Comey Challenges Evidence in Virginia Court
Lawyers representing James Comey are set to argue on Wednesday in a Virginia state court that documents seized by federal authorities five years ago should not be used in a criminal case against the former FBI director, who faces charges of lying to Congress.
Comey, now 64, will attend a hearing in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. During this session, his attorneys and prosecutors will discuss how to manage privileged communications between Comey and his legal team as preparations for trial continue.
The former FBI director asserts that communications in question were gathered under a warrant from five years ago when federal authorities investigated him for allegedly leaking classified information. That inquiry, however, concluded without any charges being brought against him.
On September 25, 2020, Comey was sentenced for two counts of lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee during testimony on September 30, 2020. He denied approving media leaks regarding the investigation into 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and faced obstruction of justice charges as well.
Comey has pleaded not guilty to these charges, claiming they were politically motivated, specifically initiated by President Trump, in response to Comey’s reluctance to shut down the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The trial is scheduled to begin on January 5, 2026. Comey is now seeking to have the charges dismissed on various grounds, including claims of retaliatory prosecution and contesting the legality of Lindsey Harrigan’s interim appointment as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Prosecutors are proposing a “filter protocol,” where a team from different districts will review Comey’s communications to determine which ones might fall under attorney-client privilege and can be used as evidence against him.
They argue that this scrutiny could potentially reveal conflicts of interest regarding Comey’s lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, due to Fitzgerald’s alleged role in leaking confidential information to the media.
In contrast, Comey contends that prosecutors may already be infringing on attorney-client privilege by reviewing these sensitive communications.
Comey has previously denied any conflict of interest concerning Fitzgerald, advocating that he should remain on the case.
On Monday, prosecutors filed documents opposing Comey’s motion to dismiss, asserting he was not singled out unfairly and arguing that Harrigan’s appointment was legitimate. They also included a series of emails reflecting on the media’s coverage of the investigation before Comey’s departure from the FBI.
The 43-page filing detailed communications between Comey and his associate, Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, regarding the investigation called “Midyear Exam,” including extensive discussions about reopening the inquiry close to the 2016 election due to new information.
These email exchanges, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney N. Tyler Lemons, involved Richman’s interactions with the media, at times in an anonymous format.
Comey was dismissed from his position on May 9, 2017.
Lemons emphasized that the charges were aimed at maintaining accountability among public officials and were not purely motivated by any animosity from Trump, who is reportedly preparing to act on his grievances.
“The defendant, a former FBI director, lied to Congress about his actions while leading the nation’s primary federal law enforcement agency,” Lemons’ brief stated. “This prosecution is in the public interest.”
In a separate filing, attorney Henry C. Whitaker confirmed Harrigan’s appointment was valid and maintained that the charges against both Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James should proceed.
Even if Harrigan’s appointment were in question, Whitaker noted, Attorney General Pam Bondi had approved the indictment to ensure its legitimacy.
Both Comey and James raised concerns about Harrigan’s appointment, arguing that it lacked congressional endorsement and that Bondi had exceeded her appointments when she reassigned Harrigan.
Harrigan had resigned on September 19 after facing criticism from Trump for not pursuing prosecution against James.
In the ongoing case, prosecutors assert that Comey lied about Richman acting as an anonymous source during questioning by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in a 2020 congressional hearing.
During earlier testimony, Comey reiterated prior statements made to Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) about unauthorized media leaks.
Additionally, FBI investigators recently discovered evidence that challenges the accuracy of Comey’s testimonies to Republican lawmakers.
“Notably, during that hearing, the defendant was questioned by Senator Graham of South Carolina and Senator Hawley of Missouri,” Lemons reported, referencing various pieces of evidence that have surfaced.
Questions arose about whether Comey had been informed of plans involving Trump and Russian operatives influencing the election through distraction tactics regarding Clinton’s private email server.
Lemons noted Comey’s vague responses, including claims of not remembering critical details.
Contradictory documents, including a memo dated September 26, 2016, suggesting plans to implicate Trump, further complicate Comey’s assertions.
Comey’s legal team also submitted a motion to dismiss last week, arguing that the questions posed by Republican lawmakers were convoluted and lacked clarity regarding which investigation they referenced.
