Judge Reprimands Prosecutors in Comey Case
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — During a court hearing on Wednesday, a federal judge strongly criticized prosecutors in the criminal case against James Comey, insisting they provide evidence to the former FBI director’s lawyers without delay. Comey faces allegations of lying to Congress regarding leaks of investigative details to the media.
U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick presided over the hearing, pressing prosecutors for nearly an hour about the evidence already gathered, specifically questioning whether it infringed on Comey’s attorney-client privilege.
The case revolves around three search warrants executed by the FBI as part of the Arctic Haze investigation, which looks into how confidential FBI information reached the press in 2019 and 2020.
Defense attorney Rebecca Donareski emphasized that the federal prosecutors had been less than transparent about the information encompassed by at least four warrants, much of which relates to discussions between Comey and Daniel Richman, his friend and lawyer, who is also a law professor.
“We’re very concerned about the government’s actions,” Donareski noted, alluding to a potentially unconstitutional investigation initiated in September that may involve privileged information.
Assistant U.S. Attorney N. Tyler Lemons remarked that while Comey might not have been directly informed of the warrant, federal actions were justified. He pointed out that Richman was serving as Comey’s personal attorney at that time.
“From the government’s perspective, this material is from Daniel Richman,” he answered when questioned by the judge about Comey’s knowledge of the warrant.
Judge Fitzpatrick asserted that Comey’s legal team has a right to be informed about how the warrants were executed and how the information would be utilized by the prosecution. “It seems like the prosecution is prioritized, and the investigation is secondary,” he expressed with frustration.
He then mandated that prosecutors deliver “everything” in writing to Comey’s representation by 5 p.m. the following Thursday, emphasizing the need for a clear explanation.
Much of the evidence involved has been with the government for years, though some appears to have come to light during a grand jury investigation initiated under the Trump administration in September 2025.
The issue of whether “filter protocols” would be employed to guard against potential violations of attorney-client privilege remains unsettled. Prosecutors advocated for this method, arguing it could expose a conflict of interest regarding Richman, Comey’s lawyer.
Comey’s defense contended that a significant amount of the material was protected by attorney-client privilege. Fitzpatrick expressed that allowing the defense just two weeks to examine the documents represented an “unreasonable burden,” especially given that federal investigators have retained most of the material for five years.
Comey was present at the hearing but did not make any statements, nor did interim U.S. Attorney Lindsay Harrigan, who charged him on September 25 with making false statements to Congress and obstructing the legislative process.
The counts stem from Comey’s 2017 statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding whether he permitted others to leak information to the media about the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and alleged collusion between Donald Trump and Russia.
Comey’s legal team is planning a hearing to assess motions regarding evidence intended for use by federal prosecutors.
On October 27, the defense raised concerns about possible exposure of privileged materials to lead case attorneys and sought to block any illegal review of documents taken from Comey’s lawyers.
The government, they argued, lacks a legal basis to examine material obtained over five years ago in a concluded investigation that resulted in no charges, involving expired warrants for unrelated offenses.
In a November 3 response, prosecutors reiterated their appeal for a “filter team” to assess whether a portion of the evidence falls under attorney-client privilege.
This case traces back to a September 30, 2020, hearing where Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) questioned Comey regarding his previous testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2017.
Comey has consistently maintained his innocence, claiming he has never been an anonymous source for news outlets regarding the Trump or Clinton investigations.
Recently, when confronted again by Cruz about prior statements, Comey reiterated that he stands by his original testimony.
Prosecutors contend that Comey’s declarations were misleading because he allowed Richman to serve as an unnamed source for reporting related to the FBI’s inquiry into Clinton.
On October 8, Comey pleaded not guilty in the Alexandria Courthouse and is set to face trial on January 5, 2026. If convicted, he could face up to five years in federal prison. His defense team argues that the charges are politically motivated and intended as retaliation for not closing another investigation concerning alleged collusion in 2016.
