How a Key Witness Cracked the Case: Inside the Comey Indictment Drama
- Natalie Frank
- Oct 8
- 5 min read
Despite new indictment, internal memos, depleted support and political pressure suggest case could collapse under own weight
Natalie C. Frank, Ph.D October 8, 2025
VIRGINIA - Ex–FBI Director James Comey appeared in court today, pleading not guilty to federal counts that accuse him of lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. Behind the headlines, though, the story is messier, marked by prosecutorial doubt, internal disagreement, and the unusual dynamics of a politically charged indictment.
In Virginia, prosecutors who quietly reviewed Comey’s 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony concluded key evidence was too weak to support a conviction and feared a central witness could unravel their case. Still, the new U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, moved ahead and obtained a grand jury vote on two charges.
Additionally, in a significant move just before former FBI Director James Comey’s arraignment, the Department of Justice added two assistant U.S. attorneys from outside Virginia to the prosecution team. Both based in the Eastern District of North Carolina, they formally joined the case Tuesday afternoon, a step that signals Washington’s interest in bringing extra oversight and fresh prosecutorial weight to the proceedings to try to ensure a conviction.
From Prosecutorial Doubt to Indictment
Months before the indictment, senior prosecutors circulated a detailed memo within the Department of Justice expressing serious reservations. They concluded there wasn’t probable cause to charge Comey, especially after how Daniel Richman, a law professor and longtime confidant, answered questions. Sources say prosecutors labeled Richman a “hostile witness” and warned that relying on his testimony would pose “likely insurmountable problems” in proving Comey knowingly lied under oath.
Richman reportedly told investigators that Comey had explicitly told him on at least two occasions not to speak to the media, and denied acting as an anonymous source.
A further review of Comey’s emails, including exchanges between him and Richman, turned up no proof that he had authorized leaks.
Yet those internal objections mattered little to the team overseeing the indictment. Lindsey Halligan, a Trump-aligned appointee with zero prior criminal prosecution experience, moved ahead. She became one of only a few U.S. attorneys leading a criminal case without backing from career prosecutors. Some senior prosecutors reportedly quit or refused to participate rather than endorse a case viewed as politically fraught.
This sequence, critics argue, reads less like a standard federal prosecution and more like a show trial dressed in DOJ robes.
Arranging the Courtroom Drama
In court, Comey’s defense hit the process squarely. His lawyers will ask Judge Michael Nachmanoff to dismiss the case as vindictive and selective prosecution, arguing the charges were brought not for wrongdoing, but because Comey opposed former President Donald Trump.
The defense also plans to challenge Halligan’s appointment, raising questions about her legitimacy under the statute.
At the arraignment, the judge set a trial date for January 5, 2026, signaling a fast schedule even as both sides prepare motions over classified evidence and discovery disputes.
The government said it would move quickly and quipped, “We will go through the fastest CIPA process you have ever seen,” referring to classified information procedures. The judge emphasized he wouldn’t allow needless delay.
Comey, flanked by his lawyers and family, nodded as the charges were read. The bigger spectacle played out outside, where political overtones pressed on the courtroom walls. As expected, President Trump publicly cheered the indictment, calling it “justice” and portraying Comey as corrupt.
Stakes Beyond a Single Prosecutor
What’s at stake isn’t just Comey’s legal fate; it’s the credibility of independent federal law enforcement. This case fits a broader pattern. Trump repeatedly pressured DOJ leaders to open investigations and bring charges against political opponents.
The president’s public calls for the DOJ to “move now” against Comey, Adam Schiff, Letitia James and others are unprecedented.
Supreme Court precedent allows presidents some say in “which crimes to investigate and prosecute,” but norms since Watergate created buffers against direct influence. Many legal scholars now ask whether that buffer has cracked.
For critics, the Comey case is the latest test of whether the DOJ will act as an arm of justice or a political weapon. Senate Democrats, including Chris Murphy, have called it a “constitutional crisis,” warning that forcing prosecutions against political foes threatens the foundations of democracy.
Weak Foundations, Fragile Edifice
The indictment leans heavily on judiciary testimony from 2020 that mostly reiterated statements made in 2017. That matters because statutes of limitations turn on when the alleged misconduct first occurred. Prosecutors rushed to file before the five-year deadline. Some defense attorneys say the case risks collapsing on long-standing technical grounds.
With Richman recanting or refusing to back the prosecution’s narrative, the case loses a key pillar.
Without additional incriminating evidence, the case risks being dismissed or badly weakened before trial. Insiders warned not only that the case might not survive a motion to dismiss, but that even securing an indictment pushed beyond reasonable prudence.
And with Richman recanting or refusing to support the prosecution’s narrative, the case loses a central pillar. Without additional incriminating evidence, the case risks being dismissed or undermined before trial. Indeed, insiders warned not only that the case might not survive a motion to dismiss, but that even securing an indictment exceeded reasonable prosecutorial judgment.
Comey’s Defense: Politics, Principle, and the “Voodoo Case”
Comey’s legal team says this prosecution is retaliatory. They will argue Halligan’s appointment came from political cronyism, not merit, and that the indictment is meant to punish Comey for past investigations that embarrassed Trump.
In a public video after the indictment, Comey struck a tone both vulnerable and defiant. “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice. I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I am innocent, so let’s have a trial, and keep the faith,” he said. He vowed not to live “on our knees” and urged Americans to stay engaged and vigilant.
His attorneys will likely argue the prosecution is selective enforcement, aimed at an adversary rather than at real wrongdoing. That claim hinges on weak evidence, internal dissent over charging, and the unusual route Halligan took to bring the case.
Political Ripples and Public Justice
To critics, Comey’s indictment shows a deeper problem: a Justice Department acting at the whim of presidential demands. Trump’s tweet singled out Comey, Schiff, and Letitia James, shouting “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” That kind of public pressure is rare in normal DOJ operations.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Sen. Peter Welch called the case “a disgraceful attack on the rule of law.” Meanwhile, Rep. Jamie Raskin and others point to Siebert’s resignation and Halligan’s promotion as the turning point that enabled this prosecution.
Some Republicans have backed accountability, but many have been cautious—saying due process must come first.
What to Watch Going Forward
Defense motions to dismiss:
Expect early challenges on selective prosecution, Halligan’s appointment, grand jury abuses, and statute of limitations.
Media disclosures & discovery fights:
The government’s claim of classified material complaints may fuel delay tactics—but the judge vowed not to let the case stall.
Richman’s testimony (or lack thereof):
If the prosecution cannot compel Richman or if he remains hostile, the case may
collapse.
Public opinion & institutional trust:
For many, this is now a referendum on whether DOJ is a neutral arbiter or a political
weapon.
Precedent beyond Comey:
If this case is allowed to stand, it could open the door to prosecutions of other political rivals under tenuous charges.
This is not just another federal prosecution. It is a test of whether the machinery of law will be used to administer justice, or to punish enemies. And at its center stands a man once fired by Trump over the Russia probe, now forced to defend not just his reputation, but protections he once embodied.
