"Comey is a leaker"?

[running_coach]

@treis

He wasn’t the director when he released them.

:smack: I forgot the timeline.

[ganthet]

@treis

1503 or 1505

18 U.S. Code § 1503 clearly doesn’t apply since there is no juror or officer of the court involved in this situation.

(1) Corruptly - Comey released privileged documents partly for his benefit (disputing the reason he was fired).

and

(2) Impedes - Trump now knows that these memos exist and his legal team can take their existences into account. This gives them an advantage they shouldn’t have, thus impeding the investigation

(3) Influence - Comey also stated he released the documents to spur the naming of a special counsel. Clearly that’s an influence of the investigation

How is releasing a summary of memos that were written for Comey’s own purposes corruptly impeding or influencing an investigation? Disputing the reason he was fired is not a corrupt action in and of itself, or his very testimony to Congress in which he disputed the reason he was fired (in the memo given to him at least - that the FBI was in chaos and the rank-and-file had lost respect for him) would be sufficient above and beyond the leak to the media. In this case, the “corrupt” modifier would have to apply to any of the acts alleged if Comey did not threaten, use force, or communicate a threat regarding the other acts. So, Comey would have had to corruptly impede and/or corruptly influence the investigation.

Regarding corruptly impeding an investigation, the original purpose of the investigation was to probe Russian interference in the election. It later expanded to include Michael Flynn’s contact with Russians, his statements about these contacts, and possible issues with him being an unregistered foreign agent and reporting income from that. To date, there is no confirmation that Bob Mueller has expanded the investigation to include possible obstruction of justice on Trump’s part. Revealing the existence of the memos did not impede the investigation merely by making Trump and the public aware of them. If the investigation had been centered on obstruction of justice, the public was aware of the existence of the memos, and Comey proceeded to destroy them, that might constitute corruptly impeding the investigation/possible destruction of evidence.

Corruptly influencing the investigation seems an even more unlikely interpretation of his actions here since hoping that a special counsel is named is not really an attempt to influence the direction or outcome of the investigation. That’s a mere procedural event, particularly since Comey had no idea of who might be named special counsel if one was in fact appointed. There is nothing about the fact that a special counsel being appointed in the first place that suggests or determines what the outcome of the investigation will be.

I never equated [privileged information with classified information].

Then you haven’t shown that revealing privileged information itself (again, even just assuming that any of the information in Comey’s memos contained privileged information for the sake of argument) is a crime.

An attorney isn’t an FBI agent. A witness isn’t an FBI agent.

I used an example of a communication that included privileged information to show that merely publicizing privileged information is not a federal crime. But, in fact many FBI special agents are either law school graduates or are licensed attorneys (who cannot practice while serving in their law enforcement role). And a witness could very well be an FBI agent since law enforcement fact witnesses are almost always the foundation of any case that a prosecutor makes at trial and can also serve as expert witnesses depending on their qualifications and the situation.

[Bricker]

@treis

1503 or 1505:

(1) Corruptly - Comey released privileged documents partly for his benefit (disputing the reason he was fired).

What privilege applies to the documents, specifically?

And what law applies to the release of privileged documents, specifically?

(2) Impedes - Trump now knows that these memos exist and his legal team can take their existences into account. This gives them an advantage they shouldn’t have, thus impeding the investigation

Not remotely correct. The word “impedes,” does not mean any act that might make an investigation more difficult. As the Supreme Court explained in United States v. Aguilar:

Under the dissent’s theory, a man could be found guilty under § 1503 if he knew of a pending investigation and lied to his wife about his whereabouts at the time of the crime, thinking that an FBI agent might decide to interview her and that she might in turn be influenced in her statement to the agent by her husband’s false account of his whereabouts. The intent to obstruct justice is indeed present, but the man’s culpability is a good deal less clear from the statute than we usually require in order to impose criminal liability.

(3) Influence - Comey also stated he released the documents to spur the naming of a special counsel. Clearly that’s an influence of the investigation

Again, as we learn from Aguilar, that’s not the standard for a crime.

It absolutely would be if it (1) was done for corrupt reasons and (2) impeded the investigation. The reason it’s not is because it is done for the public good and (presumably) doesn’t affect the investigation.

No, this is an inaccurate statement of the law.

[Ravenman]

@treis

Because it’s totally absurd to think that DOJ rules do not prohibit disclosure of documents related to active investigations.

But you Trump supporters keep crowing about how Trump wasn’t under investigation. So now you say that Trump IS under active investigation?

[treis]

@ganthet

How is releasing a summary of memos that were written for Comey’s own purposes corruptly impeding or influencing an investigation? Disputing the reason he was fired is not a corrupt action in and of itself, or his very testimony to Congress in which he disputed the reason he was fired (in the memo given to him at least - that the FBI was in chaos and the rank-and-file had lost respect for him) would be sufficient above and beyond the leak to the media.

