Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

brooklynite

(96,882 posts)
33. Likely theft of Government documents...
Tue May 3, 2022, 08:40 PM
May 2022

...on the assumption the leaker wasn't entitled to a copy.

Section 641 of Title 18 prohibits theft or receipt of stolen government information as well as theft of the documents, computer discs, etc., that contain the information. United States v. Fowler, 932 F.2d 306, 309-10 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 70-71 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871 (1979); United States v. DiGilio 538 F.2d 972, 977-78 (3rd Cir. 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Lupo v. United States, 429 U.S. 1038 (1977). But see United States v. Tobias, 836 F.2d 449, 451 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 991 (1988). Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth below, the Criminal Division believes that it is inappropriate to bring a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 641 when: (1) the subject of the theft is intangible property, i.e., government information owned by, or under the care, custody, or control of the United States; (2) the defendant obtained or used the property primarily for the purpose of disseminating it to the public; and (3) the property was not obtained as a result of wiretapping, (18 U.S.C. § 2511) interception of correspondence (18 U.S.C. §§ 1702, 1708), criminal entry, or criminal or civil trespass.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1664-protection-government-property-theft-government-information

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Probably an HR violation, but law? Nah n/t leftstreet May 2022 #1
Ashton Fox Embry who leaked a Supreme Court decision was indicted... PoliticAverse May 2022 #2
The issue in that case was trading on government information for financial gain. Ocelot II May 2022 #19
The law he was indicted on did not involve financial gain. n/t PoliticAverse May 2022 #20
Its on shaky ground in regards to consequences, they might get fired but uponit7771 May 2022 #3
Fired? Then I hope it was Alito JohnSJ May 2022 #13
TRUE !! uponit7771 May 2022 #15
It's all meant to distract from the larger issue that we have a right-wing radical Supreme Court TheRealNorth May 2022 #4
I don't think that will work for this JohnSJ May 2022 #14
The right to privacy... AZ8theist May 2022 #5
But the Supreme Court should have control over their own body... Bucky May 2022 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music May 2022 #6
Some seem more interested in the leaker Deuxcents May 2022 #7
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music May 2022 #36
WHY ISNT THE FBI SEARCHING FOR THE TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS A MARA LAGO? onecaliberal May 2022 #8
No law was broken. SoonerPride May 2022 #9
It isn't illegal; it's against the rules of the Supreme Court. Ocelot II May 2022 #10
Potentially, 18 USC 641 onenote May 2022 #11
It's a real stretch. Ocelot II May 2022 #18
Maybe. But see: onenote May 2022 #30
What's the purpose of keeping it secretly hidden? Emile May 2022 #12
Theoretically, proposed opinions are still in the "consideration" stage Bucky May 2022 #25
IMO it was leaked on purpose to test the waters! n/t RKP5637 May 2022 #16
My thoughts exactly... SheilaAnn May 2022 #21
Roe rso May 2022 #17
I'm certain one of the terms of employment is non-disclosal of privileged communications Bucky May 2022 #22
This right here. LiberatedUSA May 2022 #24
Breaking the terms of your employment maxrandb May 2022 #26
What we know about the investigation into the Supreme Court leak-What Crime is at play LetMyPeopleVote May 2022 #27
These IDIOTS want to go after someone, (in the SC) that leaked the TRUTH. yet bluestarone May 2022 #28
This message was self-deleted by its author jfz9580m May 2022 #29
Possibly Contempt of Court? Mr.Bill May 2022 #31
I assume grand juries probably have laws because ordinary citizens serve LeftInTX May 2022 #34
Don't take offense, but Mr.Bill May 2022 #35
From Barbara McQuade LetMyPeopleVote May 2022 #32
Likely theft of Government documents... brooklynite May 2022 #33
The most likely charge you will see from this is lying to the FBI dsc May 2022 #37
Take a page of opinion James48 May 2022 #38
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Can someone tell me what ...»Reply #33