How Josh Shulte's Graymail is shaping-up

[professor rat]

Catch 22 - previously public information may also be classified under USG law

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22036134-220524-schulte-cipa-ruling

. In sum, the fact that information was previously public does not mean, as a matter of law, that it is not NDI.

 By the same token, the fact that the information was previously public is relevant to whether it is NDI, even if it was made public by someone other than the Government. Accordingly, the Government’s motion to preclude Defendant from offering evidence that the information he is charged with leaking from the MCC was already public is DENIED. 
That is not to say that Defendant can offer the specific evidence that he has noticed, let alone in its current form. But that is a CIPA Section 6(c) question and a question for another day.
 2. Evidence of Classified Information Defendant Knows Next, Defendant provides notice that, should he take the stand, he intends to testify that, by virtue of his employment at the CIA, he was privy to specific, highly sensitive classified information. Third Notice 3-4. Defendant argues that such information is relevant and admissible to show that he did not intend to harm the United States through the conduct charged . . . "