generic concept of broad connotations, referring to the military and naval establishments and the related activities of national preparedness”). In addition, the information must be “closely held” by the U.S. government. See United States v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542, 579 (4th Cir. 2000) “[I]nformation made public by the government as well as information never protected by the government is not national defense information.”); United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057, 1071–72 (4th Cir. 1988). Certain courts have also held that the disclosure of the documents must be potentially damaging to the United States. See Morison, 844 F.2d at 1071–72.
