Federal prosecutors have outlined the foundation of their criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, asserting that the charges stem from evidence — not from political grudges.
In a detailed court filing, the Justice Department revealed that its false-statement case revolves around Comey’s alleged coordination with an associate to shape media narratives about his decision to reopen the Hillary Clinton email investigation in the tense weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Comey, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of lying to Congress and obstruction, maintains that the case is a politically charged retaliation driven by Donald Trump’s lingering hostility. His lawyers are fighting to have the case dismissed before it reaches trial.
Prosecutors, however, dismissed the notion of political motivation, arguing that Trump’s public attacks on Comey — labeling him a “leaker” — provided a legitimate context for investigating whether Comey had indeed misled lawmakers.
According to the filing, Comey allegedly exchanged messages with former FBI employee and Columbia law professor Daniel Richman to influence news coverage about his 2016 decision to publicly announce the reopening of the Clinton probe. In one exchange cited by prosecutors, Comey wrote to Richman, “Perhaps you can make him smarter,” referring to a journalist. Richman allegedly responded that he had “got the point home” to the reporter.
That decision — to revisit the email case just days before the election — remains one of the most polarizing moments of the 2016 race, with many Clinton allies blaming it for her narrow loss to Trump.
While a 2018 Justice Department watchdog report criticized Comey’s actions as “extraordinary and insubordinate,” it found no evidence of political bias, and no charges were filed at the time.
Comey, dismissed by Trump in 2017, later became one of the former president’s most vocal critics. His legal team now contends that the current prosecution punishes him for speaking out against Trump — a claim the Justice Department flatly denies.
The case marks one of several recent prosecutions involving figures viewed as antagonists of the former president, signaling how the political aftershocks of the Trump era continue to reverberate through the justice system.
