As to data 'images', it would seem more logical that NYPD would be given a certified copy of data images of any unlawful sexual material that could be used for prosecution... a much lower bar IMHO than counter-intel evidence of security leaks or espionage... a rather sticky wicket to pass through.
The possibilities of data tampering with any of the material on the laptop - given the loose chain of custody evidenced in this case - may render all this speculation moot. The legal issues seem to multiply in my untrained mind.
You’ve inserted your assertion as if facts were known which they were not, thereby rendering your assertion unsupported and out of context. You can’t apply a legal statute until you know the statute applies. In this case, you don’t know if a statute applies because you lack information.
FBI did not know at the time the laptop held classified material.
The JW letter linked above shows FBI had DVDs and were sending to Treasury to review for classified content. That means they did not know what they had.
FBI originally called in because 15-year old girl was in NC whereas Weiner in NY —> interstate jurisdiction. Then FBI found emails, Comey/Strzok become involved, and shortly after NYPD and everyone else are silenced.
The laptop was evidence to at least two investigations by two law enforcement bodies. A joint jurisdiction agreement would include a joint custody arrangement. Federal statutes were satisfied.
No one here knows what went down. The only reason I interject is when we see persons drawing erroneous conclusions based on scant data, then I concoct plausible alternatives. But usually, I base the alternate scenarios on procedure and in so doing come closer to reality by doing so. Most of government including military is 95% procedure, most of the rest is discretionary to higher paygrades on a case-by-case basis. Less than 1% are ‘in extremis’.