Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the legal analysis surrounding the disclosure by former FBI Director James Comey that he leaked damaging information against President Donald Trump in memos to the press. I have been surprised by the analysis which has been both artificially narrow or outright erroneous on the underlying legal issues. There was an early effort, for example, to judge the lawfulness of Comey’s actions solely on the basis of whether it was a crime. If these memos were government property, a claim for criminal conduct could be made but it would be unlikely under existing precedent. However, that does not mean that Comey’s conduct was either lawful or professional. Neither is true. In the rush to lionize Comey, the media is ignoring the fact that others have been punished for releasing non-public information to the media. Moreover, Comey and the FBI was tasked with finding leakers in the Administration. Yet, after being fired and publicly insulted by Trump, Comey became himself a leaker (despite a readily available and lawful avenue for disclosing the memos in a matter of weeks). I have stated from the outset that criminal charges are unlikely (and in my view unwarranted) as the facts currently stand with regard to this one leak. However, the leak was in my view unlawful and unprofessional. Comey allowed himself to be baited by Trump and proceeded to discard his professional judgment to strike back through a third party. His conduct should not be judged solely on the basis of whether it might land him in jail. Moreover, if the FBI wanted to pursue the violation, it could drag Comey to court and seek various remedies outlined in the agreement that all FBI agents sign as a condition of their employment.
The column below explores some of the misleading conclusions being advanced in the coverage. As I state in the column, I agree that legal commentators can have good-faith differences on such questions. However, it is useful to lay out both the conclusions and the countervailing arguments. These issues will become far more acute for Comey (including the possibility of criminal violations) if, as suggested by the White House, there were more leaks stretching back months.
Ever since the inauguration of President Trump, Washington seems stuck on the spin cycle with every figure and fact reworked to fit competing political narratives. James Comey is perhaps the greatest example of that process of translation. What is surprising is the degree to which legal experts have reached diametrically opposing views on what should be objective legal questions. Of course, even legal elements are subject to good-faith interpretive and jurisprudential differences of opinion. Yet, the chasm that has emerged in legal commentary is striking and frankly unsettling.
I have already addressed how the memos on Comey’s interaction with Trump were FBI information, not personal records like some diary entries. Comey clearly violated federal rules in the disclosure of the information without informing the Justice Department. Indeed, when still director, Comey never applied such loose notions of disclosure and ethics to his subordinates.
Yet, there has been a full court press to show that Comey’s conduct somehow fell outside of long-standing legal — and even grammatical — rules. Here are five such examples.
1. Comey could not have been a “leaker” because leaks by definition are limited to classified information.
Various experts have come forward to categorically dismiss allegations against Comey as a leaker by declaring that “leaks” are confined to the disclosure of classified information. This categorical statement was made by Claire Finkelstein, director of the Center for Ethics and Rule of Law and professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, as an established fact on National Public Radio. Finkelstein insisted “this is not a leak” and said that “the term leak” generally involves classified information.
She is not alone. Former Robert Mueller aide and CNN legal analyst Michael Zeldin insisted on air that Comey was memorializing the meetings, saying, “This is not classified. There’s no leak. It’s not definitionally a leak. Leak is something completely different.” Likewise, Fordham law school professor Jed Shugerman insisted, “This should not be called a leak. The word ‘leak’ refers to revealing secret and classified information.”
Of course, this was a leak. A leak is the release of unauthorized information, not classified information. This widely used definition appears in federal laws dealing with a myriad of unauthorized disclosures. For example, the Justice Department manual defines a violation under 18 USCS § 1905 as covering federal employees “disclosed confidential information that the employee knew was confidential “in the sense that its disclosure is forbidden by agency official policy (or by regulation or law).
Likewise, 18 U.S.C. § 641 prohibits unauthorized disposition of “property” and “things of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof” which a couple of courts have extended to confidential information leaked to the media.
Moreover, as I have discussed earlier, this leak was in direct conflict with the agreement that Comey signed (and all agents sign) at the FBI that makes material generated in relation to investigations “FBI information.” Many of the most famous leaks in history have been unclassified information ranging from expenses accounts of government officials to embarrassing pictures. Finally, as discussed below, this leak violated clear federal rules and regulations.
