ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal decide within the prison case in opposition to James Comey scolded prosecutors in a tense courtroom listening to Wednesday — and demanded that they hand over proof “instantly” to attorneys for the ex-FBI director, who’s charged with mendacity to Congress about leaking investigative info to media.
US Justice of the Peace Decide William E. Fitzpatrick heard arguments contained in the northern Virginia courtroom for roughly an hour, urgent prosecutors on the scope of the proof already obtained, and whether or not any of it could have infringed on Comey’s attorney-client privilege.
At subject had been three search warrants executed by the FBI in 2019 and 2020 as a part of the bureau’s Arctic Haze probe into how categorized info from the bureau was leaked to information retailers.
Protection lawyer Rebekah Donaleski claimed that federal prosecutors had not been forthcoming about what info was getting used from no less than 4 warrants — a lot of which concerned Comey’s discussions together with his good friend and lawyer Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia Legislation College.
“The protection is gravely involved,” Donaleski stated, “with the federal government’s conduct,” referencing a probably “unconstitutional” extra search in September that will have concerned privileged info.
Assistant US Legal professional N. Tyler Lemons argued that the feds had acted correctly, at the same time as he acknowledged that Comey hadn’t all the time been instantly knowledgeable of the warrants. Richman was additionally serving as Comey’s private lawyer on the time.
“From the federal government’s perspective, that is materials from Daniel Richman,” he famous after being pressed by the decide whether or not Comey had been made conscious of the warrants.
Comey’s legal professionals are “entitled to know the way these warrants had been executed,” Fitzpatrick barked at Lemons, including that the protection must also be instructed “how the data was used” within the prosecution and given entry to grand jury proceedings.
“Proper now, we’re in a little bit of a sense of indict first, examine second,” the Justice of the Peace — who was appointed to the bench in 2022 below former President Joe Biden — groused.
He then ordered prosecutors to offer “the whole lot” in writing to Comey’s group by Thursday at 5 p.m.
“It’s essential to give it to them within the method you may have it, with some clarification,” Fitzpatrick emphasised.
Many of the proof being mentioned on the listening to has been within the authorities’s possession for years — although some was apparently produced in September 2025 amid the grand jury investigation that was launched below the Trump administration.
Left unresolved was the query of whether or not a so-called “filter protocol” will likely be used to sift what info is topic to attorney-client privilege.
Prosecutors had requested the process, arguing that an investigation might uncover battle of curiosity for Comey’s authorized eagle Richman.
Comey’s authorized group claimed a lot of the fabric is roofed by attorney-client privilege.
Fitzpatrick will give protection legal professionals simply two weeks to assessment the docs, however famous that it was “an unfair burden,” provided that federal investigators have had many of the supplies for 5 years.
Comey attended the listening to however by no means spoke, nor did interim interim US Legal professional Lindsey Halligan, who introduced the indictment on Sept. 25 in opposition to the previous FBI boss — alleging one depend of constructing a false assertion to Congress and one depend of obstructing a congressional continuing.
The fees cited an announcement Comey, 64, made earlier than the Senate Judiciary Committee 5 years in the past about whether or not he approved anybody else to leak to the press particulars concerning the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s personal e-mail server, or the probe into purported collusion between Donald Trump and the Russian authorities.
Comey’s legal professionals convened the listening to to weigh a movement submitted by the protection group concerning the proof federal prosecutors plan to make use of.
On Oct. 27, protection attorneys alleged that “the lead case brokers might have been uncovered to attorney-client privileged supplies belonging to Mr. Comey” — and so they sought to dam “illegal assessment of supplies seized from his lawyer.”
“The federal government has no lawful foundation to assessment supplies obtained greater than 5 years in the past, in a closed investigation that ended with none costs, pursuant to stale warrants for separate offenses, together with supplies that stay below seal by one other courtroom,” they wrote.
Prosecutors, led by Lemons, in a Nov. 3 reply to that movement once more requested for a so-called “filter group” to sift whether or not “a small subset of that proof” is topic to that attorney-client privilege.
The case boils down — partly — to a Sept. 30, 2020, listening to by which Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) questioned the ex-FBI director about testimony he had given to the identical committee in Might 2017.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) within the earlier listening to had requested: “Director Comey, have you ever ever been an nameless supply in information stories about issues regarding the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?”
“By no means,” Comey answered.
“Query two on [sic] comparatively associated, have you ever ever approved another person on the FBI to be an nameless supply in information stories concerning the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?” Grassley additionally inquired
“No,” Comey responded.
When pressed about that trade three years later, by Cruz, Comey stated: “I stand by what, the testimony you summarized that I gave in Might of 2017.”
Of their indictment, prosecutors alleged that “assertion was false” as a result of Comey had approved a person — since-revealed by the protection in courtroom papers as Richman — “to function an nameless supply in information stories” for an FBI probe of Hillary Clinton.
Comey pleaded not responsible on Oct. 8 within the Jap District of Virginia’s Alexandria courthouse.
His trial is presently scheduled for Jan. 5, 2026. If convicted, he might serve as much as 5 years in federal jail.
The ex-spook and his protection group have claimed the case is a political and “vindictive” prosecution introduced on the behest of President Trump after Comey declined to shut down a separate investigation into purported collusion between the Republican’s 2016 marketing campaign.
