James Comey case daniel richman prosecutors: Pleads Not Guilty in Arraignment

The criminal prosecution of former FBI Director James B. Comey has emerged as one of the most consequential and controversial legal cases in recent U.S. history. On October 8, 2025, Comey appeared in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, and entered a plea of not guilty to charges that he made false statements to Congress in 2020 and obstructed a congressional proceeding. At the heart of the case lies an allegation that he authorized a trusted intermediary, Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman, to leak information anonymously to the media—contradicting his sworn testimony. But internal doubts among prosecutors about the strength of the evidence, combined with questions about the legitimacy of the prosecutorial apparatus, suggest a trial deeply fraught with legal, political, and institutional stakes.

This article examines the background of the case, the core allegations, the role of Richman, the challenges faced by the prosecution, the strategy likely to be deployed by Comey’s defense, and the broader implications for the Department of Justice, separation of powers, and norms of accountability.

Historical and Factual Background

James Comey’s Career and Post-FBI Role

James Comey has for decades occupied a central place in U.S. law enforcement and public life. He served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, later as Deputy Attorney General, and from 2013 to 2017 as Director of the FBI. His handling of the Clinton email investigation, his public testimony on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and his dismissal by President Donald Trump made him a lightning rod for both criticism and admiration.

After leaving the FBI, Comey continued to remain publicly vocal—writing books, giving speeches, and engaging in political commentary. In 2017, after his dismissal, he disclosed that he had kept detailed memos of his interactions with President Trump. Portions of these memos were shared with journalists through an intermediary—later identified as Daniel Richman. That disclosure helped catalyze the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and fueled public and congressional scrutiny of Trump’s conduct.

Daniel Richman: The Intermediary

Daniel C. Richman, a Columbia Law School professor and former federal prosecutor, had long been a confidant to Comey. After Comey’s dismissal, Richman publicly confirmed that he was the conduit through whom Comey’s memos were passed to the press. At that time, Richman did not assert that the memos contained classified material—and the act of sharing them was deemed permissible under certain constraints.

In the current criminal case, however, prosecutors allege that Comey did more than merely pass already existing memos to Richman. They claim that Comey authorized Richman to leak additional information—anonymously and strategically—to the media. This “authorization” is key to their theory: it is the point at which they say Comey’s repeated denials to Congress, that he never authorized anonymous leaks, became false.

But several internal memoranda and reports suggest that prosecutors themselves considered Richman a problematic or even hostile witness. According to sources, Richman has told investigators that on at least two occasions Comey expressly instructed him not to engage with the press. In those interviews, Richman denied being directed to leak anonymously to journalists ahead of the 2016 election. Those statements, if credibly presented in court, would undercut the prosecution’s case.

Additionally, searches of Comey’s communications found no clear contemporaneous evidence that he authorized such leaks. Prosecutors reportedly warned that relying on Richman’s testimony posed “insurmountable problems” because of those contradictions and the absence of documentary corroboration.

Thus, the centerpiece of the government’s theory—Comey’s direction of Richman to leak—rests on a contested factual foundation. The credibility, consistency, and plausibility of Richman’s accounts (and Comey’s) will likely determine whether this case ever proceeds to a jury.

Indictment: Charges, Strengths & Weaknesses

Charges Brought

Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. The indictment brings two counts:

1. False Statement to Congress: The government contends that in a September 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Comey falsely testified that he never authorized an FBI official to serve as an anonymous source to the media.

2. Obstruction of a Congressional Proceeding: The indictment also alleges that Comey “did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede” the committee’s investigation by submitting false or misleading testimony.

The grand jury considered (but declined) to indict a third count, indicating some hesitation among jurors over the strength or clarity of additional allegations.

The alleged false statement in 2020 centers on an earlier 2017 testimony: Comey affirmed that his earlier statements consistent with denying authorization of leaks remained accurate. That tactic appears designed to bring the case within the statute of limitations, as allegations relating solely to 2017 testimony may have expired.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths / Prosecutorial Arguments

• The government may argue that Comey’s 2020 affirmations, under oath, represented a clear reaffirmation of prior denials, giving them a fresh opportunity to challenge them.

