# "Comey is a leaker"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 9, 2017, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517 "2017-06-09T15:20:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/81 "2017-06-10T01:17:38Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > I am sorry, did you click on that article? The author discusses both the legal theory and cites the specific law that he things Comey may have violated. What is your objection, again? The statute proscribes a KNOWING CONVERSION, which the courts have never extend to mere information. Discussion of the meaning of 18 USC § 641 in _Morissette v. United States_: > [@](#): > > The section with which we are here concerned was enacted in 1948, as a consolidation of four former sections of Title 18, as adopted in 1940, which in turn were derived from two sections of the Revised Statutes. > . > . > . > The pertinent legislative and judicial history of these antecedents, as well as of § 641, is footnoted. We find no other purpose in the 1948 re-enactment than to collect from scattered sources crimes so kindred as to belong in one category. Not one of these had been interpreted to be a crime without intention and no purpose to differentiate between them in the matter of intent is disclosed. No inference that some were and some were not crimes of intention can be drawn from any difference in classification or punishment. This is not a case of a physical object being taken. The government still had the memo; the newspaper got a copy. The statute does not criminalize handing over a COPY of a record, and requires an intent to deprive the government of the record. That did not happen here. Even though there is no scienter element in the statute, the courts have read the law to include one. And remember that criminal law is always construed strictly against the government and leniently against an accused. There is no “well, it’s a reach” in criminal law. The law must clearly convey what behavior is forbidden. Now, you may claim that the physical paper and ink owned by the government was used to make the copy and it was this physical material that was stolen. This is not (as I understand it) an accurate statement. My understanding is that Comey used his personal system to print the material that he handed over. However, it’s true that if there was actual government-owned paper and ink involved, the conduct could be violate of 641. We learn this from a Third Circuit case, _US v. DiGilio_. Irene Klimansky, a clerk-typist in the Newark, New Jersey office of the FBI, photocopied FBI records and sold them to DiGilio, and was charged under 641. As the Third Circuit observed: > [@](#): > > But since there was an asportation of records owned by the United States we need not in this case decide whether appropriation of information alone falls within § 641. The statute gives fair warning that at a minimum, it proscribes all larceny-type offenses. The indictment charges such an offense, and the government proved such an offense. The Tenth Circuit agrees that the physical material is key, quoting DiGilio with approval: > [@US v Lang](#): > > …when an employee copies a record **on government equipment** without authorization, the duplicate copy is a record for purposes of the statute… My research does not reveal any court holding that the INFORMATION alone is protected under § 641. What 641 criminalizes is the government-owned physical media of paper and ink being stolen. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/82 "2017-06-10T01:19:58Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Where are you seeing the restriction for only “physically removing” anything in that law? Well, what ganthet said basically but where in the statute do you see restrictions on sending electronic copies of files? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/83 "2017-06-10T01:23:41Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Why will you not answer the questions? > > I have not asked about nor talked about determining guilt, yet you continue to try and use it, somehow, to deflect. Here are my questions again: It can have the value of 0 and the law would still apply - according to the language of the law. So it doesn’t matter what valuation it has. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/84 "2017-06-10T01:29:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The statute proscribes a KNOWING CONVERSION, which the courts have never extend to mere information. Discussion of the meaning of 18 USC § 641 in _Morissette v. United States_: Snipped the rest of it. Again, you may argue against the “legal theory” proposed by Turley etc. but your initial accusation in your post was that by posting that link I was using a “tactic” of a “slippery accusation. “Some” are questioning. Who? And what legal theory do these “some” believe might create criminal liability?”. As I said, the article provides the “who” and the “legal theory” etc. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/85 "2017-06-10T01:33:27Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It can have the value of 0 and the law would still apply - according to the language of the law. So it doesn’t matter what valuation it has. This is the 3rd time you’ve refused to answer my questions. I won’t ask them again, but I will note that you have obfuscated and deflected at every opportunity. I won’t speculate on what reasons you might have for not answering such simple, direct questions. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/86 "2017-06-10T01:36:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …when an employee copies a record on government equipment without authorization, the duplicate copy is a record for purposes of the statute… Where does it say that the “copy” has to be a physical copy and not a computer file copy? From “government equipment” computer? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/87 "2017-06-10T01:38:03Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > This is the 3rd time you’ve refused to answer my questions. > > I won’t ask them again, but I will note that you have obfuscated and deflected at every opportunity. > > I won’t speculate on what reasons you might have for not answering such simple, direct questions. I did answer. You refuse to take the answer. I won’t speculate on what reasons you might have for that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/88 "2017-06-10T01:59:24Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Where does it say that the “copy” has to be a physical copy and not a computer file copy? From “government equipment” computer? Because the reasoning of DiGilio explictly rests on physical material, not information: “But since there was an asportation of records owned by the United States we need not in this case decide whether appropriation of information alone falls within § 641. The statute gives fair warning that at a minimum, it proscribes all larceny-type offenses. The indictment charges such an offense, and the government proved such an offense.” No court has ever read 641 to include information alone, as that quote highlights. A computer file copy is not a piece of material; it’s merely the magentization of various spots on media. