US Army Veteran Charged with Leaking NDI to Journalist

Monday, April 13, 2026

Courtney Williams (40), a US Army veteran who helped support the elite Delta Force commando unit, has been charged in a criminal complaint of unlawful transmission of national defense information (NDI) to a journalist writing about the secretive unit.

Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 09:33 PM | 12 COMMENTS | permalink

Courtney Williams accused of sharing material with reporter examining deaths and drugs at US military base

[image or embed]
-- Guardian US (@us.theguardian.com) Apr 9, 2026 at 11:22 AM

Comments

Links:

FBI Affidavit

Seth Harp

An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

US Army veteran Courtney Williams

#1 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-04-12 03:07 PM

When are they going to charge Drinky Pete with leaking advance war plans on his phone?

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2026-04-12 03:36 PM

"Clearance holders accept a solemn obligation to protect the classified information entrusted to them," said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg. "That they do so is critical to the security of our Nation. When clearance holders violate that trust, the National Security Division will act swiftly to hold them accountable."

Unless they have an R after their name and are either a bloated spray tanned piece of s*&^ or have spray tan round their mouths and on the tip of the nose, then they're just fine.

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2026-04-12 03:59 PM

The FBI Agents must have "enjoyed" making this arrest.

I wonder what fragrance the comely Courtney Williams was wearing when the SAs manacled her.

#4 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-04-12 06:00 PM

New York Times Co. v. United States
en.wikipedia.org

... New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), often referred to as The Pentagon Papers Case, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. The ruling made it possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.[1]

President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the right of The New York Times to print the materials.[1] ...

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-04-13 10:34 PM

More from the article in #5 ...

...
Concurring opinions

Justice Hugo Black wrote an opinion that elaborated on his view of the absolute superiority of the First Amendment:

[T]he injunction against The New York Times should have been vacated without oral argument when the cases were first presented... . [E]very moment's continuance of the injunctions ... amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment. ...

The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.

The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bear the secrets of the government and inform the people.

Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. ... [W]e are asked to hold that ... the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws ... abridging the freedom of the press in the name of 'national security.' ...

To find that the President has 'inherent power' to halt the publication of news ... would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make 'secure.' ...

The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.

The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of an informed representative government provides no real security... .

The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged.[17]
[emphasis mine]

Powerful words.