Yet, attorney Brad Moss is quoted as saying, “So long as he ensured the FBI had its own copy of the memos, and so long as the memos were not classified, Comey’s actions appear to be entirely lawful.” That would suggest that FBI regulations prohibiting the unauthorized disclosure of information are negated so long as you make or leave a copy. There are a host of privileges asserted by agencies, such as the deliberative process privileges. Imagine what would happen to that system if employees were told that they were in the clear if a document is not classified and they were considerate enough to leave a copy.
During Comey’s tenure, his bureau adopted exceptionally broad definitions of various privileges against disclosure of material from the FBI, including cases in the last year where the FBI barred the disclosure of any “documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.”
The agreement he signed clearly encompassed these memos as FBI material and he swore to comply with their bar on “unauthorized disclosure” — not just during his time at the FBI but “following termination of such employment.” He also agreed that violation would terminate his security clearance and subject him to both criminal and civil liability, including injunctive relief.
Comey’s effort to describe his decision as the result of waking up in the middle of the night may reflect his concern that this was an obvious and unlawful leak. At the time, he was already aware of the call for his testimony and he could have waited a couple of weeks to give the memos to a committee in a lawful and professional way. Instead he elected to leak through a third party, and in doing so, reduced the value of the memos to federal investigators including his former team.
The existence of the memos were most valuable if left confidential and not disclosed to Trump and his aides. They could then have been used to contradict statements and put pressure on potential cooperating witnesses. Comey used the information from his file at the FBI to change the narrative and strike a blow against Trump. In light of the lawful alternative avenue for disclosure, Comey is not only a leaker, but a leaker who appeared to leak out of ego or animus or both.
2. Comey could not have violated federal rules and regulations because the memos were read to reporters.
Experts have also maintained that, even if Comey is a leaker, he is not in violation of federal law or regulations because his friend only read the contents to reporters. For example, in a report by The Hill, attorney Stephen Kohn is cited for the proposition that “Comey shielded himself from any administrative repercussions by making the disclosures orally [and] … asked [Daniel] Richman to disclose “the content” of the memos, not the memos themselves.”
It is certainly true that there is no formal procedure to review oral disclosures as there is for book drafts or other publications. However, there are still a host of regulations requiring authorization for disclosures of any kind of FBI information. There is no Aesop exception that allows for unauthorized dissemination of information so long as it is in the form of a story.
Moreover, Comey appears to have given the memos to Richman and thus did disclose the memos themselves to a third party. It was also disclosed for the purpose of dissemination of the information. Again, the regulations refer to the disclosure of FBI information, not simply documents. Otherwise, anyone could become a leaker by just dictating the contents to a third party.
3. Comey satisfied bar rules or those rules did not apply to him.
Various experts have also dismissed legal ethical concerns over Comey’s conduct. Lawyers are not allowed to simply release damaging information without authorization. Yet, The Hill and other newspapers cite multiple lawyers as dismissing any legal ethical issues. For example, Kohn is quoted as saying “[e]ven in the context of lawyer-client privilege, if a client attacks the lawyer publicly, the lawyer can self-defend. So even assuming [executive privilege] was there, Comey had the right to self defense.”
First, the question is not simply about executive privilege. There are a host of privileges that can apply to FBI material, such as deliberative process privileges, as well as confidentiality protections that can be invoked by the government. Second, assuming the representational rules apply, Trump was not Comey’s client. D.C. Bar Rule 1.6 states, “[T]he client of the government lawyer is the agency that employs the lawyer.” Comey’s client was the Justice Department and ultimately the United States of America.
This material was generated as part of an FBI investigation, and that is the party that has to release the information (with the approval of the Justice Department). Again, the implications of this relaxed rule for Comey is staggering. It suggests that whenever a government attorney is criticized by a president or some other high ranking official, suddenly confidential or nonpublic information can be weaponized for use in the media.
