One of the most interesting new disclosures today in the Comey hearing was the admission by former FBI Director James Comey that he intentionally used a “friend” on the Columbia law faculty to leak his memos to the media. Comey says that he did so to force the appointment of a Special Counsel. However, those memos could be viewed as a government record and potential evidence in a criminal investigation.
Notably, Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman on a faculty webpage reads that he is “currently an adviser to FBI Director James B. Comey.” Richman specializes in criminal law and criminal procedure.
The problem is that Comey’s description of his use of an FBI computer to create memoranda to file suggests that these are arguably government documents. Comey admitted that he thought he raised the issue with his staff and recognized that they might be needed by the Department or Congress. They read like a type of field 302 form, which are core investigatory documents.
The admission of leaking the memos is problematic given the overall controversy involving leakers undermining the Administration. Indeed, it creates a curious scene of a former director leaking material against the President after the President repeatedly asked him to crack down on leakers.
Besides being subject to Nondisclosure Agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and nonclassified information. Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641 which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”
There are also ethical and departmental rules against the use of material to damage a former represented person or individual or firm related to prior representation. The FBI website states:
Dissemination of FBI information is made strictly in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act; Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a; FBI policy and procedures regarding discretionary release of information in accordance with the Privacy Act; and other applicable federal orders and directives.”
Lawyers generally ask for clients or employers to release information, particularly when it may be detrimental to the firm or the client or someone associated with your prior representation.
By the way, waking up in the middle of the night (as described by Comey) is not generally the best time to decide to leak damaging memos against a sitting president. There are times when coffee and a full night’s sleep (and even conferral with counsel) is recommended. Leaking damaging memos is one of those times. Moreover, if Comey was sure of his right to release the memo, why use a law professor to avoid fingerprints?
I find Comey’s admission to be deeply troubling from a professional and ethical standpoint. Would Director Comey have approved such a rule for FBI agents? Thus, an agent can prepare a memo during office hours on an FBI computer about a meeting related to his service . . . but leak that memo to the media. The Justice Department has long defined what constitutes government documents broadly. It is not clear if Comey had the documents reviewed for classification at the confidential level or confirmed that they would be treated as entirely private property. What is clear is that he did not clear the release of the memos with anyone in the government.
Comey’s statement of a good motivation does not negate the concerns over his chosen means of a leak. Moreover, the timing of the leak most clearly benefited Comey not the cause of a Special Counsel. It was clear at that time that a Special Counsel was likely. More importantly, Comey clearly understood that these memos would be sought. That leads inevitably to the question of both motivation as well as means.
What do you think?
Never turn your back on a weasel.
Well said. Comey is the definition of a weasel.
LOL! Every time Comey sees that word “weasel” used on him, he bristles. That’s why I keep using it on him. He’s a dolt!
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/five-things-i-learned-from-watching-the-comey-testimony-4ed962701ec
Top Ten Things Learned from Comey’s June2017 Testimony
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DB5Beb3XsAIgGD1.jpg
This buffoon admitted to 3 separate criminal acts:
1. Kept records in his official capacity that he didn’t turn over
2. Leaked privileged information (and conspired to do so with a friend who is now also subject to indictment)
3. Did the leaking to influence an investigation (while a private citizen) which is obstruction of justice
For how long can he be put away?
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/08/james-comey-senate-hearing-trump-russia-obstruction-of-justice/
I am having trouble finding a single notable attorney who agrees with Turley on this.
Yeah, but lots of stupid people agree with him. So there’s that.
You clowns have proved what?
This is a complicated issue and, most attorneys are not specialists in this area of the law. Turley is a specialist. It seems unbelievable that Comey, a FBI employee, can release information obtained through the course of his employment to the press without the consent of the FBI. His conversations with the President were part of his employment as FBI director; they did not derive from a personal friendship.
Once he utilized a FBI computer to memorialize his conversations and thoughts, that document was then government property. I think that this matter requires the adjudication of the courts.
I am not. It is an obvious question.
There are creative defenses for sure, but this is a real breach of the law.
Comey has problems. The politics of it all will be the only thing that may save him.
He committed a legal violation, and admitted to it.
He will need a series of willing judges to avoid problems.
Should a conversation between two people be privileged unless both people agree it can be shared? And, if a person writes a memo during the course of his job on company time and equipment concerning a meeting in the course of his/her duties, shouldn’t that memo be the property of the company, in the case of James Comey the government? The answer seems obvious to me.
So “the government” owns Comey’s memo? What “government” is that? The Senate? The judiciary? The FBI? The Independent Counsel?
Those are rhetorical questions, of course. As a good little authoritarian, you don’t want to see anyone reveal the truth about Trump.
