Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
A federal magistrate judge sharply criticized the Justice Department’s handling of evidence in its criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, accusing prosecutors of rushing to indict him while potentially violating his constitutional rights.
“We’re in a bit of a feeling of indict first, investigate second,” Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick said during a tense motions hearing Wednesday in Alexandria, Virginia.
The dispute centers on search warrants from 2019 and 2020 targeting the communications and devices of Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law School professor and longtime Comey associate. Prosecutors say Richman acted as Comey’s intermediary in speaking to the media, but defense lawyers argue the evidence was improperly gathered and long past its legal shelf life.
Concerns over due process and privilege
Comey, who pleaded not guilty Oct. 8 to charges of false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding, faces allegations that he lied during 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about whether he had authorized anyone to leak FBI information to reporters.
Prosecutors claim Comey falsely denied doing so, citing evidence that he authorized Richman to discuss a past investigation involving Hillary Clinton. Comey has denied the accusation.
Fitzpatrick questioned whether prosecutors had improperly reviewed privileged communications between Comey and Richman, and why disputes over those materials hadn’t been resolved in the five years since they were seized.
“This is highly unusual,” Fitzpatrick said, suggesting that the Justice Department may have violated Comey’s rights by relying on potentially stale or privileged material.
He ordered the government to hand over “all grand jury materials” related to its investigations of Comey by Thursday at 5 p.m. ET, underscoring his concern with the DOJ’s conduct.
Trump-era influence and internal dissent
Comey’s prosecution has been among the most politically charged actions of President Donald Trump’s second administration, part of what critics describe as a campaign of retribution against Trump’s perceived enemies.
U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a Trump appointee overseeing the Eastern District of Virginia, pursued the indictment over the objections of career prosecutors. Her predecessor, Erik Siebert, was reportedly forced out after resisting Trump’s calls to pursue cases against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Vice President J.D. Vance has defended the case, saying the prosecutions under Trump’s administration are “driven by law and not by politics.”
Before Trump’s return to office, the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office had examined Comey’s 2020 testimony but declined to bring charges. The case was reopened under the new administration, leading to last week’s indictment.
Next steps
Assistant U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons told the court his office would “seek to comply” with the tight Thursday deadline but might alert the judge if turning over all grand jury materials by then proves technically impossible.
With Comey’s trial set for January, Fitzpatrick’s unusually sharp rebuke suggests that the court could soon press prosecutors to justify how the case was built — and whether the government overstepped in pursuing one of Trump’s most public adversaries.
