Under the Radar Blog Archives Select Date… August, 2020 July, 2020 June, 2020 May, 2020 April, 2020 March, 2020 February, 2020 January, 2020 December, 2019 November, 2019 October, 2019 September, 2019

Prosecutors didn't offer an alternative theory for former FBI agent Terry Albury's motivations, but suggested some vendetta against the FBI or the U.S. government. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Feds seek 4-year-plus sentence for FBI agent in leak case

Federal prosecutors are seeking a sentence of more than four years in prison for a former FBI agent who admitted disclosing classified terrorist-profiling guidelines to the media, but the agent's defense lawyers argue he should get no prison time at all.

Ex-agent Terry Albury is set to be sentenced in Minneapolis later this month after pleading guilty in April to two felony charges: illegal transmission of national security information and illegal retention of such data.

The 16-year bureau veteran admitted sending information to the online news outlet The Intercept about the FBI's procedures for handling sources in terrorism investigations, but he contended that his disclosure was an act of conscience prompted by deep concerns about the bureau's interactions with minority communities.

In a court filing Thursday, prosecutors said the fact they found dozens more classified documents at Albury's home belies the notion that he was acting out of some altruistic motive. The prosecution didn't offer an alternative theory for Albury's motivations, but suggested some vendetta against the FBI or the U.S. government.

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

“The criminal behavior at issue here does not represent the actions of one motivated by social conscience," prosecutors wrote. "Putting aside that defendant’s motive is irrelevant to the offenses, and that his behavior is directly contrary to his oath and the multiple non-disclosure agreements he signed, any proffered benign motive is also inconsistent with the facts. Here, the search of defendant’s home resulted in the recovery of more than 50 additional documents, 35 of which were marked classified at the Secret level."

"It is readily apparent that if the FBI had not disrupted the defendant’s conduct, the defendant would have continued to disclose our country’s secrets and likely damaged our national security," prosecutors added.

Albury's defense acknowledges that he developed a deep frustration with the FBI. As an African-American, Albury frequently encountered discrimination in the bureau and was particularly sensitive to what he regarded as mistreatment of immigrant communities, the defense team asserts

"It was Mr. Albury’s code of morality and commitment to the rule of law that drove this offense. He simply could not reconcile these core beliefs with the widespread racist and xenophobic sentiments he observed throughout the white-male dominated FBI, and more importantly, the discriminatory practices and policies he observed and implemented in the FBI’s counter-terrorism strategies," the defense wrote.

However, the defense devoted much of its 72-page memo to arguments that the government's enforcement of laws and policies surrounding classified information has been haphazard and often results in high-ranking and well-connected defendants getting little punishment while rank-and-file offenders get years in prison.

The defense noted that three former senior officials accused of mishandling classified information got no prison time: ex-CIA director David Petraeus and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, who both got sentences of probation, and ex-CIA director John Deutch, who was pardoned by President Bill Clinton.

In a bid to limit Albury's sentence, his lawyers also invoked the statements or actions of a series of high-profile figures, including President Donald Trump, fired FBI Director James Comey and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.).

Albury's defense noted that Trump recently took to Twitter to criticize the sentence of more than five years in prison imposed on National Security Agency contractor Reality Winner for disclosing a top-secret report on how the Russians gained access to U.S. election databases. Trump called the sentence, which prosecutors agreed to, "so unfair" and said her case was "small potatoes compared to what Hillary Clinton did!"

Winner's sentence, delivered in August, was the most severe ever imposed in connection with a leak to the media. It was also the first sentencing of a leaker since Trump took office and demanded a crackdown on unauthorized disclosures to the press.

Trump's comments on Winner's sentence contribute to the state of "chaos regarding standards for investigation, prosecution and punishment for unauthorized disclosure," Albury's defense argued.

Albury's lawyers cited Comey's recent book, in which he suggests he tried to ingratiate himself with Trump early on by vowing a determined drive to root out leakers.

"I said I was eager to find leakers and would like to nail one to the door as a message," Comey wrote. "I said something about the value of putting a head on a pike as a message."

Albury's attorneys contend that Comey's attitude indicated that a whistleblower who complained about the FBI through official channels was unlikely to be protected.

Albury is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 18 by U.S. District Court Judge Wilhelmina Wright, an appointee of President Barack Obama.

Albury faces a maximum possible sentence of 20 years, but is likely to receive a much shorter term under federal sentencing guidelines. The prosecution and defense dispute how they apply in the case, but the defense says the nonbinding guidelines call for a sentence of about three to four years, while the prosecution says the range is from about four years to nearly five years.

The ex-FBI agent's bid for leniency won the support Thursday of 17 law professors and scholars who warned the court not to impose a draconian sentence that would transform the law Albury admitted breaking — the Espionage Act — into a law giving the government widespread control over information it deems sensitive.

While the prosecution contends that Albury's motives are irrelevant, the legal academics urge Wright to take into account the public debate Albury triggered about FBI procedures he considered misguided and ineffective.

"Public-spirited disclosures to the domestic press, like this one, should not be punished as espionage, even though the government may prosecute them under the Espionage Act," the professors wrote. "The broad reach of the contemporary Espionage Act, combined with rampant overclassification, endangers the ability of the public to learn through the press information essential to self-government."

"The floodgates against media leak prosecutions have cracked open. The practical and legal restraints that used to permit only the tiniest drip of cases to reach the courts are no longer effective," the scholars' brief argues. "Instead, it now falls to courts like this one, at sentencing, to address the First Amendment threat posed by the government’s transformation of the Espionage Act into an Official Secrets Act."