Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted for allegedly lying to Congress and obstructing an investigation, a bombshell that raises serious questions about integrity at the highest levels of law enforcement.
The Daily Caller reported that this saga centers on Comey’s alleged false testimony in September 2020 about not authorizing anonymous sources in media stories tied to the Hillary Clinton email probe, alongside charges of hindering Congressional oversight.
Let’s rewind to 2016, when the FBI was knee-deep in the Clinton email server mess, and Comey, as director, was under intense scrutiny for his handling of the case.
Newly released emails and texts from a Department of Justice court filing expose a cozy relationship between Comey and Daniel Richman, a law professor hired as a “Special Government Employee” with Top-Secret security clearance.
On October 30, 2016, Richman floated the idea of penning an op-ed for The New York Times, to which Comey responded, “No need. At this point it would [be] shouting into the wind.”
Apparently, Comey thought a direct line to the press was a better bet than an open editorial, a move that smells more of spin control than transparency.
By November 1, 2016, Comey emailed Richman from his personal account, urging him to “make [the reporter] smarter” about The New York Times’ coverage of the email investigation.
The very next day, a story titled “These Are the Bad (and Worse) Options James Comey Faced” hit the presses, discussing Comey’s choices after the FBI disclosed thousands of new Clinton emails to Congress.
Comey’s follow-up email to Richman on November 2, praising him with “Well done my friend,” suggests he wasn’t just a bystander but an active puppeteer behind the anonymous sourcing.
Fast forward to February 2017, when Richman reached out to then-DOJ official Chuck Rosenberg, asking if he’d chat with Times reporter Mike Schmidt about the Clinton emails on background.
By May 11, 2017, texts show Richman coordinating with Schmidt, seeking Comey’s “clearance for me to talk as anon source,” while Schmidt directly asked Comey to give Richman the “green light” to discuss a private dinner.
That same day, The New York Times published a piece citing Comey’s “associates,” claiming he refused to pledge loyalty to President Trump at a post-inauguration dinner—a convenient leak that paints a very specific picture.
Now, with Comey indicted, federal prosecutors argue in their filing that the evidence shows Richman frequently acted as a media conduit for Comey, often anonymously, undermining any claim of innocence.
Comey’s legal team counters that he’s being unfairly targeted due to his outspoken criticism of Trump, alleging selective prosecution driven by personal grudges at the highest levels.
Yet, as the DOJ filing sternly notes, “The true affront to the criminal justice system would be to allow the defendant to escape accountability for lying to and obstructing Congress under oath,” a reminder that no one should be above the law—not even a former FBI chief.