D.C. Bar Rule 1.6 also states that protected information includes not only information within the attorney-client privilege, but also “other information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be held inviolate, or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing, or would be likely to be detrimental, to the client.” While bar charges may be unlikely, there is no waiver of Comey’s bar obligations in this matter.
4. There is nothing that can be done to Comey because he waited until he left the FBI to leak the information.
Some experts have insisted that, even if Comey acted unprofessionally, any complaint or action against him is virtually frivolous or meaningless because he waited until he left government employment. Kohn, for example, said that a complaint with the FBI does not “mean anything. It is public relations.”
Some regulations (like 5 CFR 2635.703 on the use of nonpublic information) are directed at current employees. However, other laws bar the removal and use of government material, and this position ignores the fact that the FBI has continuing interest in FBI information being disseminated by either current or former employees. Indeed, the FBI could accuse Comey of unlawful possession given the FBI policy that “FBI personnel must surrender all materials in their possession that contain FBI information upon FBI demand or upon separation from the FBI.”
It can seek an injunction in court and further ask congressional committees to treat the information as privileged or confidential. The FBI could seek an index of all material that Comey removed from FBI computers or files. It can even seek authority to search his office and home if there is evidence of unauthorized disclosures or dissemination. The FBI employment agreement signed by Comey expressly accepts such post-employment measures.
Regardless of the absence of a criminal charge, the FBI can determine that Comey acted unprofessionally and the bar can determine that he acted unethically. That is not meaningless, particularly when Comey’s allegations depend greatly on his credibility. If these memos are government property as senators like Susan Collins have recognized, complaints against Comey are hardly a matter of sheer “public relations.” Indeed, most of us have too much respect for Comey to believe that he would treat such complaints as meaningless.
5. None of this matters because Comey is a whistleblower.
In disclosing this information, Comey was not acting as a protected whistleblower and he has not claimed such a status. FBI whistleblowers are required to make objections internally, and the process has been widely criticized as less than that afforded at other agencies. If these memos constitute FBI information (as they appear), Comey had no authority under whistleblower laws to remove them and disseminate the information. Indeed, had an agent made such disclosure while Comey was director, he would not likely have been so forgiving or casual toward the disclosures.
Many of us consider Comey’s allegations to be highly disturbing, and we supported the appointment of a special counsel. I do not consider Comey to be a liar and I continue to respect his service to this country. I also do not believe that criminal charges would be warranted in this circumstance. However, our view of the different characters in this unfolding drama should not blind us to serious professional and ethical lapses.
Comey was wrong to leak the information to the media. He became the very thing that he has spent his lifetime fighting against after being baited by Trump. After being fired and called names, Comey picked up the phone and became a leaker himself to strike back at the president. That does not make his allegations untrue, but we do not need to retroactively change the meaning of leaks or the scope of professional rules of conduct to protect Comey from his poor decisions.
Assuming that Comey’s account in these memos is true, history will show two national figures — not just one — acted in highly inappropriate ways for highly personal reasons.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He has served as counsel in national security cases and whistleblower cases, including allegations of the leaking of unauthorized information.
Go Comets Go Team!
Fight for old McCluer.
Keep our honor fight team fight.
Begin with all your might…
Fight, fight fight.
— McCluer Fight Song- Ferguson, Missouri.
So, how’s ole Ned, Fred and Julie today?
Ned was begging. Fred was just floating. Julie is up on the log. It is night time and the turtles are in good form.
Two songs come to mind:
First:
(music to tune of The Jets)
Its the Law its The Law..
Its the Law all the way!
From your first minerette to your last dying day!
Second:
(Music to tune of Clydesdales)
Trump, Trump, bo bump,…
Banna fanna fo fump…
Fee fi mo mump…
Tru uump!
If the first two letters are ever the same,…
Ya drop them both and say the name,
Like Bob, Fob friggin F so Rob…
Or Mary, Mary, is real hairy…
Thats the only rule which is contrary.
So, Trumptser with a T and
Banna fanna fo.
And fi fi alimo.
there isn’nt any name that I can’t rhyme.