It’s amazing how many conservatives are freely admitting they hate the Constitution.
Nope!! We love the Constitution and we follow the rules. BTW, you write very well!! Attorney??
See the FBI Employment Agreement posted by @ROSESTHERESA. Comey appears to be in violation of at least 4 of the 6 items.
Furthermore, he admitted to leaking the memo to influence the course of the investigation. I believe that falls in the category of “obstruction of justice”, regardless of his intentions. In other words, he’s guilty of exactly what others are accusing of Trump.
Are you sure that agreement applies to the Director? Usually they are exempt.
No, we don’t hate the Constitution just the liberals way of destroying it to fit their agenda. Just before Comey was fired the Democrats were screaming he couldn’t be trusted and demanded firing him. Then Trump fires him and they’re all up in arms.. What a bunch of hypocrites. Trump did not in any way obstruct justice, even Comey admitted that. In fact if he really wanted Flynn’s investigation to end, he could have legally ended it himself. That is not against the law. He mainly wanted Comey to admit to the public that he was not under investigation for the Russian collusion nonsense which Comey admitted he wasn’t, but refused to publicly
say it. If anyone obstructed justice it was Comey when he let Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton run the Clinton investigation and gave Hillary a pass.
All stupid questions, DiTurno. The “government” is the U.S. government, which includes all of the federal agencies, branches of government, and individuals you listed. My goodness, you lack basic knowledge. To dialogue with you is a waste of time. This is the most idiotic statement you made: “It’s amazing how many conservatives are freely admitting they hate the Constitution.”
The Executive Branch owns it. That is not rhetorical at all. The FBI is part of the Executive Branch, and Trump runs that.
This is not even a question at all.
The Executive Branch. Period. Not complicated.
Sadly, Comey appears to be little more than a biased political hack.
Would that be in opposition to an unbiased political hack, or a biased nonpolitical hack, or someone who was biased and political but not a hack?
You unfamiliarity with the English language nicely mirrors your impenetrable ignorance about politics. Well done!
I’d love to hear your opinions about climate change, nonconsensual sex, fluoridated water, and the gold standard. I’m sure they’re fascinating!
all those words yet you cannot actually refute the fact that Comey is a proven liar and had political reasons for his attempt to attack trump because he got his feelings hurt – waah waaaahhhhh
Comey admitted to purposefully leaking to achieve a political purpose, yet people here are in denial.
I generally like Comey and thought Trump made a mistake firing him, but he did what he did.
Comey admitted it all, yet these people are denying something he admits.
Weird, huh?
DiTurno, you come across as a pompous rear end.
General Petraeus was prosecuted by Comey for lying to the FBI and
mishandling classified material by providing governmental
documents to a friend, lover and biographer.
Comey lied and leaked.
When does his “perp-walk” happen, AG Sessions?
You don’t seem very bright, bless your heart. What did he lie about?
You have no idea, of course.
he lied at least twice under testimony that can be confirmed
he said he leaked the memos in response to Trumps may 12th tweet – problem with that the NYT reported from those memos on may 11th — confirmed comey lie #1
he stated that Jeff Sessions never made him aware of the reasons for his recusal and its ramifications on the FBI — Sessions produced today a memo emailed to Comey and other FBI superiors highlighting just that – confirmed Comey lie #2
Get your timeline straight. NYT noted in an article that Comey had a private dinner with the guy who does not know that we have 11,000 troops in Qatar. A couple days later the guy who did not know health care was complicated tweeted about maybe tapes, A couple days later the NYT’s has Comey’s professor friends comments on his Comey’s meeting notes.
It is well documented. He received an e-mail where terms of Sessions’ recusal was outlined.
He was also briefed on it.
Then he denied so under oath.
The man has some problems, suddenly. Wishing it away will not work, and I generally like Comey.
He lost his grip by leaking, it was an emotional, bad decision.
Yes, Comey violated the law and should be prosecuted. Comey has lied repeatedly throughout his career and his record at the FBI has been a total failure. But Comey will NOT be prosecuted and no adverse actions will be taken against him. There is an unwritten rule that Deep State operatives are immune from any adverse against them. The Deep State always protects their own. Hillary Clinton is a perfect recent example of that. If the Deep State did not offer this powerful protection, it would not have the power that it does over its many subordinates to keep them in line and to carry out the Deep State directives.
Putting aside the tinfoil hat aspects of the Deep State hypothesis, it should be clear that Mr. Comey did not violate any law. First, he did not reveal classified information (that, of course, would be a crime). Executive privilege is a tool the President can use to prevent subordinates from testifying to Congress, although it is limited and, as the Supreme Court held in US v. Nixon, is overridden in the context of a criminal investigation. Here Mr. Trump did not invoke it, even though he knew weeks in advance that Mr. Comey was going to testify. Moreover, even if he had tried to assert it, he undoubtedly waived it by commenting publicly on his conversations with Mr. Comey.
