Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.journalism.newspapers > #6142
| Newsgroups | alt.journalism.newspapers, alt.government.employees, alt.security.espionage, sac.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Contractor indicted over alleged leaks to Washington Post |
| From | marika <marika5000@gmail.com> |
| References | <c2c3eeb4e337bca39e820ac9bccd7248@dizum.com> |
| Message-ID | <dDAgR.57814$ugK.54570@fx18.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2026-02-04 05:16 +0000 |
Cross-posted to 6 groups.
Democrat Employment Interruptus <dei@fired.com> wrote: > A government contractor whose handling of classified information triggered > a court-authorized search of a Washington Post reporter’s home was charged > Thursday by a federal grand jury in Maryland with six felony violations of > the Espionage Act, the Justice Department said. > > Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, 61, was indicted on five counts of unlawfully > transmitting and one count of unlawfully retaining national defense > information, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Maryland announced. > > While the announcement did not name the journalist Perez-Lugones allegedly > sent classified information to, DOJ officials said the charges stemmed > from his sharing of national security secrets with Washington Post > reporter Hannah Natanson. > > The federal investigation of Perez-Lugones swept in Natanson last week > when the FBI searched her Alexandria, Virginia, home and seized several > electronic devices in a bid to unearth evidence of her contact with the > information technology contractor and Navy veteran. > > That search drew criticism from First Amendment and press freedom > advocates for departing from the usual practice of subpoenaing records > from the media instead of seizing them. It also raised questions about > whether DOJ complied with a 1980 law that sharply restricts the use of > search warrants for records related to newsgathering. > > On Wednesday, a magistrate judge in Alexandria ordered investigators to > halt any review of Natanson’s devices until the court rules on a request > from her and the Post to return them. A hearing on the matter is slated > for early February. > > The text of the indictment against Perez-Lugones was not immediately > available Thursday, but the DOJ announcement alleged that, between October > and January, he “repeatedly accessed classified reports, printed or copied > the information in these classified reports, and then removed this > classified information from the sensitive compartmented information > facility (SCIF) where he worked.” > > “Perez-Lugones transmitted the classified national defense information to > a reporter … who was not authorized to receive it. In turn, [the reporter] > co-authored and contributed to at least five articles that contained > classified information Perez-Lugones provided, resulting in the > dissemination of the information to the public,” the DOJ statement said. > > Natanson is not charged with any offense. > > DOJ claims that on Jan. 8, the day FBI agents searched Perez-Lugones’ > Laurel, Maryland, home, he wrote to Natanson on an encrypted app: “I’m > going quiet for a bit ... just to see if anyone starts asking questions.” > > Perez-Lugones could face a maximum sentence of 60 years in prison if > convicted on all charges, but defendants in federal criminal cases are > usually sentenced under guidelines that typically call for shorter > sentences. Last week, a magistrate judge ordered Perez-Lugones released > pending trial, but prosecutors appealed that ruling and he and his > attorneys later withdrew his request for release, at least for now. > > “Illegally disclosing classified defense information is a grave crime > against America that puts both our national security and the lives of our > military heroes at risk,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. > “This Department of Justice will remain ever-vigilant in protecting the > integrity of America’s classified intelligence.” > > A spokesperson for the Washington Post did not immediately respond to a > request for comment. > > https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/22/washington-post-classified-docs- > 00743280 > > Something here sounds fake
Back to alt.journalism.newspapers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Contractor indicted over alleged leaks to Washington Post Democrat Employment Interruptus <dei@fired.com> - 2026-01-23 11:45 +0100 Re: Contractor indicted over alleged leaks to Washington Post marika <marika5000@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 05:16 +0000
csiph-web