US v. Comey

Comey's unauthorized retention and disclosure of the memos—some of which contained classified information—directly implicates § 1924's prohibition on unauthorized possession of classified documents; however, Comey's defense that the memos were personal notes outside any classification authority raises a threshold factual question: whether the documents were marked or identified as classified at the time he retained them. Additionally, § 1924 requires knowledge of classified status, making Comey's subjective intent regarding the confidential character of the memos central to the prosecution. His selective prosecution defense emphasizes the OIG's 2019 non-prosecution recommendation and the timing of reinvestigation under a new administration, raising an Armstrong claim, though Comey bears a heavy burden to prove discriminatory intent beyond mere policy shifts between administrations.