Wouldn’t “executive privilege” apply here?
You may be onto something, but I think it only applies when the president or his staff are asked to testify about things.
I'm not sure if it protects him or his staff from espionage interlopers.
You know, if you get down to it, she was utilizing a tactic of espionage. There may be a violation of some sort related to and espionage act, where intent to disburse for espionage purposes isn't even required. It may be that if you tape secret information, you're in serious trouble, disbursal or not.
After I wrote that paragraph, I decided to see if I could find a section of the Espionage Act that addressed this sort of thing. Here is what I found.
This from the WikiPedia entry for, "The Espionage Act of 1917".
1950 McCarran Internal Security Act
In 1950, during the McCarthy Period, Congress passed the McCarran Internal Security Act over President Harry S. Truman's veto. It modified a large body of law, including espionage law. One addition was 793(e), which had almost exactly the same language as 793(d). According to Edgar and Schmidt, the added section potentially removes the "intent" to harm or aid requirement and may make "mere retention" of information a crime no matter what the intent, covering even former government officials writing their memoirs. They also describe McCarran saying that this portion was intended directly to respond to the case of Alger Hiss and the "Pumpkin Papers".[17][54][55]
This woman may have opened herself up to some real trouble, if someone decides to pursue it.