Federal Prosecutors investigate former FBI director James Comey for allegedly making false statements to Congress They determined that a central witness in his investigation would be “problematic” and would probably prevent them from presenting their case before a jury, they told ABC News sources familiar with their findings.
Daniel Richman, a law professor who, according to prosecutors, eats authorized to filter information to the press, told the researchers that the former FBI director ordered him not to interact with the media on at least two occasions and said unequivocally that Comey never authorized him to provide information to an anonymous journalist before the 2016 elections, the sources said.
Comey, who was accused last month Accused of making a false statement and obstruction related to a 2020 testimony before the Judicial Committee of the Senate, it must appear before a Virginia court for the first time for its reading of charges on Wednesday, but officials of the Department of Justice have expressed in private that the case could quickly fall apart under the scrutiny of a federal judge and defense lawyers.
According to prosecutors who investigated the circumstances surrounding Comey’s testimony in 2020 for two months, using Richman’s testimony to demonstrate that Comey deliberately provided false statements to Congress would result in “probably insurmountable problems” for the Prosecutor’s Office.
The researchers detailed these conclusions in an extensive memorandum last month recommending that the office not advance in the accusation against Comey, according to sources familiar with the content of the memorandum.
Lindsey Halligan, a loyal to Trump personally chosen to replace the federal prosecutor for the East district of Virginia who resisted establishing processes against Trump’s political enemies, still continued to present the case before a large jury in Alexandria, Virginia, and obtained two of the three positions he requested against Comey for his testimony before the Congress of 2020.
During the procedures of the Grand Jury, prosecutors do not have the obligation to present favorable evidence to the accused, but said evidence must be delivered to the defendant before the trial.
The director of the FBI, James Comey, speaks during a press conference on March 24, 2016 in Washington.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Halligan’s attached expressed similar concerns about the case the same week when the former White House assistant turned into a prosecutor asked a grand jury to accuse Comment, reinforcing the conclusion that no piece of evidence could show that Comey lied to Congress and warning against trusting Richman, who described his colleagues as a hostile witness, the sources said.
The prosecutors also expressed concern about the department’s ability to bring the case to trial quickly due to problems to identify all the relevant materials that would have to be delivered to Comey’s lawyers, sources said. They also generated alarm about the possibility that the Defense of Comey would quote the period for prescribing the case, which derives from a testimony of 2017 and was only reinforced by Comey during his 2020 testimony in response to a question by Republican Senator Ted Cruz.
Comey, who is expected to declare himself innocent of the charges, denies having acted badly and has argued that he is being attacked for political reasons. His accusation occurred a few days after Trump’s unprecedented demand that his justice department acted “now” to present cases against former FBI director and others.
“Nothing is being done. What happens to Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff and Leticia ???” Trump wrote in a publication on social networks last month, directing directly to the attorney general Pam Bondi and referring to the California Senator Adam Schiff and the New York Attorney General, Letitia James. “We cannot take any longer, it is ending our reputation and credibility. They accused me twice and accused me (five times!), For nothing. Justice should be done, now !!!”
Halligan Ans that Comey intentionally cheated Congress in 2017 and 2020 when he testified that he never authorized another person from the FBI to provide information to the media anonymously. The accusation is that Comey authorized Richman to speak with the press anonymously, contradicting his testimony.
Later, Trump accused Comey of violating the law by sharing his memoranda, arguing that they contained classified information, although Richman then told ABC News in a statement that none of the documents had classification marks.
When prosecutors met with Richman in September, he told them that he never served as an anonymous source for Comey or acted under the direction of Comey while he was director of the FBI, they told ABC News sources familiar with their interview. In at least two cases in which Richman asked if he should speak with the press, Comey advised him not to do so, the sources said.
The researchers who checked the Electronic Comp of Comey material, including their correspondence with Richman, could not identify a case in which Comey approved the filtration of material to a journalist anonymously, sources told ABC News.
rich man, Comey’s friend for a long time, previously acknowledged his role as an intermediary between Comey and the journalists after Comey was fired from his position as director of the FBI, including the leak of memoranda written by Comey about his interactions with Trump after his dismissal.
Federal prosecutors have focused their investigation into Comey’s actions as director of the FBI, including the alleged filtration of information on Trump and Clinton campaigns before the 2016 elections, to find evidence that Comey intentionally cheated Congress.
As ABC News previously reported, office career prosecutors not only determined that the large amount of evidence they gathered in their investigation would be insufficient to convince a jury to condemn him in a trial, but would not comply with a lower standard to achieve a probable cause to even present a case.
