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:
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:
The Tenth Circuit agrees that the physical material is key, quoting DiGilio with approval:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.