"Jonathan Turley addresses several common arguments made on Comey’s behalf and dismantles them in turn.
First is the idea that Comey couldn’t have leaked because leaking only refers the release of classified information. An easy refutation and exceptionally odd argument to make, because, well, it’s flat-out wrong, he says. Two federal statutes (18 USC § 641 and 18 USC § 1905) and the FBI’s own non-disclosure agreement provide the relevant definitions here. All three sources show that Comey is actually, by definition, a leaker. Turley’s dismissal of this argument leaves one wondering whether those making it are simply acting out of ignorance or as part of a hope-nobody-actually-checks-this confidence scheme.
Second, Professor Turley addresses the notion that since Comey just read the contents of the memos to reporters, he wasn’t in violation of federal rules or regulations. This argument appears to be made out of whole cloth because Comey did, by his own admission, give the memos to his friend Daniel Richman. In any event, even if Comey had simply read the contents of the memos to the press, that wouldn’t augur well for his defenders. As Turley notes, “There is no Aesop exception that allows for unauthorized dissemination of information so long as it is in the form of a story.”
Much more at the link;
Law News - Law and Crime News
Also here is Turley's OP from the Hill;
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...nes-the-law-on
Comey leaked, accept it, own it.
