Okay, so as everybody remembers, after Khan and the crew of the Botany Bay tried to take over and kill the crew of the Enterprise,

Seti Alpha 5.

Now Khan wasn't too upset about it.

He was gonna rule in hell rather than serve in heaven, as his quote was.

And then we come to learn that in Star Trek 2, Seti Alpha 6 explodes and Seti Alpha 5 becomes this barren wasteland with this frickin' little eel creature that will be talked about later.

And obviously a huge danger, it killed most of Tom's crew and his beloved wife, who was an original Enterprise crew member.

So we started to think about it, reckless endangerment aspect, right, and think about you're in a fight with your boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse, Not while it's moving, you stop.

audience.

Where do you think government secrecy is necessary? I know you prefer not to have any of it, probably from the outside, but where do you think it's necessary? And then where does it become harmful?

So because I've had a unique role as a lawyer for spies, some of the most deepest undercover operatives at the CIA and elsewhere within the U.S. government, I actually would say I agree that there needs to be a certain level of secrecy.

I think anyone who has had authorized access to classified information, of which I've had a security clearance at the TSSCI level for many years over the course of years, knows two things.

One, there's absolutely information that needs to remain secret, especially involving human sources because lives could be at risk.

My clients' lives could be at risk.

More likely, their sources, assets, and technology and things may be at risk.

And that there is unbelievable over classification.

Can we go back to those norms without a reversal of the Supreme Court decision? Regardless of who the president is, we can have the number one moral next president come in, handing that power in his or her hand and saying, I can do

Mm-hmm.

There's an oath that is administered at the beginning, and it is the same type of oath that if you testified in court, whether a civil case or a criminal case.

But it is incredibly rare that someone would be prosecuted by the federal government for lying in a deposition.

There are examples.

We c- hey, we're talking about some sex-related cases here.

Bill Clinton back in the 1990s with Monica Lewinsky, the independent counsel investigated him ...

I'm sorry, with Paula Jones.

Mm-hmm.

Can you talk a little bit about why a security clearance is so important in the work that you do?

So there are very few private lawyers who hold a security clearance in the way that I did, uh, for over a quarter century.

Uh, most the lawyers who do are either working in, sort of in the defense sector, right? Representing a big defense contractor, Boeing, Booz Allen, whatever, and they're representing their client for that purpose.

It's...

And it's commercial relations with the presid- you know, not, not the president, but the, the US government.

Uh, others have it because they are rotating in and out of federal service, and so their clearance eligibility remains.

Still others might have it because on the side they're a member of the National Guard unit, uh, locally or maybe in the military reserves.

Right

Mm.

Is, did he do himself any favors with the White House? With the Department of Justice? I, I'm, I'm sure he did.

He performed admirably with the MAGA shout-outs, uh, in showing the unprofessionalism level, uh, that we've never seen before in Congress, at least in recent years, that's for sure.

Mm-hmm

... administration took office to stop the purge of what was expected to be upwards to 5, 6,000 employees who had worked predominantly on January 6th, when Brian Driscoll, who is an absolute American hero, was the acting director trying to protect his people behind the scenes.

I'm co-counsel in the lawsuit that Brian Driscoll has brought.

I represent another senior executive FBI officer who was fired at the same time.

There were three of them were fired in August of 2025 under Article Two authority, which is what we're litigating in many cases over whether the president, although this was Kash Patel, uh, who is, does not have Article Two authority, just saying, "No due process.

Before we leave this topic, Mark, why don't you distinguish for our listening audience the difference between a whistleblower and a leaker?

So this, uh, and this will depend, and this has a very different sort of differentation-- different connotation for those of us who work in the sphere.

I've never worked for the federal government, but I've had a security clearance for over a quarter century because of the work I do as an outside lawyer representing those of you who were inside the governmentNow, when we say leaker, for many of us in DC, that distinguishes between someone who leaked classified information versus non-classified information.