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/89 "2017-06-10T02:01:31Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Snipped the rest of it. > > Again, you may argue against the “legal theory” proposed by Turley etc. but your initial accusation in your post was that by posting that link I was using a “tactic” of a “slippery accusation. “Some” are questioning. Who? And what legal theory do these “some” believe might create criminal liability?”. > > As I said, the article provides the “who” and the “legal theory” etc. Then Turley is using the tactic.He’s just as able as I am to Shepardize a case. He didn’t, or did and didn’t share the results because they hurt his argument. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/90 "2017-06-10T02:06:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then Turley is using the tactic.He’s just as able as I am to Shepardize a case. He didn’t, or did and didn’t share the results because they hurt his argument. … but you accused me, not Turley. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/91 "2017-06-10T02:19:46Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > … but you accused me, not Turley. you really should stop while you’re behind. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/92 "2017-06-10T02:37:37Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > I did answer. You refuse to take the answer. I won’t speculate on what reasons you might have for that. No, you didn’t. It’s clear to everyone reading this thread that you didn’t. When someone asks you “what is the value of this thing” and you reply “the value of the thing doesn’t determine guilt” you haven’t answered the question, you’ve evaded it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/93 "2017-06-10T02:52:03Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > … but you accused me, not Turley. I quoted your post as an example of the tactic. That’s not incorrect, even if the tactic appeared in your post because of your reliance on someone else. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/94 "2017-06-10T02:53:30Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > No, you didn’t. It’s clear to everyone reading this thread that you didn’t. > > When someone asks you “what is the value of this thing” and you reply “the value of the thing doesn’t determine guilt” you haven’t answered the question, you’ve evaded it. You asked what the value is. Since the value is immaterial to the question of whether it was a crime or not (according to the statute itself) answering that it is immaterial is the answer. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/95 "2017-06-10T03:32:02Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > You asked what the value is. Since the value is immaterial to the question of whether it was a crime or not (according to the statute itself) answering that it is immaterial is the answer. You are correct here. Again quoting DiGilio: > [@](#): > > We recognize that the Department of Justice probably would not have presented this case for indictment but for the informational content of the documents. A statute like § 641 which prohibits the theft of **any** government property of any kind does indeed, as the defendants observe, vest considerable discretion in the Department of Justice with respect to selective enforcement. The solution to that problem, however, would appear to be legislative. (emphasis in original) > [@](#): > > Proof that the value of the stolen property is in excess of $100 is an element of the offense if the felony sanction is to be imposed. . . . Judge Sobeloff’s opinion in United States v. Wilson, 284 F.2d 407 (4th Cir. 1960), is perhaps the leading federal case. There the defendant was charged under § 641 with a single theft of 72 United States Army rifles. The prosecution introduced no evidence of value. The jury, having inspected the weapons, nevertheless convicted defendant of a felony, which required a finding that the weapons were worth more than $100 ($1.39 per weapon). The Fourth Circuit vacated the felony conviction, declining in the absence of any record evidence to take judicial notice that the guns were worth more than the statutory minimum. So the government doesn’t need value evidence for a misdemeanor conviction, but they do for a felony conviction. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/96 "2017-06-10T03:39:31Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > You asked what the value is. Since the value is immaterial to the question of whether it was a crime or not (according to the statute itself) answering that it is immaterial is the answer. I did not make any comment about whether or not it is a crime and I did not tie valuation to criminality. Your answer is evasive as it purports to answer a question that was not asked. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/97 "2017-06-10T03:40:10Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I did not make any comment about whether or not it is a crime and I did not tie valuation to criminality. Your answer is evasive as it purports to answer a question that was not asked. I don’t answer questions that are clearly irrelevant to the subject matter. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/98 "2017-06-10T04:48:02Z")
He’s got you there, **SnowBo**. The boy’s too smart for **Bricker** , what chance do _you_ have? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/99 "2017-06-10T08:39:20Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > I don’t answer questions that are clearly irrelevant to the subject matter. It is not irrelevant. I cannot make my point without your input. That’s what a discussion is about: back and forth to exchange information. ETA: You did help me make a couple of points, tho, however inadvertently; I suppose I should thank you for that. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2017, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517/100 "2017-06-10T10:04:22Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Help me out with this one though. Comey claims the memos were not classified because they were his personal notes about his meeting with the President. But if they discussed classified information isn’t it possible those memo should be classified and who makes that determination. > > FTR I don’t believe his memos are classified but it seems to me there should be more than “my personal notes” = “not classified as per me” Comey would have original classification authority in his former position. However, it is prohibited to classify information based on the perception that the information may simply be embarrassing, or to cover up a crime. Based on his written testimony, I cannot see even the slightest basis to believe that any of his notes ought to be classified. Maybe something else could come out about the notes, but I’m just not seeing it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/comey-is-a-leaker/788517.md?page=6)