Page:Comey-Interview-12-7-18-Redacted.pdf/207

207 explanation for what was lacking -- I get the fact the statute wasn't used that often, but no statute is used for the first time until it is.

So what -- did you view the statute as being unconstitutional? Did you view it as being so vague as to not sustain a conviction, or was there an element of the statute you think was missing?

Mr. See if I get this right. My recollection is not crystal clear at this point. I remember learning that there were grave reservations for decades in the Department of Justice about the constitutionality of 793(f), I think it is, and an understanding -- and I confirmed that understanding by reading the legislative history myself -- that when Congress passed that statute and made it a felony in 1917, their intention was for the definition of gross negligence to approach willfulness, very similar to the kind of intention that the Department of Justice would require for a 1924 prosecution.

And we had proof that got us nowhere near willfulness. And so our judgment was we got no chance on 793, even if they would bring the second prosecution in American history in this context, and we sure got no chance on the intention requirement that they've imposed on the statute forever. And so our judgment was, look, we worked this hard; we're nowhere near where anybody would bring this.

It turns out I got criticized that my case for having no