You are obviously unaware that revealing classified information is not the only “leak” crime that can be prosecuted. Or more likely, you are aware but your are disingenuous and are trying to shine us on. I don’t think you are fooling anybody but your fellow travelers.
And Don Montfort is just making things up out of thin air. Revealing the contents of an unclassified conversation you were part of is not a “leak,” a term that means nothing from a legal standpoint.
Comey’s comments are absolutely protected by the first amendment, and only a fascist or ignoramus would suggest otherwise. And yes, I absolutely include Turley in those categories, at least in this instance. He’s literally arguing that Comey is legally allowed to say *nothing* about a president who sought to obstruct justice.
Below are the provisions of the FBI employment agreement (obtained from the internet; I trust it is correct). The provisions (see items 3 and 4) prohibit an FBI employee from releasing information obtained through their FBI employment without the consent of the FBI. Was not Comey an employee of the FBI? I find it hard to believe that an employee of the FBI can blithely release information obtained through their employment to the press.
FBI EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
As consideration for my employment, or my continued employment, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United
States Department of Justice, I hereby agree to be governed by and to comply with the following provisions:
1. Unauthorized disclosure, misuse, or negligent handling of information contained in the files, electronic or paper, of the FBI or which I
may acquire as an employee of the FBI could impair national security, place human life in jeopardy, result in the denial of due process,
prevent the FBI from effectively discharging its responsibilities, or violate federal law. I understand that by being granted access to such
information, I am accepting a position of special trust and am obligated to protect such information from unauthorized disclosure.
2. All information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access remain
the property of the United States of America. I will surrender upon demand by the FBI, or upon my separation from the FBI, all materials
containing FBI information in my possession.
3. I will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my
official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.
4. Prior to making any disclosure, I will seek a determination of whether the information may be disclosed. I agree to be bound by the
guidelines governing prepublication review found in the FBI’s Prepublication Review Policy Guide (0792PG) as those procedures may
from time to time be amended. I understand that, in this context, “publication” includes disclosure of information to anyone by any
means. I will submit for review the full text of any proposed disclosure addressed by the FBI’s Prepublication Review Policy or this
employment agreement as required by the policy at least thirty (30) working days prior to the proposed publication.
5. I understand and agree that for two years after separating from the FBI, I must report back to the FBI, at least annually, if I work directly
for, represent, or provide national security related advice to the government of a foreign country, or any person whose activities are directly
or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized (in whole or major part) by any government of a foreign country.
6. I understand that these provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations
Reply
Leave a Reply
And you, Mr. DiTurno, may say that Comey has first amendment rights. However, you conveniently ignore President Trump’s fourth amendment rights. Selective application of the law is not very professional. “Only a fascist or ignoramus would suggest otherwise.” Your words. You are obviously a political hack saying the president sought to obstruct justice when nothing of that sort is true.
Comey can successfully defend himself as a whistleblower, not a leaker. Piece of cake argument that he was whistleblowing an obstruction of justice.
Have either of you goons heard about an NDA? Have either of you goons worked in law enforcement? Have either of you goons read Attorney Turley’s post? I am guessing you know all that but are ideological goons desperate to undo an election.
PS: If that clown believed there was an obstruction of justice, it was his job and his duty to report it through the proper channels at the time it occurred, you goon. If Trump did commit obstruction of justice, Comey the nearly 7′ drama queen when he’s got his heels on, committed another crime by not reporting it.
So ignorant and so wrong. No crime occurred, and Comey made no such accusations.
So much amateur cluelessness. Comey has problems, and the media cannot help him.
Harry, if Comey’s intention was to be a whistle blower, he would have used that term during his testimony on June 8, 2017. However, the way he presented it appeared to indicate that his intention was as a leaker, not a whistle blower.
Comey cannot be prosecuted because Trump is too weak to prosecute him. I’m not sure if the legal argument is weak or if it’s just Trump who lacks the courage to take on Comey, but Comey won’t be prosecuted either way
Any documented conversation of POTUS is deemed “confidential” the moment it is created.
You are very, very wrong.
You give yourself away as someone who pretends to know what they are talking about.
Comey has problems.
Maybe if Trump tries really hard he might be able to do something about this deep state corruption. But probably not. Trump is as helpless as the rest of us, poor thing.
Am I wrong to suspect that Comey did what he did so the issue of Executive Privilege would not arise? It sure seems to me that his conversation wit Trump would fall under that if Trump chose not to waive it.
Am I wrong?