Federal prosecutors pursuing criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly making false statements to Congress have expressed deep concerns that a pivotal witness in their case could significantly weaken their ability to convince a jury, sources familiar with the investigation told ABC News.
The case, which stems from Comey’s 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, has already led to his indictment last month on charges of making false statements and obstruction of justice. Comey is scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday in a Virginia federal court.
However, behind the scenes, Justice Department officials are grappling with doubts about the strength of the case, especially in light of statements made by Daniel Richman, a Columbia law professor and longtime friend of Comey.
According to sources familiar with investigative memos, Richman directly contradicted a key aspect of the prosecution’s theory: that Comey had authorized him to leak sensitive information to the press anonymously ahead of the 2016 election. Richman reportedly told investigators that Comey had explicitly instructed him not to engage with the media on multiple occasions and never gave authorization to share information with reporters under anonymity.
Prosecutors probing Comey’s statements acknowledged in internal deliberations that relying on Richman’s testimony would present “likely insurmountable problems” in court, given the contradictions and credibility concerns it would raise.
Despite those concerns, Lindsey Halligan, the newly appointed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and a vocal Trump ally, chose to move forward with presenting the case to a grand jury. She secured indictments on two of the three charges she sought — a move that has sparked internal tensions within the Justice Department.
Critics point out that during grand jury proceedings, prosecutors are not required to present exculpatory evidence, but such evidence must be disclosed to the defense before trial. That disclosure could prove pivotal if Comey’s legal team uses Richman’s statements to challenge the government’s claims of deliberate deception.
A lengthy internal memo reportedly circulated last month within the Justice Department recommended against filing charges, citing the problematic nature of the key witness and the legal complexity of proving intent behind Comey’s congressional statements.
Comey, who led the FBI during key moments of the 2016 presidential election and the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation, has long been a polarizing figure in U.S. politics. His indictment marks a rare criminal case involving a former FBI director and comes amid renewed scrutiny over efforts to prosecute perceived political opponents.
As the case moves toward its first court hearing, legal analysts say the outcome could hinge not just on facts presented at trial, but on the Justice Department’s ability to navigate the reputational risks and evidentiary hurdles now looming over the prosecution.
