A key witness has critically weakened the government's case against James Comey, casting serious doubt on its chances of success. But here’s where it gets controversial: the prosecution pushed forward anyway, raising questions about the motivations behind the indictment.
Federal prosecutors investigating former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress about leaking information concluded that a central witness in their case would pose significant challenges, likely preventing them from proving their allegations to a jury, according to sources familiar with the investigation who spoke to ABC News.
Daniel Richman, a law professor and longtime friend of Comey, is at the heart of this. Prosecutors claim Comey authorized Richman to anonymously leak information to the media. However, during their interviews, Richman told investigators that Comey explicitly instructed him on at least two occasions not to talk to reporters and firmly stated that Comey never gave permission to anonymously share information ahead of the 2016 election. This contradiction seriously undermines the prosecution's narrative.
Comey faces charges related to statements he made during his 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, including accusations of making false statements and obstruction. He was indicted last month and is scheduled to appear in federal court in Virginia for his arraignment. Despite the indictment, Justice Department insiders have privately expressed doubts, warning that the case could quickly collapse under judicial scrutiny and aggressive defense tactics.
The prosecutors who conducted an intensive, two-month review of Comey’s 2020 testimony warned in a detailed memo last month that relying on Richman’s testimony to prove Comey knowingly lied to Congress would create "likely insurmountable problems" for their case. They even recommended against formally charging Comey based on these conclusions.
However, Lindsey Halligan, a staunch Trump loyalist appointed as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia—known for resisting efforts to prosecute Trump's political opponents—pushed forward with the case. She presented it to a grand jury in Alexandria, securing two of the three counts she aimed to bring against Comey concerning his 2020 testimony.
During grand jury proceedings, prosecutors don’t have to show evidence favorable to the defense, but before trial, any such evidence must be disclosed. Halligan’s deputy expressed similar reservations about the strength of the case the very week the grand jury was asked to indict Comey. This helped reinforce the view that no single evidence piece, including Richman’s testimony—whom Halligan’s team described as a hostile witness—could definitively prove Comey lied to Congress.
Additional concerns from within the prosecution team included logistical challenges, such as difficulties in compiling and delivering all relevant materials to Comey's defense in a timely manner. They also worried that Comey's lawyers might successfully argue the case is barred by the statute of limitations, as the alleged falsehoods stem from testimony in 2017 and were reiterated in 2020 during questioning by Republican Senator Ted Cruz.
Comey denies any wrongdoing and plans to plead not guilty. He maintains that the indictment is politically motivated, coming mere days after former President Donald Trump demanded swift Justice Department action against Comey and other political adversaries. Trump publicly pressured Attorney General Pam Bondi and others, criticizing delays and accusing Comey, Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James of misconduct without proof.
The prosecution’s claim rests on the allegation that Comey intentionally misled Congress during his 2017 and 2020 testimony by denying that he authorized anyone at the FBI, including Richman, to anonymously leak information to the media. Comey is accused of contradicting himself by allegedly approving such leaks.
Trump also accused Comey of illegally sharing memos containing classified information. Yet Richman told ABC News none of those memos carried official classification markings, raising further doubts about the legal basis of those accusations.
In September, when federal prosecutors interviewed Richman, he denied ever acting as an anonymous source for Comey or doing anything on Comey's instructions while Comey was FBI director. In fact, on at least two separate occasions when Richman inquired about speaking to the press, Comey advised him against it.
Reviewers of Comey’s email correspondence—including messages between Comey and Richman—found no evidence that Comey authorized anonymous leaks to reporters, according to sources.
Richman openly admits he helped serve as a go-between for Comey and the media after Comey was fired, including leaking memos Comey wrote about his post-termination interactions with President Trump.
Prosecutors concentrated their probe on Comey’s actions as FBI director, especially the alleged leaks about the Trump and Clinton campaigns before the 2016 election, aiming to find proof Comey deliberately misled Congress.
But as previously reported by ABC News, career prosecutors in the office ultimately found that the mass of evidence gathered was not only insufficient to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt but also inadequate to establish the lower legal threshold of probable cause needed to file charges.
This raises a critical question: why proceed with an indictment when internal experts doubt its viability? Was this a case driven more by political pressure than solid evidence? What do you think—was justice truly served here, or did politics overshadow the pursuit of truth? Share your thoughts below.
