Donald Trump and Daniel Hale have each been indicted on charges of violating the Espionage Act, but the similarity ends there. While the former president prepares for arraignment in a Miami federal courtroom this afternoon, Hale — a U.S. Air Force veteran and drone whistleblower — continues to serve a 45-month prison sentence.
For Trump, it will be irrelevant that the 106-year-old Espionage Act does not allow defendants to testify about why they handled classified documents the way they did. But, if not for that restriction, Hale might never have gone to prison in the first place.
Any attempt by Trump to present a “public interest” defense would be laughed out of court. Every indication is that his only interest was self. His intent could hardly be exculpatory.
In sharp contrast, a public-interest defense by Hale, if it had been allowed, might have swayed a jury. Such an argument in court — along the lines of what’s known as a “competing harms” defense — is akin to the claim that breaking into a house with a posted “No Trespassing” sign was justified to rescue children from a fire.
Hale’s decision to provide classified documents to an American media outlet was based on the need to inform the American people about what the military drone program was doing with their tax dollars in their names. The classified information from Hale enabled the website The Intercept to publish a series of articles in October 2015 that illuminated a hidden corner of U.S. foreign policy.
“The...
This story is the second in an ongoing series on the Cost of Fraud, as Open the Books tallies the hidden fees on American tax returns. Click here to read the first story on fraudulent autism billi...