WASHINGTON – The ultimate irony for the former FBI director who once investigated the president and his associates would be if he ended up being the one charged with a crime.
Legal scholars are divided over whether James Comey broke the law by leaking to the press a memo describing his account of a key meeting with President Trump on Feb. 14.
Advertisement - story continues below
Comey supporters say no, the memo was not classified, so it was not illegally leaked.
Critics say the memo may not have been classified but it was it still government property.
TRENDING: FBI conceals collusion with Twitter over election 'misinformation'
And was it evidence? Evidence in the Russia investigation?
Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017.
Advertisement - story continues below
Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday and admitted leaking to the press a memo detailing his claim that during that Feb. 14, meeting Trump asked him to drop the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
The memo also described Trump asking Comey for a pledge of loyalty.
As WND reported, the president on Friday said both those claims were not true, and he would be "glad" to repeat that under oath to special prosecutor Robert Mueller.
Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz strongly suggested federal authorities should investigate the legality of the leak of the memo, and he reportedly will file a complaint next week with the Justice Department and Senate Judiciary Committee.
Advertisement - story continues below
After Comey's testimony, Kasowitz charged, "Mr. Comey admitted that he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the president."
The argument of those defending Comey's leak is based, essentially, on just the one key contention: his claim that the memo was not classified.
Comey said the memo contained no classified information, and, unlike some of the other memos he took describing his nine meetings with the president, he did not record it on a "classified device."
He replied, "Yes," when asked under oath if he did not consider that memo to be a government document, but his own personal document.
Advertisement - story continues below
The former FBI chief testified, "I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president. As a private citizen, I thought it important to get it out."
Some top legal minds disagree.
Judicial Watch Director of Investigations and Research Chris Farrell called Comey's admission of the leak "stunning." (See video above.)
"I would argue that these notes are property of the United States government and that he has absconded with them," Farrell said on Fox News on Thursday.
"Frankly," he offered, "if I were attorney general, about 20 minutes after his confession today in front of the Senate Intelligence committee, deputy U.S. marshals would have raided his home and office as well as that of Mr. Richman of Columbia Law school."
Comey gave the memo to professor Daniel Richman, who confirmed he leaked the memo to the Times.
"Those records and documents must be recovered. Mr. Comey had no business releasing them. It's an extraordinary admission on his part. It's lawless," proclaimed Farrell.
"This is outrageous," he added. "He took an oath to the Constitution and he has betrayed it in no uncertain terms."
Judicial Watch announced it has filed Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI in an effort to obtain the memo on Comey’s conversations with Trump.
Highly regarded legal scholar and George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley has testified numerous times as an expert witness before Congress and has represented prominent left-leaning clients in court.
As WND reported, he wrote on his blog, "those memos could be viewed as a government record and potential evidence in a criminal investigation," even if they are not considered classified.
"Besides being subject to Nondisclosure Agreements," Turley explained, "Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and nonclassified information. Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641 which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey ‘any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.'"
Turley also noted "ethical and departmental rules against the use of material to damage a former represented person or individual or firm related to prior representation."
He cited a passage on the FBI website which states:
"Dissemination of FBI information is made strictly in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act; Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a; FBI policy and procedures regarding discretionary release of information in accordance with the Privacy Act; and other applicable federal orders and directives.”
"Moreover," the professor wondered, "if Comey was sure of his right to release the memo, why use a law professor to avoid fingerprints?"
Turley called Comey’s admission "deeply troubling from a professional and ethical standpoint."
He noted the Justice Department has long held a broad definition of what constitutes government documents.
"It is not clear if Comey had the documents reviewed for classification at the confidential level or confirmed that they would be treated as entirely private property," wrote Turley. "What is clear is that he did not clear the release of the memos with anyone in the government."
The former FBI director testified he leaked the memo because he wanted to trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor to oversee the Russia investigation. But Turley questioned Comey's method, his timing and his motivation.
That was because, "the timing of the leak most clearly benefited Comey not the cause of a special counsel. It was clear at that time that a special counsel was likely."
"More importantly, Comey clearly understood that these memos would be sought. That leads inevitably to the question of both motivation as well as means."
There is another factor that could cause the leak to boomerang severely on Comey, according to Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
Sekulow told Fox News radio on Thursday that because the memo recorded a conversation with the president it is "covered by executive privilege and that leaking may be in violation of the law."
As for Comey's future, the attorney bluntly predicted, "He will end up being the target of this investigation."
Ironically, Comey's own words may be used to argue that even he should have considered the memo to be potential evidence.
During Thursday's hearing, Sen, Angus King, I-Maine, asked Comey, "With regard to your memos, isn't it true that in a court case when you're weighing evidence, contemporaneous memos and contemporaneous statements to third parties are considered probative in terms of the validity of testimony?"
"Yes," was his only reply.