This post makes my head hurt. All I know is that Comey has a JD from the Univ of Chicago, tons of FBI experience, and a self crafted image as a straight shooter. His co-conspirator is a professor of law at Columbia. I don’t know if the Columbia professor has real world experience or if he’s an egghead who only lives in the world of theory. But neither he nor Comey are dummies. They both had to know that their conduct would come under intense public scrutiny and yet both proceeded. The idea that they would willfully expose themselves to legal liability to get back at Trump doesn’t make sense to me.
It is concerning that the law, rules, etc. are so convoluted that reasonable, skilled lawyers can not agree if the conduct was lawful, ethical, met the rules of professional responsibility, etc. Shouldn’t the rules be clear and concise so everybody understands what conduct is lawful and what is prohibited?
The law and the rules are too complex. I think lawyers make them that way because it is good for their business.
Scott, I have a question for you based on your observations you shared above:
So, is Comey a whistleblower trying to save our republic or a vengeful opportunist trying to protect his ego?
Or both.
Great post and comments. If Trump does nothing else, he has exposed elitists and the MSM for what they are. The elitists of all stripes are screaming, “HOW DARE YOU ELECT SOMEONE WE HAVE NOT PRESELECTED!”
It’s not been covered widely, but Bernie is starting a schism in the Dem party. There will be blood.
This is a slug fest between two factions of the ruling elite. How can one expect them to follow the intricacies of protocol and law when they are the ones who have corrupted them?
We have a corrupt FBI not following procedure to inform a corrupt DOJ about the wrong doing of a corrupt President. What can go wrong?
The solution is simple. Treat the President as if he were Kim Jong-un.
https://cdn.theguardian.tv/webM/2017/06/13/130627trumplord_WebM.webm
‘Thank you for the blessing’…
To pick out the wrong doing of one when all are doing wrong is by definition to pick sides.
I get the sense that we the people are being goaded to take action, to take the reins again of our government, to hold our elected representatives’ feet to the fire and get them to actually act like the people are in charge of our government, and that those on the Hill were elected to represent The People.
We have not really acted like we are in charge, that this is our government, for quite some time. We have nearly forgotten how to govern ourselves and have, instead, been allowing others to govern us. We bellyache, but are we engaged?
I’m curious. Who is doing the goading? Do you mean Trump – consciously? Some do, and while I don’t agree, it’s a position to take. Or do you mean circumstances? Or something else? No agenda there. Just curious.
What would you argue a good form of engagement to be?
In general, I am leary of the “blame the people” point of view. Yes, we can shut up (stop our bellyaching) and participate at the local level. And many of us do. But often as not, that is simply an argument telling people to stop complaining, stop bothering the elite, when in point of fact complaining is just about all they have in their power to do.
Prairie Rose, I’m not accusing you of that motive at all. But independently of you, it is frequently what is underneath the people should take more responsibility argument. And it ignores the fact that over the last 40 plus years, the system has been gradually rigged so that “the people” have virtually zero opportunity to do so in any meaningful way. If they did, Bernie Sanders, or someone like him, would have run against Donald Trump or someone like him. So it ends up a little like telling one’s child to use his or her plastic steering wheel (that does nothing) to make the car go where they want. Even the child figures that one out faster than we do.
Identifying the culprits, human, result of humans, and natural, is a worthwhile task and a highly iterative one since the names keep changing even if the parts they play stay roughly the same. As this site indicates, there is clearly a lot of difference of opinion on that matter so it will continue to be endlessly haggled over and in reality is an important form of engagement.
Note that I took one possible interpretation of what you meant, Prairie Rose and so apologize if I chose the wrong one entirely.
I am not offended. 🙂
Brooklin Bridge,
“Who is doing the goading? Do you mean Trump – consciously? ”
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. My basement flooded due to a humdinger of a storm, so I have been busy dealing with that.
My answer is nuanced. While circumstances play a part, I do think Trump is very much in control, saying and doing things to spark particular reactions or to test people. Comey failed a test, I suspect.