• If the prosecution can present enough circumstantial evidence—e.g., internal communications, patterns of media disclosures, or corroborating behavior by Richman or others—they may cast a plausible narrative of authorization.

• The obstruction count amplifies the consequences of allegedly false testimony by framing it not merely as a lie, but as interference with Congress’s institutional function.

Weaknesses / Vulnerabilities

• Reliance on Richman as a key witness: If Richman’s testimony is inconsistent, self-protective, or disbelieved, the prosecution may lack the necessary foundation.

• Lack of direct documentary proof: Investigators reportedly could not locate a clear contemporaneous directive from Comey to authorize leaks. Without that, the government’s theory is speculative.

• Ambiguity in “authorization”: There is legal ambiguity about whether authorization requires express direction, implicit acquiescence, or post facto consent. The defense can argue that Comey’s public statements were ambiguous and non-misleading.

• Questionable appointment of the prosecutor: The lead prosecutor in this case, Lindsey Halligan, was appointed shortly before the indictment, replacing a U.S. Attorney who declined to bring charges. That raises legal and constitutional questions.

• Signals of prosecutorial hesitation: Internal memos reportedly recommended against bringing charges, citing the difficulty of proving the case.

• Political taint and selective prosecution arguments: The timing (just as statutory limits were ending), public demands by President Trump, and staffing changes suggest a possible politically motivated prosecution.

• Grand jury reluctance: The refusal to indict on a third count suggests juror skepticism or weak supporting evidence.

Taken together, these vulnerabilities suggest the prosecution faces an uphill battle even to survive pretrial motions.

Arraignment: Not Guilty Plea and the Legal Posture

The Arraignment Hearing

On October 8, 2025, Comey appeared before U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff in Alexandria, Virginia. He entered a formal plea of not guilty. When asked by the judge whether he understood the charges, Comey replied respectfully, affirming that he did. He was released on his own recognizance; prosecutors did not request detention.

The judge tentatively scheduled the trial for January 5, 2026—though that timeline is subject to change as motions and scheduling disputes unfold.

Comey’s legal team, led by veteran litigator Patrick J. Fitzgerald, used the hearing as a platform to telegraph their defense strategy. They argued that the indictment is politically motivated, that the prosecutor’s appointment is legally suspect, and that the case should be dismissed on multiple grounds.

Defense Strategy and Anticipated Motions

From the outset, Comey’s team is expected to file several significant pretrial motions aimed at ending or narrowing the case:

1. Motion to dismiss for selective or vindictive prosecution
   The defense is likely to assert that Comey is being singled out for prosecution because of his high-profile criticism of President Trump and prior investigations of Trump associates. If they can show impermissible motive or unequal treatment, the court might entertain dismissal or suppression.

2. Challenge to the appointment of the U.S. Attorney
   The defense can question the legality of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment. Since she replaced a U.S. Attorney who declined to bring charges, the defense may argue that Halligan’s installment bypassed necessary statutory or procedural constraints governing interim or acting U.S. Attorneys.

3. Motion for a bill of particulars or motion to strike vague allegations
   The defense may argue that the indictment fails to provide sufficient specificity about which statements are false, which leaks are at issue, or what evidence underlies the allegations. If the indictment is vague, it may be subject to dismissal or narrowing.

4. Motion to suppress or exclude testimony
   Comey’s attorneys may seek to exclude or limit Richman’s testimony, arguing it is unreliable, inconsistent, or the product of prosecutorial overreach and undue pressure.

5. Motion to compel or suppress discovery
   The defense will almost certainly demand internal DOJ memos, email threads, notes from interviews, and exculpatory evidence. They may argue that adverse material was withheld or that discovery has been poorly managed. Failure to provide required disclosures (such as Brady material) could result in sanctions or dismissal.

6. Motion on statute of limitations or timeliness
   The defense may argue that any alleged misstatements are barred by statute of limitations because they properly relate to 2017 testimony rather than the renewed 2020 affirmation. If successful, that could bar the false‐statement count entirely.