If you had any faith in the DOJ, check out these excerpts from the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice’s ‘Report of Investigation of Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey’s Disclosure of Sensitive Investigative Information and Handling of Certain Memoranda’ (emphasis mine).
In this analysis section, we address whether Comey’s actions violated Department and FBI policies, or the terms of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement. We determined that several of his actions did. We conclude that the Memos were official FBI records, rather than Comey’s personal documents. Accordingly, after his removal as FBI Director, Comey violated applicable policies and his Employment Agreement by failing to either surrender his copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 to the FBI or seek authorization to retain them; by releasing official FBI information and records to third parties without authorization; and by failing to immediately alert the FBI about his disclosures to his personal attorneys once he became aware in June 2017 that Memo 2 contained six words (four of which were names of foreign countries mentioned by the President) that the FBI had determined were classified at the “CONFIDENTIAL” level.
…
Comey’s actions with respect to the Memos violated Department and FBI policies concerning the retention, handling, and dissemination of FBI records and information, and violated the requirements of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement.
…
We found it particularly concerning that Comey did not tell anyone from the FBI that he had retained copies of the Memos in his personal safe at home, even when his Chief of Staff, the FBI’s Associate Deputy Director, and three SSAs came to Comey’s house on May 12, 2017, to inventory and remove all FBI property.
…
Comey violated FBI policies and the requirements of his FBI Employment Agreement when he sent a copy of Memo 4 to Richman with instructions to provide the contents to a reporter, and when he transmitted copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and a redacted version of 7 to his three attorneys.
…
By his own admission, Comey disclosed the contents of Memo 4 in an attempt to force the Department to take official investigative actions—to appoint a Special Counsel and preserve any tapes as evidence.
…
Members of Comey’s senior leadership team used the adjectives “surprised,” “stunned,” “shocked,” and “disappointment” to describe their reactions to learning that Comey acted on his own to provide the contents of Memo 4, through Richman, to a reporter. The unauthorized disclosure of this information—information that Comey knew only by virtue of his position as FBI Director—violated the terms of his FBI Employment Agreement and the FBI’s Prepublication Review Policy.
…
However, Comey was not authorized to provide these Memos to his attorneys without prior approval from or coordination with the FBI.
…
On June 7, 2017, Comey learned of the FBI’s classification decision regarding Memo 2 when the FBI allowed him to review copies of all seven Memos, with classification banners and markings, in preparation for his June 8, 2017 congressional testimony. Once he knew that the FBI had classified portions of Memo 2, Comey failed to immediately notify the FBI that he had previously given Memo 2 to his attorneys.
…
For this reason, the civil liberties of every individual who may fall within the scope of the FBI’s investigative authorities depend on the FBI’s ability to protect sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure.
…
However, after his removal as FBI Director two months later, Comey provided a copy of Memo 4, which Comey had kept without authorization, to Richman with instructions to share the contents with a reporter for The New York Times.
…
As part of this investigation, the OIG also interviewed 17 witnesses, including former Director Comey and Daniel Richman, the individual who, at Comey’s request, shared the contents of one of the Memos with a reporter for The New York Times.
…
On May 16, 2017, The New York Times published an article entitled “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation.”
…
The May 16 article further stated that “The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of…Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter.”
…
…
What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.
…
Upon completing our investigation, we provided our factual findings to the Department for a prosecutorial decision regarding Comey’s conduct. See 5 U.S.C.A. App. 3 § 4(d). After reviewing the matter, the Department declined prosecution.
I’m not a lawyer. To me this looks like a violation of U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 798, which is punishable by a fine or by imprisonment up to 10 years, or both. But who cares, laws are for little people like us, right?
What do I know? I’m Just Gaibroh.
LINKS
https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o1902.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
Leave a Reply