White House Press Secretary Says Comey Violated Privacy Act
The government could face an uphill fight pursuing Privacy Act violations against former FBI Director James Comey based on previous history.
September 13, 2017 at 06:42 PM
4 minute read
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders laid out a case claiming former FBI Director James Comey likely violated the Privacy Act by leaking memos involving conversations with the president, but it's unlikely the DOJ will come after Comey anytime soon.
Asked in a White House briefing Wednesday whether she believed Comey broke the law by leaking memos he wrote about interactions with President Donald Trump to the press, Sanders said leaking sensitive FBI memos violates “federal laws.” However, the only statute she mentioned by name was the Privacy Act, which governs how and when agency employees can release records. The U.S. Department of Justice rarely pursues cases against employees under the Privacy Act.
Sanders said the fact that Comey created memos about an FBI matter on an FBI computer, while employed as director of the FBI, is an obvious violation. Whether Comey broke the law, though, would be up to the DOJ.
“I think that the facts of the case are pretty clear,” Sanders said.
In testimony before Congress earlier this year, Comey said he wrote the memos because he “knew there might come a day” when he would “need a record of what had happened” in order to protect both himself and the FBI. He said he leaked the memos after Trump fired him in March to ensure the appointment of a special prosecutor to oversee the agency's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign. The memos themselves have not been made public.
The law Sanders cited, the Privacy Act, makes it illegal to disclose “any record” under agency control “to any person” except in certain circumstances. A record, according to the law, is “any item, collection or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency” that names the individual or contains other identifying information.
Privacy Act litigation typically occurs when an individual sues the government with the belief an agency improperly disclosed information about them. When the U.S. Office of Personnel Management had a major data breach in 2015 that exposed millions of federal workers' personal data, several class action lawsuits were filed under the Privacy Act.
While Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has said he believes Comey's memos should have been kept confidential, Comey said in his congressional testimony that he “understood” at least one of the memos he leaked to be a “recollection recorded of my conversation with the president.”
If the memos are personal documents, akin to a diary, they likely wouldn't be covered by the Privacy Act. In a post on the Lawfare blog Wednesday, former National Security Agency lawyer Susan Hennessey and Brookings Institution fellow Benjamin Wittes, a friend of Comey's, wrote, “it's hard to even understand the argument for how Jim Comey's memory about his conversation with the president qualifies as a record, even if he jotted it down while in his office.”
Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University Law School, said he had no doubt Comey's memos would count as records because they were written on an FBI computer about activities undertaken in Comey's capacity as FBI director, and he discussed the memos with colleagues at the agency. Turley said he thought it was “likely” that Comey violated the Privacy Act.
“Imagine how ludicrous it would be if FBI officials could claim that field memos were personal diary entries,” Turley said. “They could destroy the reputation of citizens. They could undermine investigations.”
Turley noted, however, that criminal prosecutions under Privacy Act violations are rare. In fact, a Justice Department guide on the law only mentions two such prosecutions, and neither resulted in a conviction.
Where Comey could run into trouble, Turley said, is if the Justice Department determined the memos contained classified information.
“If, in fact, he removed classified memos from a secure computer, that triggers a host of other potentially criminal charges,” Turley said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
Ex-Deputy AG Trusts U.S. Legal System To Pull Country Through Times of Duress
7 minute read'Even Playing Field?' Wiley Rein Intervenes in Federal Election Campaign Spending Row
3 minute readBig Law Lawyers Fan Out for Election Day Volunteering in Call Centers and Litigation
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250