I base these suspicions on two excellent articles:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-25/real-donald-trump-fascinating-interview-1990
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-will-win-in-a-landslide-the-mind-behind-dilbert-explains-why/?utm_term=.22acc90a051d
Scott Adams also has an article entitled Clown Genius that is worth reading.
People are engaging to a greater degree: people really paid attention to this election and, I believe, questioning what we want our government to really be, not in just some amorphous way, but more detail-oriented. There is a broader discussion about the EPA, for instance. Dismantle completely? No, people do not want that. While some say so, I get the feeling most people do not want to go that far. Collusion to hide the effects of Round-Up on health or to declare a little run off as a wetland? Hmmm..that is something to chew on. Rein in the EPA? Yeah, maybe. Civil discourse can tease out such issues.
I did not intend to ‘blame the people’, as though we are solely at fault. We have been divided quite handily by those who want to gain, keep, and reinforce their power. Far too many politicians have sold us out to corporatists/MIC. Yet, we keep electing them because we have not been keeping our eye on them effectively, or are too ‘brand-loyal’ or have not interacted sufficiently with our neighbors to make our representatives nervous. I have become far more civicly engaged–calling and writing to my reps like I did not do prior to TARP. So, no, it is not just Trump, but it is circumstances, too. He is bringing many issues into focus, though.
There is also most certainly an effort to rig the vote (the DNC proved it this time, and both parties showed it at the last election, too).
I am leery of Trump. You may remember my reference to the movie Gettysburg prior to the election that the elites have the high ground.
I still feel that way to a degree, but I am also trying to watch Trump. He is ticking off the statists/warmongers in both parties. McCain is practically as unhinged as any Democrat opposing Trump.
I agree that this site/forum is an excellent means of engagement.
OK, back to dealing with a soggy basement.
Can’t wait to see comments on Mueller ‘s choices for
his investigation team.
Obama and HRC donors.
Will Mueller follow the leads to actually investigate and prosecute the leakers (the only crime we know of at this point) even when it points to his good friend Jimmy the leaker?
Will Mueller look into obstruction of justice by Loretta Lynch and Obama?
Comey was leaking before he was fired
http://thedeepstate.com/major-deep-state-leaks-tied-to-comey-complete-list-2/
Comey is part of a Seditious Conspiracy. He deserves a trial and a short drop in reality or a lifelong cell at min.
https://globalmediasentry.wordpress.com/2017/06/10/comey-tied-to-clintons-money/
Comey Tied To Clintons’ Money
Perhaps, after all is said and done, Comey will be reduced, along with June Allison, to filming commercials for Depends, where he can tell us about the nightmares of embarrassing leaks.
JT–I don’t get it. You take the time to write a very detailed, comprehensive, precise and thorough explanation as to the possible motives that Comey had with regard to his actions, not to mention, the probable ramifications of such behavior by one heading the FBI, yet you, incredibly, make sure to include that you don’t believe Comey to be a liar or that criminal charges are warranted under the circumstances. Why? If anything, your article, in my opinion, lays the groundwork for proving just those very things–that Comey is, in fact, a liar and that criminal charges, along with various charges from the Bar, are, indeed, warranted. The entire article speaks to his dishonesty and criminal conduct, yet, somehow, you make it point to mention that Comey is not a liar and should not be held to account for his blatantly criminal actions. You have to ask yourself–if one of your law students, during an exam, wrote the same arguments, as outlined by you–in response a hypothetical question, where there are no links to this particular, hotbed matter–and then, bizarrely, proceeded to conclude that the individual in question was not a liar and that criminal charges were not warranted. . .tell me. . .what would the grade be on that exam? I shudder to even think about it.
Comey was just a cop.
Your analysis sounds just like what Comey said about Clinton. Guilty but do nothing.
Thank you J.T.for such enlightnment .
Crime Fraud exception. When a client is engaging or intends to engage in a crime or a fraud and his discussions with the attorney are meant to assist in the furtherance in that crime or fraud or to cover it up ther is no privilege. I don’t believe that Comey was serving as the President’s lawyer but for those who think he was, in my opinion, the crime fraud exception covers these disclosures.