In fact, I remember Jim Co- Comey once saying, "I don't wanna use the term leaker because we're not talking about classified information." So giving information to a reporter, it may be unethical, it may be inappropriate, it could be even illegal depending on what it is, like grand jury information.

But we often, in our community, will use the term leaker to distinguish between classified and non-classified.

The whistleblower laws, when I teach on this subject, the way I'll describe it is the generic term whistleblower would certainly apply many people who don't understand what the law is of someone who generically reveals wrongdoing, misconduct, waste, fraud, and abuse, things like that.

So Ed Snowden, to many, would be viewed as a whistleblower.

So what do you tell your students who also wanna be national security attorneys, uh, or practice national security law, but they worry about political retaliation like you've experienced and losing their clearances? What do you tell your students how to cope with that?

You can't just say, "Well, it's gonna be a limited war." We're already sending Marines there.

there.They're on their way.

So every- this always starts this way.

It's a limited war, but then maybe then, then it, it escalates the war.

And look, the, the it's not like, um, the, the, the, the Middle Eastern mentality in these wars we can see, it- they're not gonna give up.

They're not gonna ...

It- this is not, uh, Germany.

Mm-hmm.

And, uh, how do you assess the level of risk that John Bolton is facing right now?

I think there is a risk.

Now, when the administration tried to stop publication of his book five years ago, in a very haphazard way, their federal judge concluded that it was very likely there was classified information that was in the manuscript that ultimately became published.

But think of it this way.

So, Bolton had an obligation to submit the manuscript for pre-publication review.

The practice has always been, for decades, that those drafts are sent to sometimes the lawyer, the literary agent, the publishers, and as long as it goes to the government before it actually hits the bookstores and negotiations happen and text is removed if desired, that's okay.

But everything I just mentioned is an unauthorized disclosure if the information is classified or national defense information, which is actually the terminology.

What did you make of that part of what the vice president said? And how broad could this actually be, Mark?

Can you talk a little bit about why a security clearance is so important in the work that you do?

So there are very few private lawyers who hold a security clearance in the way that I did, uh, for over a quarter century.

Uh, most the lawyers who do are either working in, sort of in the defense sector, right? Representing a big defense contractor, Boeing, Booz Allen, whatever, and they're representing their client for that purpose.

It's- and it's commercial relations with the president, you know, not- not the president but the- the US government.

Uh, others have it because they are rotating in and out of federal service, and so their clearance eligibility remains.

Still others might have it because on the side they're a member of the National Guard unit, uh, locally, or maybe in the military reserves.

I have always been in the somewhat unique position where, because of the clientele I represent in personnel actions, employment actions, security clearance cases, disciplinary actions, investigations, where I'm representing covert spies of the United States government, and I need to know that they work at the CIA.

Right.

Did they take a risk in publishing this full group chat, even if the Trump administration says it's not c- classified?

Technically, yes, 'cause actually, the Espionage Act refers to national defense information, not classified information.

It's a centuries-old act.

Hasn't been amended since the Korean conflict.

So sure, the administration could make an argument that this is still national defense rather than classified.

It would sort of look pretty silly, I think.

I would have much rather preferred if Jeffrey Goldberg had given the text messages to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees-

Mm-hmm.

Hmm.

Now, Jeffrey did the responsible thing in keeping the key information out of his article, and I applaud him for that.

And what he should do, not what my colleague Ben Wittes is suggesting, I wouldn't go that far, he should give the contents to both the Republicans and the Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Let them see the text messages, and then they can decide what they're gonna do with that.

And maybe they'll call Hegseth's bluff if in fact there are war plans, or maybe they'll say, "Hegseth is right." But he shouldn't just publish it out there, because just because the administration is saying now it's not classified, let me tell you, I have litigated against the government for 30 plus years to declassify information.

If what Jeffrey described is accurate, that- that is classified by every executive order that has existed in the last half century.

Is having possession of one more illegal than the other?

Yes.