A key witness has seriously weakened the prosecution’s case against James Comey, sources reveal. The federal prosecutors investigating former FBI Director James Comey on allegations of making false statements to Congress have found that one of their main witnesses is actually a major liability — a discovery that could prevent them from convincing a jury. But here's where it gets controversial: this revelation might mean the entire case is on shaky ground.
Daniel Richman, a law professor and longtime associate of Comey, was accused by prosecutors of being authorized by Comey to leak information to the press. However, Richman told investigators that Comey explicitly instructed him not to engage with the media on multiple occasions and firmly denied ever giving Richman permission to anonymously share information with reporters before the 2016 election, sources familiar with the probe told ABC News.
Comey, who was indicted last month on charges related to giving false testimony and obstructing justice during his 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, is slated to make his first court appearance in Virginia. Yet, Justice Department insiders privately warn that under close examination from a federal judge and defense attorneys, the prosecution’s case might quickly fall apart.
Prosecutors who conducted a detailed two-month investigation into Comey's 2020 testimony have concluded that relying on Richman’s statements to prove Comey knowingly lied would create nearly impossible hurdles for their side. These concerns were laid out in a comprehensive memo drafted last month that recommended against pursuing charges, according to sources familiar with its content.
Despite this, Lindsey Halligan, a Trump appointee known for resisting cases against Trump’s political opponents and appointed as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, pushed forward with the case. She presented it to a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, securing indictments on two of three counts linked to Comey’s congressional testimony.
It’s important to note that while prosecutors don't have to present evidence supporting the defense during grand jury proceedings, they must share any such favorable evidence with the defense before trial. Halligan’s deputy echoed serious reservations about the case at the same time the indictment was sought, reinforcing the idea that no single piece of evidence could conclusively show Comey lied. The deputy also warned against putting too much weight on Richman, whom she described internally as a "hostile witness."
Additional issues raised by prosecutors included logistical difficulties in quickly assembling all necessary documents to share with Comey’s defense team. They also highlighted the risk that the defense could invoke the statute of limitations, since the case revolves around testimony from 2017, which Comey reiterated in 2020 when questioned by Senator Ted Cruz.
Comey, who has pledged to plead not guilty, denies any wrongdoing and insists these charges are politically motivated. His indictment arrived just days after Trump demanded that the Justice Department immediately prosecute Comey and others. In a social media post, Trump criticized officials directly, mentioning Attorney General Pam Bondi and accusing Sen. Adam Schiff and NY Attorney General Letitia James as part of a political vendetta. "We can't delay any longer, it's killing our reputation and credibility," he wrote, framing the charges as part of ongoing political battles.
Halligan accuses Comey of deliberately misleading Congress in both 2017 and 2020 by falsely denying that he had authorized anyone at the FBI to provide information anonymously to the media. The central claim is that Comey did, in fact, authorize Richman to leak information, contradicting Comey's testimony.
Apart from that, Trump has contended that Comey unlawfully shared his memos, alleging they contained classified material. Richman, however, told ABC News that the documents in question bore no classification marks.
When prosecutors interviewed Richman in September, he maintained that he never acted as an anonymous source under Comey’s direction while Comey was FBI director. Moreover, in at least two instances when Richman asked Comey about speaking to the press, Comey advised him against it.
Reviewing Comey’s emails—including his exchanges with Richman—investigators found no evidence that Comey approved leaking information anonymously to reporters.
Richman has openly admitted his role as a conduit between Comey and the media after Comey’s firing, including the leaking of Comey’s memos on his interactions with Trump post-dismissal.
Federal prosecutors focused on Comey’s actions during his FBI tenure, especially concerning alleged leaks about the Trump and Clinton campaigns before the 2016 election, in their effort to prove Comey intentionally misled Congress.
As previously reported by ABC News, career prosecutors concluded that even with all the evidence they gathered, it wouldn’t be enough to convince a jury to convict Comey. More surprisingly, they determined the evidence fell short of even meeting the lower threshold for probable cause, which is required just to bring charges.
So, what does this mean? Is the indictment against Comey a political show trial, or is there more to uncover? And what does Richman’s refusal to back the prosecution suggest about the evidence? These are questions that deserve your thoughts. Do you agree with the way this case is unfolding, or do you think the investigation is being obstructed? Share your opinions below—this is a debate worth having.