As to other arguments, not even the president should be permitted to engage in wrongful conduct and be able to expect those he uses to cover it up to remain silent. The oath federal officials take is to the CONSTITUTION not the president. The classification and confidentiality of government documents exists to protect the country NOT any person who chooses to act against the interests od the country or engage in criminal activity. In my opinion, the idea that a federal law enforcement official has a duty to remain silent when he is asked or directed to cover up improper of illegal conduct by the president or his associates is wrong.
Your comment, Justice Holmes, is a compelling argument for trying Comey on the charge of failing to report obstruction of justice to the DOJ. If you believe the rubbish that what Trump is alleged to have done is O of J, that is.
The Bottom Line is that Comey is a proven liar and a traitor to America. And the fact remains that the US Government has the power to make Comey’s life unmitigated hell for the next 20 years of his life it chose to, through any number of means. But even Trump knows that nothing will happen to Comey, just as nothing has happened to the Clintons, despite their crimes. Comey, like the Clintons, have been dedicated servants of the Elite Establishment as Deep State operatives, loyally carrying out their orders. The Elite Establishment always takes care of their own. It’s always been that way. If the Elite Establishment didn’t ensure the safety of its Deep State operatives by providing such protection, the Deep State itself would crumble. And the Elite Establishment wouldn’t let that happen now, would they? Even Trump has learned these facts, painful as they must sometimes be to him, which is why he always folds when the Elite Establishment has told him how things are going to be.
Tell it to your mental health counselor.
Really, ultrasubcretin?
Ditto. You might enjoy reading the late Michael Piper’s hypothesis that “The Farm” (Al-CIAda) recruited John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Rodham while they were all attended college.
The Klinton Krime Synidcate’s history of getting away with so many federal felonies makes the most sense in the context of their Deep State benefactors always watching out for them.
If you’re a life long Progressive ultra liberal Democrat, please explain how and why you stood with the following alleged “Conservatives” in the last election:
George Will (Turley’s buddy)
The Koch Bros (Yes. HRC voters stood tall with the Koch Bros in the 2016. Drink that in, fast and hard, Komrade “Progressive)
Mitt Romney
Bill Kristol (son of Russian Bolsehvik ultra-right wing Orthodox Jew Irving Kristol….the same Bolsheviks who reeked bloodshed and murder over Soviet Russia for decades)
The Bush Krime Syndicate
The Economist Magazine
Am I the only who noticed, during Bushy’s reign of terror, all we heard 24/7 from Progressive Democrats were true accusations that Bush was a war monger and war criminal undeserving of the office? Then, while Obama kills countless more innocents, continues the two wars he swore he’d end, and starts two more wars in Libya and Syria, Progressives change to only praising Jesus Obama for winning a peace prize.
Build a fence around the Beltway, lock them all inside and give the key to Judge Roy Bean.
Maybe the attorneys general of DC and Maryland will pursue criminal charges against Comey.
They like political lawsuits, and seem to have a lot of time on their hands.
No reason for them to limit themselves to the emolument issue.
Thank you for a thorough, legal, overview of the issues! Based on your overview and my ability to comprehend it seems Comey can be said to have had a singular series of ‘ethical lapses.’ But, how does one proven leaker, thus far, only ‘artificially narrow’ your analysis from a series of legal interpretations? Sadly, I have no law degree, but I am very much aware ‘disclosing memos’ in an ‘unauthorized’ matter is highly unethical and reason enough for dismissal.
President Trump “baited” Comey, really? That doesn’t say much for the head of the FBI who was supposed to find leakers not be a leaker. I hope this all comes to an end soon, I tired of the lies, innuendo and the weekly media reports by anonymous sources.
You might have been out of the loop on the memo; the show that you now witness is prolly just how it’s going to be for the next 3+ years (hopefully),
May I happily agree! Progressive will do, politically, anything to break, dismantle or impeach Trump. In fact, is impeachment not a form of political, nonlethal assassination? Whereas, we both abhor confusing &dividing the electorate with unsavory innuendo, progressives will never give up in their attempt to delegitimize our president. In so doing, progressives marginalize themselves! Enough said?
