Third time's the charm? Maybe.
Former FBI director James Comey faces yet another indictment from the Department of Justice. This one may be more difficult to shake than the supposed "8647" threat against Donald Trump. In fact, this alleged violation actually precedes Trump's first term, according to the court filing, although that doesn't mean Trump isn't part of the case:
Former FBI Director James Comey has been charged by federal prosecutors with transmission of national defense information and conspiracy to transmit national defense information.
It’s the third federal case against Comey, who has been a longtime Trump target since he initiated the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The case has played out under seal since Oct. 5.
Comey and his team moved to dismiss the case last week, NBC News also reports, but apparently without success. The indictment under seal alleges that Comey transmitted national security information to "a person not entitled to receive it."
The three-page indictment does not go into much detail. It alleges that Comey violated 18 USC 793, a statute that became very familiar during the investigation of Hillary Clinton's bathroom e-mail server. It is commonly known as the Espionage Act, but the statutes cover a lot more bad behavior than direct spying. It establishes the mishandling of sensitive information as a crime – which also came up in the Mar-a-Lago investigation run by Jack Smith as special counsel – and especially leaking such material to people not cleared to access it.
That includes reporters, and the spare two-count indictment makes that allegation. It also alleges that Comey had help in laundering the leak:
In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the objects thereof, on October 5, 2016, the defendant through one or more co-conspirators directed Individual #1 to disclose national defense information to a reporter for a national news publication.
All in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d) and (g).
Note well the date. The DOJ entered the indictment under seal on October 2, 2026, just prior to ten years after the alleged violation. It will likely surprise no one to learn that the statute of limitations on the Espionage Act is – wait for it – ten years. This does not rely on perjury charges for anything Comey may have said under oath to Congress, but direct prosecution for transmitting information in a conspiracy to leak information to the media.
John wrote about this investigation a year ago when it looked more likely to result in perjury charges. Catherine Herridge noted at the time that the underlying leak and plot to commit it might itself rise to criminal charges:
Given Richman's reported subpoena, I am reposting the related FBI and congressional memos we exclusively revealed mid-August. Then-FBI leadership's strategic use of media leaks was designed to shape the narrative and may have crossed the line into criminal conduct.
— Catherine Herridge (@C__Herridge) September 20, 2025
Trump has been demanding a probe into Comey's leaks for over nine years. It appeared that the DOJ might pursue criminal charges in 2020, but the change in administrations likely scotched the probe. Ironically, it might have been Richman who incentivized a revival of the probe under 18 USC 793, thanks to his foolish idea to write an essay for the New York Times in February complaining about the Trump administration's wholesale release of Epstein Files material. Richman scolded Trump and the DOJ for undermining trust in government, which I found hilarious at that time:
Let's return to the idea of trust in the Department of Justice. Richman laments the actions taken against James Comey by the current DoJ and the targeting of Jack Smith as reasons for this mistrust. Richman somehow skips over Comey's attempts to push the Russia-collusion hoax in Trump's first term, which turned out to be nothing more than a baseless campaign hit job by Hillary Clinton's team that fell apart under close scrutiny, but was nonetheless weaponized by the DoJ, a special prosecutor, Democrats in Congress, and – wait for it – the New York Times, which won a Pultizer for its Russia-collusion coverage (along with the Washington Post). Joe Biden's DoJ then launched multiple attempts to prosecute Trump after he left office on nonsense allegations as a means to keep him from running again.
Richman just gleeps over those episodes, even though they provide important context for the current DoJ's scrutiny of both Comey and Jack Smith. And now he wants to know why people don't trust the DoJ to make charging decisions when those involve opponents of the progressive-elite cliques, and more importantly, charging decisions that involve members of those cliques. His column answers its own questions.
Update: I thought the name on this column sounded familiar. Richman is a friend of Comey's who had possession of memos by Comey that the former FBI Director had leaked through him as a way to force the appointment of a special counsel in 2017.
Wanna bet that Richman is about to get hoist by his own petard, too?
This may be a lot tougher for Comey to beat than the "8647" indictment. The principals to these allegations have more or less admitted to them in public, and unlike the last attempt against Comey, there is no First Amendment argument. Comey may find sympathy with a judge for selective and vindictive prosecution, but there's not much doubt that leaking this information is a crime, and the intent to pervert the normal DOJ process through it is quite apparent. It does prompt the question of why the DOJ bothered to advance the 'threat' allegations if they had this coming anyway. We may have to wait for memoirs to get the answer to that question.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy HotAir's conservative reporting exposing the radical left and woke media? Support our work so we can keep bringing you the truth.
Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.