Newly declassified FBI documents show that former Director James Comey turned to an outside law professor as his covert pipeline to the media after his 2017 firing, quietly sidestepping internal oversight.
The Daily Caller reported that according to investigative materials and a Senate transcript, Columbia Law Professor Daniel C. Richman acted not only as Comey’s lawyer but also as his off-the-books media liaison, distributing internal notes related to President Trump and interacting with reporters on behalf of the ex-FBI chief.
This unusual arrangement unraveled during a special bureau inquiry codenamed “Arctic Haze,” which probed leaks of classified information, raising serious concerns about Comey’s prior sworn testimony and political motivations inside the FBI during key 2016 probes.
In a June 2017 call with Senate Judiciary Committee staff, Richman admitted his role as both legal counsel and press point man for Comey—an arrangement even he labeled “not normal.”
Richman confirmed he received a packet of documents from Comey and passed along the former director’s memos describing meetings with then-President Trump to a reporter. When pressed, he dodged questions about whether he kept any copies.
Throughout the call, Richman gave senators little clarity, opting instead for cryptic remarks such as "you do things by your rules" and "I do things by my rules." At one point, he even blamed vague recollections on his “morning exercises.”
Richman repeatedly invoked attorney-client privilege to avoid answering questions directly, stating, “There is a substantial extent to which I would raise attorney-client issues.”
Despite his claimed reluctance, the professor admitted that some investigation questions had likely been answered already by the Mueller staff. He also offered a line that sticks now more than ever: “Yes, I’m being vague on purpose.”
This freelance legal-and-leak arrangement traces back even further. Declassified records show Comey quietly put Richman on the books in 2015 as a “special government employee” with a Top Secret clearance—just enough access to operate outside formal FBI channels.
Even after Richman’s official role ended, he continued having communications with reporters. And conveniently, an April 2017 article in The New York Times painted Comey as a principled man caught in a constitutional tornado, heroically balancing Clinton and Trump probes.
Turns out, that wasn’t all by accident. The FBI itself—under Comey’s direction—held three separate briefings with reporters from the same outlet in March and April 2017. Officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who both had leading roles in the Clinton and Trump cases, were present during those sessions.
During the March 30 meeting, the Times referenced classified information, which raised internal alarms. Lisa Page acknowledged she warned her boss privately afterward, although Strzok claimed not to recall that exchange.
The Arctic Haze investigation later concluded that Comey and Richman had discussed classified material in January 2017, shortly before Richman reached out to a New York Times reporter.
When questioned about this, Richman reportedly told agents that he believed—“with a discount”—that he hadn’t passed along anything classified. A rather curious legal standard from a man with Top Secret clearance.
The documents also reveal that Richman’s conversations and Comey’s orchestration helped shape stories that legitimized false narratives. One such narrative was that Vladimir Putin was backing Trump—a claim now linked to Clinton campaign tactics, not verified intelligence.
One key piece of Russian-sourced intelligence suggested Clinton operatives had colluded with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch regarding the FBI’s email investigation. While this fed into Comey’s decisions, the data itself was later debunked in a 2023 declassified report by John Durham.
That same intelligence included emails hacked by Russia and obtained by a U.S. ally. Those emails exposed a Clinton-aligned effort to cook up damaging revelations about Trump’s Russian ties.
Most astonishing, some FBI investigators working the Crossfire Hurricane case didn’t even know about this “Clinton Plan” intel. One ranking agent, referred to as Supervisory Special Agent-1, became visibly emotional after Durham’s team filled in those blanks.
The Arctic Haze probe ended with no criminal charges filed. But the documentation paints a troubling picture of selective leaking, narrative manipulation, and poor internal controls on what should have been impartial investigations.
Worse still, over eight thumb drives of potentially vital evidence were never properly examined by FBI staff. Between intentional fog and institutional sloppiness, the question looms large: What else got buried?