I once again disagree with the lawyer-client analysis. Comey was not employed as a lawyer. He was employed as a high level manager. Just because someone has a law license, doesn’t mean he is in a lawyer-client relationship for all purposes. A person who has a law license, but works as a Forest Ranger, is not an attorney for the U.S. Forest Service. A lawyer who is employed as an auditor by the IRS is not the agency’s lawyer. If that person subsequently transfers to the IRS legal dept and takes a job as an attorney, then of course the lawyer-client rules will apply. But not until then. Similarly, someone working as a manager or director of an agency, whether the FBI or the EPA or the Library of Congress, is not in a lawyer-client relationship with the agency if he/she is not employed as an attorney. The federal civil service rules are very clear about position description (PD) rules. You can be licensed in every state in the country, but if you are not employed under a GS-905 attorney PD, then you are not an attorney for the agency.
Wow, you singled out and covered in depth on of Turley’s arguments. No idea if your points are valid, but I doubt they are. Comey’s an attorney, heading the nation’s Chief Federal LEOs.
Regardless: Thanks for agreeing with and validating the other dozen or so major points Turley made which clearly convict Comey of crimes and Federal rules violations.
IMO, the FBI has to either charge and convict Comey of crimes Re. leaking his notes, or risk the real potential of a Federal Judge giving everyone in the public access to any and every written notation of every single FBI agent in perpetuity. If FBI conversations with POTUS are not secret, what the hell is, and exactly why is it more secret than Comey/Trump conversation?
U down with that “TIN?”
TIN, does there not exist an oath that lawyers take parallel to the Hippocratic one that doctors take?
Isn’t part of being a professional, not abusing the credentialed leverage you have been given by your professional associations along with having earned an esteemed and privileged Juris Doctorate degree preclude not abusing that leverage?
Isn’t what the American Bar Association is all about?
You know, that ethics thing.
I certainly don’t expect it from civil servants, just the military, the legal profession and law enforcement.
I concur. This point really is a no brainer. Which calls into question Turley’s motives. Looks like Comey is going to replace Hillary as Turley’s favorite punching bag on his blog.
I don’t question JT’s motives. I think he genuinely believes that Comey did something wrong. But trying to frame it as a breach of lawyer-client ethics is pushing it too far, since Comey was not Trump’s lawyer was was not employed by the FBI as a lawyer. I’m less bothered by Comey’s actions because the situation has changed. Apparently JT thinks that Comey should respond with with civility and professionalism even when he is being personally humiliated by the President of the United States. That’s a laudable goal, but personally, I think that if he is being punched he has a right to punch back. We have never before had a President who attacks people so personally and publicly, and as a society, we will have to develop new ways to deal with that.
TIN:
I agree. Even with my law license, when I shop at the local grocery store and then complain about the fatty hamburger to a friend I haven’t unethically undermined the legal position of my client, the butcher. Not everything a lawyer does involves the attorney-client relationship. Comey is LEO in this capacity and not a lawyer representing the FBI. He’s got plenty to answer for but breaching legal ethics isn’t one of them.
This is virtually the exact same article you posted yesterday, Mr. Turley. The emoluments lawsuit against Trump, Sessions upcoming testimony, rumors about Trump firing Mueller, Gianforte’s sentencing for assaulting a reporter, all of these would be worthy of comment but all we get from you is crickets. And oh yes, Comey. Comey, Comey, Comey. Can your shilling be any more desperate or obvious? But that’s okay, I’m sure that your toadies here will give you the validation that you carve,
*validation that you crave.
It’s JT’s blog, so he gets to pick the topics. That’s the way it works. He is under no obligation to choose topics of interest to you, but you are welcome to start your own blog. Best wishes.
I know a good name….
“The Blog de Azure” Sounds so…so….so Mellow and all.
Not one of the silly items you listed are even a spec in the eye compared to the ex-FBI Chief list of crimes, Federal Rules violations, etc.