Disputing the reason he was fired is half of the corrupt equation. It benefits him personally by improving his reputation. Of course, the counter is that his releasing the documents was also in the public interest.

@ganthet

Then you haven’t shown that revealing privileged information itself (again, even just assuming that any of the information in Comey’s memos contained privileged information for the sake of argument) is a crime.

I’ve never said that it is. It would be helpful if you constrained your arguments to things I’ve actually said.

[treis]

@Bricker

What privilege applies to the documents, specifically?

And what law applies to the release of privileged documents, specifically?

I never said there was such a law.

@Bricker

Not remotely correct. The word “impedes,” does not mean any act that might make an investigation more difficult. As the Supreme Court explained in United States v. Aguilar:

Again, as we learn from Aguilar, that’s not the standard for a crime.

Your cite appears to pertain to uttering false statements to a potential witness. How does that apply to releasing evidence?

Let’s go with a hypothetical here. I’m a FBI agent. Someone pays me $10,000 for a document pertaining to an ongoing investigation. They release information in that document which ultimately a potential target of an investigation obtains. Revealing to them evidence that they would not otherwise not know evidence existed. Have I committed a crime?

[CarnalK]

@treis

I’ve never said that it is. It would be helpful if you constrained your arguments to things I’ve actually said.

Sure seemed like what you were going for with:

@treis

Isn’t this simply obstruction of justice? For two reasons:

(1) Comey released privileged information with the express goal of affecting an ongoing investigation

Unless you’re saying the “privileged information” bit was completely extraneous and had nothing to do with your point.

Under this rather silly view, releasing information that helps an investigation is obstruction of justice because after all that affects an investigation.

[quimper]

The furthest that Kasowitz’s complaint to the Inspector General about Comey’s conduct and testimony can get would be to bar Comey in the future from federal employment. For anyone just catching up, this isn’t a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Ted Lieu (D-CA 33rd) seems to think that Kasowitz should STFU unless he wants to end up in jail. Plenty of other legal experts agree with him.

[treis]

@CarnalK

Sure seemed like what you were going for with:
Unless you’re saying the “privileged information” bit was completely extraneous and had nothing to do with your point.

I’m saying the “with” part of that statement is not completely extraneous.

[CarnalK]

@treis

I’m saying the “with” part of that statement is not completely extraneous.

What are you saying about the “privileged information” part? That you just tossed it in for some flair?

[Bricker]

@treis

I never said there was such a law.

OK, then what, if any, relevance is there to your use of the word “privileged” in connection with the documents at hand?

Your cite appears to pertain to uttering false statements to a potential witness. How does that apply to releasing evidence?

No, the cite uses that as an example of the concept. The concept is:

@SCOTUS in US v. Aguilar

The action taken by the accused must be with an intent to influence judicial or grand jury proceedings; it is not enough that there be an intent to influence some ancillary proceeding, such as an investigation independent of the court’s or grand jury’s authority. . . . Some courts have phrased this showing as a “nexus” requirement—that the act must have a relationship in time, causation, or logic with the judicial proceedings. . . . Although respondent urges various broader grounds for affirmance, we find it unnecessary to address them** because we think the “nexus” requirement developed in the decisions of the Courts of Appeals is a correct construction of § 1503.**

(emphasis added)

Let’s go with a hypothetical here. I’m a FBI agent. Someone pays me $10,000 for a document pertaining to an ongoing investigation. They release information in that document which ultimately a potential target of an investigation obtains. Revealing to them evidence that they would not otherwise not know evidence existed. Have I committed a crime?

Is the investigation pursuant to a existing criminal trial, an existing civil trial, or an existing grand jury proceeding?

If the answer is ‘no,’ then you have not violated 18 USC § 1503.

Now, have you violated 18 USC § 1505? No.

As the Court of Appeals observed:

@US v Pointdexter

That term [“corruptly” - B] must have some meaning, as we recognized in North I, 910 F.2d at 882, because otherwise the statute would criminalize all attempts to “influence” congressional inquiries — an absurd result that the Congress could not have intended in enacting the statute.

They go on to extensively discuss the word and the legislative history before determining that it’s generally too vague to supply due process notice of conduct that is prohibited.

However, in your hypo, the agent would be guilty of bribery in violation of 18 USC 201, which prohibits being a public official who receives money in order to do or omit to do any act in violation of official duty.

[Johnny_Ace]

@CarnalK

I can’t imagine why giving your recollections of a meeting is “obviously illegal” nor how maneuvering to get a special prosecutor appointed is “simply obstruction of justice”. Both assertions are rather ludicrous on their face.

Facilitation of justice, a heinous crime.

At least if you’re a member of the Trump administartion.

[DSeid]

Bricker I doubt this question has exact relevance to the Comey case but legally where does the line get drawn between leaking and whistle-blowng when involving potential abuse of power? And at a Federal level do whistle-blowing protections have any teeth?