Comey's Knowledge: Did He Break The Law?

Following his dismissal by President Trump, FBI Director James Comey claimed that the president had pressed him to end the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. This allegation has led to claims that Trump may have obstructed justice. However, critics have also accused Comey of breaking the law by orchestrating a leak of memos he wrote as FBI director. Comey has denied any wrongdoing, stating that the memos were unclassified. This complex situation raises questions about the legality of actions taken by both individuals and the potential consequences they may face.

Comey's memos: private property or official documents?

James Comey, the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), found himself at the center of a political controversy in 2017 when he was dismissed from his position by President Donald Trump. The controversy centered around Comey's handling of memos documenting his conversations with President Trump, particularly regarding the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election.

Comey claimed that these memos were his personal recollections and private property. He argued that he created them as a private citizen and shared them with a friend, who then leaked them to the press. Comey insisted that the memos were unclassified and that he did not disclose any classified information.

However, others, including White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, disputed this claim. They argued that the memos were created on FBI computers, followed the protocol of official FBI documents, and contained classified information. As such, they believed that Comey's actions violated federal laws, including the Privacy Act, standard FBI employment agreements, and nondisclosure agreements that all personnel must sign.

The FBI's policy forbids agents from releasing classified information or information from ongoing investigations without prior written permission. All records created during official duties are considered government property, and agents sign agreements stating that all information acquired during their official employment remains the property of the United States.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) investigated Comey's handling of the memos and, in June 2018, Inspector General Michael Horowitz found that Comey violated FBI policy and set a "dangerous example" for FBI employees. However, the DOJ ultimately decided not to prosecute Comey, as they found no evidence that he had released classified information to the media.

In conclusion, the nature of Comey's memos as either private property or official documents was a matter of dispute. While Comey insisted on their private nature, others, including the White House and the FBI, argued that they were official documents and that Comey's handling of them violated FBI policies and federal laws. The DOJ's decision not to prosecute Comey suggests that they did not find sufficient evidence to conclusively determine that the memos were official documents.

Did Comey leak FBI memos, and was it illegal?

James Comey, the former director of the FBI, leaked memos detailing his conversations with President Trump to the press. Comey has stated that the memos were unclassified and that he did nothing illegal by sharing them. However, the White House has dismissed his claims, alleging that he broke the law by leaking the memos.

Comey gave the contents of a memo to his friend, his personal lawyer Dan Richman, and authorised him to share them with a New York Times journalist. Comey has said that he did this to pressure the Department of Justice to launch an independent investigation into the president.

Comey's actions have been criticised by an internal watchdog, who said that he failed to "live up" to his duty to safeguard sensitive information. The watchdog also found that Comey had violated departmental policies by keeping copies of the memos in a safe at his home and not informing the FBI.

Despite the findings, the Department of Justice declined to prosecute Comey, and an inspector general stated that he would not recommend prosecution for the breach. However, the inspector general did say that Comey's actions set a "dangerous example" and that he violated agency policies.

In conclusion, while Comey's actions may have been unethical and a violation of FBI policy, it was decided that they did not warrant criminal prosecution.

Can intent be proven?

Intent can be proven in court, but it is one of the most difficult things to prove as it is a mental state. It is also one of the two elements that must be proven to secure a conviction, the other being the actual act.

Proving intent is especially important in criminal law, where it is defined as a determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason. The intent demonstrates that the accused knew what the likely outcome of their actions would be before committing them and desired that outcome. This is known as the "guilty mind," or "mens rea," and it is one of the main elements that must be proven to convict someone of a crime.

There are two types of intent: general and specific. General intent corresponds loosely with knowledge of a crime, whereas specific intent refers to the purpose behind committing it. For example, for a conviction in attempted murder, which requires proof of specific intent to kill, a prosecution cannot rely on the fact that the defendant performed the act of killing to presume that the defendant intended to kill. The defendant might have acted out of self-defence, which would negate the required intent because the killing was done out of protection and not the desire to take the victim's life.

Proving intent is often done with circumstantial evidence, such as actions, behaviours, and circumstances surrounding the crime that suggest intent. For instance, purchasing materials known to be used in the commission of a crime shortly before the crime occurs can imply intent. The defendant's behaviour before, during, and after the alleged crime can also be critical in demonstrating intent. For example, attempts to conceal evidence, lie about whereabouts, or flee from law enforcement can indicate a guilty mind.

