Federal prosecutors told a judge they are pursuing an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey over an alleged 2016 disclosure of national defense information, while his attorneys argue the government’s earlier charges are invalid because the statute of limitations has expired.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Justice Department told a federal judge Friday, Oct. 30, that prosecutors have obtained additional evidence and are actively seeking a grand jury indictment against former FBI Director James Comey in a case alleging that he directed the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive national defense information to the media in 2016.
During a hearing in Washington, D.C., prosecutors said they are considering charges involving alleged conduct extending beyond October 2016, potentially through April 2017, as they attempt to overcome a dispute over the 10-year statute of limitations applicable to certain Espionage Act offenses.
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden postponed a ruling on Comey’s request to dismiss the case, allowing the Justice Department additional time to pursue an indictment while questioning whether its existing charging document can lawfully preserve the prosecution.
According to CNN’s reporting on Friday’s hearing, prosecutors said the investigation has produced new information despite two earlier federal inquiries into the alleged disclosure that ended without criminal charges.
“We are still going to the grand jury very diligently,” Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Dustin Farahnak told the court, according to Bloomberg Law.
The case concerns allegations that Comey directed FBI personnel to communicate classified information to a reporter for The New York Times in October 2016 to correct an earlier Reuters report involving federal surveillance activities.
The underlying reporting concerned Yahoo’s alleged cooperation with a classified government surveillance directive requiring the company to examine incoming email traffic for specified information.
Prosecutors contend that Comey sought to correct what he believed was inaccurate reporting and instructed staff members to communicate with a journalist, resulting in the unauthorized transmission of national defense information.
The Justice Department alleges that the information was disclosed to an individual not authorized to receive it, potentially violating provisions of the Espionage Act.
Comey has denied wrongdoing, and no grand jury has returned an indictment in the current case.
The government initially filed two proposed criminal charges under seal on Oct. 5, using a document known as a criminal information rather than obtaining a grand jury indictment.
The filing accused Comey of knowingly communicating national defense information to an unauthorized recipient and conspiring with others to accomplish that disclosure.
Unlike an indictment, a criminal information can be filed by prosecutors without approval from a grand jury. In a felony prosecution, however, the defendant ordinarily must waive the constitutional right to grand jury indictment for an information to serve as the basis for trial.
Comey has not waived that right.
The Justice Department maintains that filing the information before the expiration of the limitations period preserved its ability to seek an indictment later.
Comey’s attorneys dispute that interpretation, arguing that the law establishing the extended 10-year deadline specifically requires an indictment and does not permit prosecutors to substitute a criminal information filed without the defendant’s consent.
According to court documents made public earlier this month, the government’s allegations concern conduct occurring around Oct. 5, 2016, exactly 10 years before prosecutors submitted the information.
Comey’s legal team contends that because the government failed to obtain a timely indictment, the prosecution cannot proceed on those allegations.
“The criminal information charging Mr. Comey should be dismissed as time barred,” his attorneys argued in their motion.
They maintained that the extended limitations period applies only when prosecutors obtain a grand jury indictment within the statutory deadline. Without such an indictment, the defense argues, the ordinary five-year limitations period governs the information, making the filing untimely.
Prosecutors countered that the relevant law should be interpreted to permit a criminal information to preserve the case until a grand jury can consider the evidence.
They also suggested that additional alleged conduct occurring through April 2017 could provide grounds for charges that remain within the 10-year limitations period.
The government did not publicly detail the new evidence during Friday’s hearing or establish whether it was obtained after the second investigation into the allegations.
The alleged disclosure had already been examined during an investigation led by John Durham, who served as U.S. attorney for Connecticut during Trump’s first administration.
Durham declined to prosecute Comey in 2018 after reviewing the allegations.
Federal authorities subsequently conducted another investigation into the same alleged leak during the first Trump administration. That inquiry also concluded without criminal charges.
Friday’s proceeding therefore addressed whether prosecutors can pursue the allegations despite those earlier decisions and the passage of nearly a decade since the reported disclosure.
McFadden questioned both sides about the procedural dispute and whether he should allow the government additional time to present its evidence to a grand jury before deciding Comey’s motion.
The judge repeatedly asked Comey’s attorney why the court should not wait until prosecutors determine whether a grand jury will authorize formal charges.
Comey’s defense argued that delaying the decision would allow a legally defective criminal proceeding to continue indefinitely, imposing burdens on their client even without an indictment.
“FBI agents have been placed outside of Mr. Comey’s home,” an attorney for the former FBI director told the court, adding that the case was “hanging over” his head.
McFadden acknowledged that the dispute presented an unusual legal question.
“There is at least one novel issue,” the judge said.
The judge also expressed concern that federal agents could attempt to arrest Comey before prosecutors obtained a valid indictment.
“I will be extremely frustrated if there’s some dawn raid,” McFadden warned government attorneys.
Prosecutors assured the court that no such operation would occur.
The judge nevertheless indicated that the Justice Department was entitled to continue its grand jury investigation while he considered the motion.
According to Associated Press reporting, McFadden also observed that obtaining an indictment was not guaranteed, noting that grand juries have recently declined to approve charges in several politically sensitive cases.
The dispute marks the Justice Department’s third known effort to prosecute Comey since September 2025.
In the first case, a federal grand jury indicted Comey on allegations involving false statements to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. A judge subsequently dismissed the charges after determining that the prosecutor who obtained the indictment had been unlawfully appointed. The government has appealed that dismissal.
A separate prosecution filed in North Carolina concerns a social media photograph Comey posted showing seashells arranged to form the numbers “86 47.”
Federal prosecutors alleged that the image constituted a threat against President Donald Trump, while Comey’s attorneys argued that the prosecution violated his constitutional rights and was motivated by political retaliation. That case remains pending.
Comey, whom Trump dismissed as FBI director in May 2017, has repeatedly maintained that the prosecutions against him are unjustified.
Following the disclosure of the latest Espionage Act allegations, he criticized the Justice Department’s actions in a social media statement.
“It would almost be funny if it weren’t such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice, one that we cannot become numb to,” Comey said.
His attorneys have similarly argued that the government is attempting to revive allegations previously examined by federal prosecutors who determined that criminal charges were unwarranted.
The Justice Department, meanwhile, maintains that it possesses sufficient grounds to continue investigating and is seeking to present additional evidence to a grand jury.
The outcome of the latest case may depend on two separate questions: whether a criminal information can preserve the 10-year limitations period for the alleged 2016 offense, and whether prosecutors can establish additional conduct occurring later that would support timely charges.
McFadden has not announced a final decision on the motion to dismiss.
For now, the Justice Department may continue presenting evidence to a grand jury, but the October filing alone does not authorize a felony trial against Comey without a valid indictment or waiver of his grand jury rights.
Original article
Comments