I wasn’t able to find much on statutes that ex-presidents are bound to with respect to classified information they may have been given during their term. I did find some stuff on continual briefs given to former presidents, and some of that is almost certainly at least sensitive information, though most likely not close to the highest levels of classified data.
So…I’m actually not sure. It won’t be cloak and dagger CT type stuff as many have mentioned. But I don’t know what statutes that would be in play if, say, a former president decided to spill the beans on some bit of highly classified data or other that they knew or knew of during their term. My WAG is it would be similar to any government employee who did the same thing…which is to say, that it depends on their level. If you are a low level snuffy and you disclose highly sensitive data or don’t follow proper security, you are going to jail. If you are a high level US official, then it probably gets whisked away. Same would almost certainly be for an ex-president…on paper they would be all sorts of dire stuff (for the snuffy for sure), that almost certainly wouldn’t apply in the same way for the former CiC.
Because there are no real statutes on the process-related side of security clearances. It’s governed by executive orders.
Anyone with access to classified information who makes an unauthorized disclosure is subject to punishments. This, by definition, doesn’t apply to a sitting President, because he alone determines whether a leak is authorized or not. That does not apply to a former President, of course, so it’s perfectly clear that the various provisions of law relating to the Espionage Act would apply to an ex-president.
Ok. I was responding to an entirely different suggestion. Nowhere in your situation have you suggested “back-channel” (extra-judicial) operations run by the White House. Your situation explicitly places the caregiver in control, with the security detail assisting him/her in carrying out his/her wishes.
Flyer’s situation seems like the plot of a 90’s political thriller or a Peter Sellers comedy.
My concern with prosecution of an ex-President is 1) that it makes the U.S. look weak, and 2) as eschrodinger mentioned the president has an insanity defense, which 2a) also makes the U.S. look bad, essentially we would be prosecuting a former leader because of something that is not his fault and can’t be helped.
I suppose one could say that not having a President-for-life makes the US look weak, but then in either scenario, I’m not sure who we are supposed to be appealing to in this context…
The closest real-world analogy that comes to mind is the practice of the Secret Service of deliberately putting leaves in Ronald Reagan’s swimming pool (Reagan by then was deeply afflicted by Alzheimer’s) so he could keep busy raking them up and then forgetting that he did so. A former president who needed to be contained for mental health reasons would be similarly kept busy by a convenient fiction, like agents dressing up as reporters and pretending to be attending the president’s press conferences, or a simulated Twitter app that accepts posts but doesn’t actually send them anywhere.
Neither do I. Do the proponents of prosecuting the ex-president have any objection to essentially spouse-approved and secret-service implemented exile and seclusion as preferable to criminal or other public trial and involuntary commitment? Assuming they have a doctor’s blessing.
One of my concerns is a lame-duck, vindictive President pardoning all the felons in a state that voted to impeach (or voted him out of office). Perhaps there are other ways of payback, like cancelling funding for a highway, or dissolving a military base out of spite.
IIRC, the president can only pardon federal criminals and I’d imagine that a vast majority of felons would be violators of state laws. I think presidents can only *withhold *funding, in which case the incoming president could release it. I don’t know for sure, but it seems unlikely that a president can unilaterally decide to shut down a military base.
If it solves the problem of unauthorized jaw-flapping who cares?
