A federal grand jury issued a subpoena to longtime James Comey adviser Daniel Richman as the Justice Department opens a new investigation into whether classified information connected to the former FBI director was improperly provided to The New York Times.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal grand jury issued a subpoena Monday to Daniel Richman, a longtime friend and former adviser to James Comey, as the Justice Department renews its investigation into the handling and disclosure of information connected to the former FBI director.
Multiple law enforcement sources told Fox News that the subpoena targets Richman and is part of a new inquiry into whether Comey improperly disclosed classified information to The New York Times through intermediaries.
Richman, a Columbia Law School professor who previously served as a special government employee for the FBI and later as Comey’s attorney, has figured prominently in investigations surrounding Comey’s contacts with the media since 2017.
Comey was fired as FBI director by President Donald Trump in May 2017. After his dismissal, Comey provided Richman with information from memoranda documenting his conversations with Trump.
Richman subsequently shared information from those memoranda with The New York Times.
The disclosures became part of the sequence of events preceding the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters.
The Justice Department examined Comey’s disclosures during Trump’s first administration, but the matter did not result in charges at that time. According to the latest reporting, federal prosecutors have now opened a new investigation focused on the disclosure of classified information.
The renewed inquiry follows a legal dispute over evidence previously seized from Richman’s electronic devices.
Richman filed a lawsuit arguing that federal investigators violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they obtained materials from his devices during investigations conducted in 2019 and 2020.
A federal judge in Washington ruled in Richman’s favor in December.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, previously restricted prosecutors from searching Richman’s personal computer hard drive for additional classified material without first obtaining a search warrant.
She also ordered the Justice Department to return materials that had been seized from Richman after blocking prosecutors from accessing evidence they sought to use in proceedings involving Comey.
The new grand jury subpoena indicates prosecutors are now pursuing another avenue to obtain evidence as they revisit the disclosure allegations.
Reporting highlighted by Fox News through related coverage said the new investigation is separate from another federal case involving Comey and an Instagram post containing the numbers “86 47.”
Federal prosecutors have alleged that the post constituted a threat against Trump.
Comey is facing two federal charges in that case and could face up to 10 years in prison if convicted, according to the information provided. The original prosecutor assigned to that case resigned in early June.
When the indictment was announced, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department regarded alleged threats against a president as an exceptionally serious matter.
“Threatening the life of the President of the United States is a grave violation of our nation’s laws,” Blanche said in an April 28 Justice Department statement.
“The grand jury returned an indictment alleging James Comey did just that, at a time when this country has witnessed violent incitement followed by deadly actions against President Trump and other elected officials,” Blanche added. “The temperature needs to be turned down, and anyone who dials it up and threatens the life of the President will be held accountable.”
The revived leak investigation also intersects with an earlier criminal case involving Comey’s congressional testimony.
A grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia indicted Comey last year on two counts involving false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.
Those charges stemmed from his September 2020 testimony before Senate investigators concerning whether he had authorized FBI officials to anonymously provide information to news organizations.
Prosecutors alleged that Richman had communicated with reporters about FBI matters, including investigations connected to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election.
Newly released emails from November 2016 have since become part of the dispute over Comey’s relationship with Richman and his knowledge of Richman’s interactions with reporters.
The communications have been cited by investigators and Comey’s critics as evidence that the former FBI director knew Richman was speaking with members of the press and participated in decisions about those contacts.
Comey has disputed allegations that he improperly authorized leaks and has argued that prosecutions against him were politically motivated.
The earlier false-statements and obstruction case was ultimately dismissed after a federal judge concluded that the prosecutor’s appointment violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
The dismissal did not resolve the underlying factual dispute over Comey’s disclosures or Richman’s communications with journalists.
Richman’s separate lawsuit over the government’s seizure and examination of his electronic material further complicated prosecutors’ ability to revisit the allegations using evidence obtained during the previous investigations.
The latest subpoena now places Richman back at the center of the matter.
Federal investigators are examining whether classified information originating with Comey was improperly transmitted to the media and what role Richman played in those disclosures.
The investigation is distinct from Comey’s pending threat-related case and from the earlier prosecution involving his Senate testimony, although the matters overlap in their examination of Comey’s relationship with Richman and his contacts with reporters.
The grand jury’s issuance of a new subpoena does not establish criminal wrongdoing by Richman or Comey. It does, however, confirm that federal prosecutors have reopened investigative activity surrounding disclosures that have been disputed for nearly a decade.
Original article
Comments