Direct evidence of intent can also be used, although it is rare. This includes explicit statements, writings, or digital communications where the defendant directly expresses their criminal intent to commit a crime. For example, text messages discussing plans to commit a robbery or emails detailing a fraud scheme serve as direct insights into the defendant's mental state.

In the case of James Comey, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed that it was "pretty clean and clear" that Comey broke federal law by orchestrating a leak of memos he wrote as FBI director. However, she also stated that it was "not up to [her] to decide" whether his actions were illegal. Comey claimed that the memos were unclassified and that he did nothing wrong by sharing them, but the White House has dismissed his testimony as inaccurate and alleged that he broke the law.

While it is challenging to prove intent, it is not impossible, and it is a crucial aspect of criminal law that can significantly impact the outcome of a case.

Did Trump have a legitimate reason to fire Comey?

The firing of James Comey, the FBI director, by President Donald Trump has sparked accusations of obstruction of justice and questions about the legitimacy of the decision. While Trump had the lawful authority to dismiss Comey, the context and potential motives surrounding the firing have raised concerns.

Trump's decision to fire Comey came amid the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia and the probe into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Comey's private memos detailing his conversations with Trump, including Trump's request to drop the Flynn investigation, have been central to the debate.

Trump initially stated that he dismissed Comey due to his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server, which had damaged his credibility. This reason, on its own, could be considered legitimate and not indicative of obstruction. However, Trump's own statements have complicated this narrative. In an interview with NBC's Lester Holt, Trump mentioned the "Russia thing" as a factor in his decision, suggesting a potential connection between the firing and the Russia investigation.

Legal analysts and experts have weighed in on the issue, noting that obstruction of justice is a complex matter. They emphasize that proving obstruction requires demonstrating "corrupt intent," which can be challenging. While Comey's memos provide evidence of possible obstruction, they are not definitive proof. The specific details of Trump and Comey's conversations, the broader context, and the intent behind Trump's actions would need to be scrutinized to determine if there was a legitimate reason to fire Comey.

The White House has disputed Comey's characterization of his conversations with Trump, denying that the President attempted to influence or impede any investigations. The question of intent is crucial, and without additional evidence or testimony, it becomes a matter of Comey's word against Trump's.

In conclusion, while Trump had the lawful authority to fire Comey, the timing and circumstances surrounding the decision have raised legitimate concerns about the President's motives. The potential connection between the firing and the ongoing investigations into the Trump campaign's activities has led to accusations of obstruction of justice. However, proving obstruction requires demonstrating corrupt intent, which is a challenging task without direct evidence. The ultimate legitimacy of Trump's reason for firing Comey remains a subject of debate and further investigation.

Can a sitting president be indicted?

The question of whether a sitting president can be indicted has been a topic of much debate. While some argue that a sitting president has immunity from prosecution, others contend that there are certain circumstances in which an indictment may be appropriate.

The concept of presidential immunity holds that a sitting president has both civil and criminal immunity for their official acts. This immunity is based on the idea that prosecuting a sitting president could hamstring the operation of the government and adversely affect their ability to govern. In 1973, during the Watergate scandal, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memorandum concluding that it is unconstitutional to prosecute a sitting president. The OLC's arguments included that the president is the symbolic head of the nation, and that criminal proceedings could disrupt the functioning of the government.

However, it's important to note that these memoranda do not have the force of law and are instead considered internal prosecutorial policy within the Department of Justice. Additionally, the Supreme Court has ruled that presidential immunity does not extend to unofficial acts. In the case of Trump v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court held that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts within their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority". For other official acts, the president enjoys presumptive immunity, while there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

The question of indicting a sitting president gained prominence during the presidency of Donald Trump and the Mueller special counsel investigation. Mueller found that he was bound by the OLC memoranda and, therefore, could not indict Trump. However, Mueller did investigate Trump and determined that Trump's actions during the 2020 election warranted further scrutiny.

Some scholars and legal experts argue that it is, in fact, constitutional to prosecute a sitting president, even if doing so may be unprecedented. They posit that there could be hypothetical situations, such as a president committing murder, where an indictment would be justified.

In conclusion, while there are arguments for both sides, the current understanding of the law suggests that a sitting president generally cannot be indicted for official acts but may be vulnerable to indictment for unofficial or personal acts.

Frequently asked questions