You’re at the wrong blog. Go immediately to the Katy Perry or Rachel Maddow fan club forum. Claiming that Turley is a “shill,” and craves “validation” is about as pathetic as your complete, glaring, and total lack of legal argument. Failed debate strategy, much? I’m sure Turley is very hurt by your name calling, NOT.
When cradle Democrats like Feinstein, Turley, and Dershowitz make bold claims against Trump’s accusers, that there is some strong medicine that only persons like you suffering from TDS Trump Derangement Syndrome can possibly ignore. Feinstein called to investigate LOW-retta Lynch for Obstruction Re. her ordering Comey to call the FBI’s “investigation” of HRC a “matter,” which Comey agreed to do (Comey admitted to being a co-conspirator to Obstruction).
and then Turley says…..
“I agree that legal commentators can have good-faith differences on such questions”
Yes. Good faith includes my good faith that Comey lied when he claimed “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge HRC. Cradle to grave Democrat Turley and gay Judge Napolitano (FN fired him for his anti-Bush and pro-Constitution tirade) among many others posted long list of legal arguments confirming HRC’s many various criminal violations. Is Comey’s statement true that all such persons are not “reasonable?”
LSilver, is there some place we could find your well articulated responses to the scandals you mention above?
You know like YOUR blog?
You know some place where we could attack your professional experience and ridicule your temerity in actually sticking your neck out and slander your established acumen of the subjects at hand.
I’ll wait for the link.
and yet you keep reading and commenting
Agree. Here’s more. I love the disclaimer of Turley’s
“I agree that legal commentators can have good-faith differences on such questions”. Gee, that should allow you back on the show circuit with both hands in their pockets.
Don’t forget his 🐢 aka Mellow…see his 🙌Jazzie🙌 hands get all jizzy. I don’t even see him on the Leaderboard yet. No, no. You can’t LISTEN and TALK at the same time. First you have to enter the SAFE ZONE. Correct, no one can trigger you in there.
brb……Honey! Have you seen my meds?
Yes dear….right where you left them (_!_)
My thoughts exactly!
FYI: Cecil the Lion thread was way, way longer.
This is what happens when mentally ill person gets elected twice and appoints drama queens like this who fails to listen to Russians about the Boston bombers and now he is hallucinating about Russia !
D-Observer, glad you mentioned the Tsarnaev brothers and the FBI.
Had to dust off this oldie but goodie.
Not so sure Obama was totally at fault for the MIC platform he inherited.
https://consortiumnews.com/2013/04/19/chechen-terrorists-and-the-neocons/
The madness enveloping this Presidency is accelerating with no end in sight. There is very litle there there and all we really have is some bad legal reasoning, endless undermining under color of law, a deranged group of leftists met by an intractable group of rightists with violence being the inevitable result. Sometimes primates just want a good fight. As Stevie Wonder said a long time ago in a situation not so far away: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CmkFt2HSkao
It’s truly invigorating to see the Republic protect itself from an infection; as if society has its own “white blood cells” to provide a defense from the gravest threat to our great experiment since 1861. If the mouth-breathers are disturbed, then all is well on this watch.
If you mean radicals as “white blood cells” and Trump as “infection,” you’ve got the roles reversed. Trump was elected by the body politic; the radicals are the cancer trying to eat away at every norm they detest like law and order, free speech, meritocracy and popular government. They’ll meet the fate of all radicals but do cause a lot of ill feeling in the meantime.
Well said, Mespo.
My head swims.
David –
You really shouldn’t be surprised. The fbi has been “ethically challenged” for more than 50 years. J. EDNA Hoover said there was no Mafia in the U.S. – probably because of his fear that mobsters knew of his arrest in N.Orleans for homosexual solicitation and that they may well have had photos of him in a Red dress, performing oral sex on Clyde Olson, his live-in boyfriend and #2 FBI leader.
J.EDNA was in charge when the Bureau assisted in covering up the truth about JFK’s assassination, where Lee HARVEY Oswald was a paid informant.
And in Boston, agents there allowed mobsters to murder people.
Not exactly a surprise thar Comey is little better, is it?