Additional Coverage:
- John Durham undercut case against James Comey in interview with prosecutors: Sources (abcnews.go.com)
Former FBI Director James Comey Indicted Amidst Conflicting Prosecutorial Recommendations
A grand jury has indicted former FBI Director James Comey on two counts of making false statements to Congress and obstruction, a move that comes despite multiple federal prosecutorial teams, including former Special Counsel John Durham’s office, previously concluding there was insufficient evidence to support such charges.
Federal prosecutors in Virginia, who initiated their own two-month review, ultimately echoed the findings of both Durham’s extensive four-year investigation and a long-running probe by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C. All three teams determined they could not prove Comey had made false statements to Congress or obstructed an investigation.
According to sources familiar with the matter, Durham, who spent nearly four years investigating the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe, informed federal prosecutors in August that his team found no evidence to support false statements or obstruction charges against Comey. His conclusions could now serve as a key element in Comey’s defense. Similarly, D.C. prosecutors, who even called Comey to testify before a grand jury in 2021 as part of their years-long investigation into alleged leaks, ultimately declined to bring charges due to a lack of conclusive evidence.
However, Lindsey Halligan, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and a Trump appointee, rejected these uniform recommendations.
She promptly sought a three-count indictment against Comey. Last month, the grand jury returned an indictment on two charges related to Comey allegedly lying about approving leaks of information to the media, but rejected an additional false statements count sought by Halligan concerning his awareness of an unverified intelligence report.
The circumstances surrounding this prosecution have raised questions, particularly given that at least three other teams of prosecutors, some appointed under the Trump administration, declined to pursue charges. Sources indicate that senior Department of Justice leadership had voiced skepticism about the case, and no career prosecutor was willing to present Halligan’s case to the grand jury.
The charges focus on two key elements of Comey’s 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee: allegations that he lied about approving media leaks and that he was unaware of an intelligence report suggesting Hillary Clinton’s campaign sought to link Donald Trump’s campaign to Russia.
Durham’s team specifically investigated whether Comey’s testimony regarding the intelligence report was intentionally misleading, but concluded they could not support false statements charges based on a purported lack of memory. Evidence, they found, never fully established that Comey had seen the report. The grand jury ultimately reached a similar conclusion, returning a “no bill” on that specific false statements count.
The indictment on two counts centers on Comey’s alleged role in using his friend and former lawyer, Daniel Richman, to provide reporters with information about an FBI probe involving Clinton. While D.C. prosecutors also investigated this aspect, they ultimately declined the case, believing there was no conclusive evidence Comey used Richman as an anonymous source or leaked classified information.
Following the indictment, former President Trump applauded the move, stating, “It’s about justice, not revenge.” This politically charged case unfolds as Trump continues to advocate for charges against his political adversaries.
In his 306-page final report on the Russia probe origins, Durham emphasized the high bar for initiating federal prosecutions. He stated that while injustices or misconduct might occur, not every transgression amounts to a criminal offense prosecutable under U.S. law, explaining why charges were not sought in every instance where his office identified improper actions.