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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Can someone tell me what law the leaker broke? [View all]brooklynite
(96,882 posts)33. Likely theft of Government documents...
...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
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1664-protection-government-property-theft-government-information
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
38 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The issue in that case was trading on government information for financial gain.
Ocelot II
May 2022
#19
It's all meant to distract from the larger issue that we have a right-wing radical Supreme Court
TheRealNorth
May 2022
#4
I'm certain one of the terms of employment is non-disclosal of privileged communications
Bucky
May 2022
#22
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