Was Comey’s conduct illegal? Some are questioning whether Comey broke the law when he leaked information anonymously, via a third party, to the press.
It’s a slippery accusation. “Some” are questioning. Who? And what legal theory do these “some” believe might create criminal liability?
That’s never said. And of course the posters that offer up such quotes are quick to disclaim any personal argument. They aren’t lawyers, they don’t know. They’re just reporting on how “some” are asking these questions. About the anonymous leaking, which certainly sounds like something might just possibly be illegal, but who knows? That’s why the question is being asked.
Etc etc.
It’s a campaign of implication.
The answer is: NO. Not illegal. Bring cite to the law, or shush.
If the memos mentioned facts, details, or plans that were already classified, then a private memo to yourself can become a classified document because of those inclusions. However, when not discussing national security, sensitive investation, or military matters in detail, it can be relatively easy to produce an unclassified version of a meeting or meetings, even if classified info was discussed in them, by not mentioning those details and being very general. It’s a very fact-dependent exercise though.
Here, the mere fact that Flynn is under investigation is not a classified fact. Per Comey’s testimony, none of the conversations he had with Trump alone involved classified matters. Or if they did, he left out any details about those parts. If none of the conversations involved classified matters, it would be difficult to see how any of the memos could be considered to contain classified information.
In other threads, and at the risk of being hijacky, it appears as well. In this thread the tactic is leveled against Comey, which is a minority view here at present. But in threads about Trump’s lease of the Old Post Office building and about the supposed violations of the Emoluments Clause, that same sort of vague questions-only approach is also seen. There’s a current thread in which Czarcasm uses the tactic to push the idea that Trump’s blocking of Twitter users violates the First Amendment.
I dunno. Prolly. But the pool of reporters wouldn’t have all taken a plane trip to follow them and then camped outside their hotel room door, badgering them every time they tried to go anywhere, because by the time they realized that something important had broken, the Comeys would already be away from them.
I can turn off my phone. I cannot turn off my front door. I imagine the Comeys have a similar setup.
There’s a lot of 2nd guessing Dir. Comeys actions going on, and all of it comes from people who are not in the same moment as Dir. Comey was in. I can tell you from personal experience that sometimes when someone does something inappropriate, you don’t react the way a movie script would have someone react. I can tell you that when you feel backed into a corner, when you feel you have a limited number of choices and none of them is particularly appealing, you may sometimes do something that seems necessary to you but to a dispassionate observer seems odd or short-sighted.
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?
What property do you think was stolen? What value do you think the property that you allege Dir. Comey stole has? More or less than the $1000 threshold in the statute you are citing?
“Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof”
AFAIU, Turley argues that Comey’s memos, that were created on a government computer, while sitting in a government car with a government driver, are a government record. See “record” in the cite above. It was “disposed” of by giving it to the NYT.
The $1000 threshhold is for the purposes of determining the sentence, not the guilt.
Not that I think Comey is a criminal, but it would be hard to argue that Comey’s memos have no value. On the open market, I suspect they would fetch 6 figures, easily. And of course there is an “or” before “thing of value”, not an “and”.
I think we can all be certain that Comey did not actually physically remove anything and give it to someone. If you guys think that statute covers CC’ing an attachment, well that ain’t the plain language interpretation.
(1) the physical document. The “government record”. Comey says it’s not because it’s his personal recollection recorded (i.e. Not govt property). But he also made it on gov’t computers using gov’t resources. But let’s just say it’s a govt record. There’s no indication the govt still doesn’t have the physical record. Comey said he gave it to the special prosecutor. What was leaked to the NYT, as I said above, was the contents of the documents.
(2) the information contained in the physical document. Ie, “Thing of value”. Comey did cause to leak the information. However, it has to have financial value (per case law) to fall under 641. There’s nothing here to indicate this conversation is inherently valuable to the govt and I’ve seen no legit argument that it would. It’s an unclassified conversation. It’s not for instance, information pertaining to the location of soviet nuclear missles, etc.
“Disposed” in this context clearly refers to destroying or otherwise depriving the government of a record or thing of value. Comey giving a statement that summarizes his memos to a friend who then read it to a reporter does not constitute disposing of any government record. Comey’s testimony made clear that he gave the memos themselves to Bob Mueller. So, the memos have not been disposed of and still exist.
Conveyed would be the word that better fits your proposed use. Again, though, Comey’s actions do not constitute conveying a government record because what he gave to his friend were not the memos themselves and the actual memos are still in possession of the government. It is also very much in question whether the private memos are even an official record that could be considered government property since they while they may have been made using government computers and possibly on government time, that does not automatically make them government records or government property. Nearly all government agencies have policies that permit limited personal use of government computers with the caveat that information stored on or obtained through government computers are subject to monitoring and possible search. The memos were not for any official purpose relating to Comey’s duties and instead merely memorialized what was said for his own personal use and purpose. It is clear they are government records now because they are documents that are relevant to an investigation and have been transferred to government custody via Bob Mueller.