The whole indictment was built on sand.
For the second time, the Department of Justice has brought federal charges against James Comey, the former director of the FBI, over sworn testimony he gave to Congress in 2020 regarding unauthorized leaks of sensitive investigative information. The first indictment, secured last September, was voided not on its merits but because the prosecutor who brought it lacked lawful authority to do so — a reminder that in matters of justice, the vessel carrying the charge matters as much as the charge itself. Now, with that procedural wound sutured, the government presses forward, and Comey, once among the most powerful law enforcement figures in the nation, must again reckon with the question of whether his words before Congress were true.
- A federal grand jury has indicted James Comey a second time for allegedly lying under oath to Congress about his role in leaking sensitive FBI information to journalists.
- The first indictment collapsed in November 2024 — not because Comey was cleared, but because the prosecutor who brought it had never been lawfully appointed, leaving the entire case without legal foundation.
- The core contradiction driving the case remains unresolved: Comey denied authorizing any leaks, while former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe publicly stated that Comey knew of and approved his leak to the Wall Street Journal.
- Neither the DOJ nor Comey's legal team has disclosed the specific charges, the jurisdiction, or whether the allegations have been refined — leaving the public and the accused in a fog of procedural uncertainty.
- The case now moves toward a potential trial that the first indictment never reached, forcing a jury to weigh whether Comey's sworn testimony was honest, evasive, or deliberately false.
James Comey is facing federal prosecution for the second time. On Tuesday, the Department of Justice indicted the former FBI director again, according to sources familiar with the matter. The specific charges remain undisclosed — neither the DOJ nor Comey's legal team has offered clarification — but the underlying allegation is consistent with the first round: that Comey lied to Congress under oath about his involvement in leaking sensitive investigative information to the press.
The first indictment came last September, when a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia charged Comey with making false statements and obstruction of justice. It was dismissed two months later, in November, when a judge ruled that the interim U.S. Attorney who brought the case, Lindsey Halligan, had never been properly appointed to her position. Without lawful authority, her prosecution had no legal standing. The indictment was thrown out on procedural grounds before it ever reached trial.
The government is now trying again, this time presumably through properly appointed channels. What remains unclear is which jurisdiction convened the new grand jury, and whether prosecutors have sharpened their allegations or simply re-filed them correctly.
The dispute traces back to a September 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where Senator Ted Cruz pressed Comey directly: had he, or anyone he authorized, leaked information to news outlets about the FBI's investigations into Donald Trump's ties to Russia or Hillary Clinton's private email server? Comey answered no to both questions, under oath.
The problem was Andrew McCabe. The former FBI deputy director had publicly stated that he leaked information about the Clinton investigation to the Wall Street Journal — and that Comey was aware of it and had approved it. Cruz confronted Comey with this contradiction on the record. Comey stood by his testimony and offered no accounting for the gap between his sworn words and McCabe's public statements.
That unresolved contradiction is the government's case. Whether Comey authorized the leaks, knew of them, or gave testimony that was technically accurate but deliberately misleading are questions that may finally reach a jury. Comey, now 65, has already endured one indictment and one dismissal. He now faces the full weight of the process again.
James Comey is being prosecuted twice for the same alleged crime. On Tuesday, the Department of Justice indicted the former FBI director for a second time, according to sources who spoke with The Post. The charges themselves remain murky—neither the DOJ nor Comey's legal team has clarified what he stands accused of this time around—but the broad outline is familiar: the government says he lied under oath to Congress about his role in leaking sensitive information to journalists.
This is Comey's second trip through the indictment process. Last September, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia charged him with making false statements and obstruction of justice. Two months later, in November, a judge dismantled the case entirely. The reason was procedural but consequential: the interim U.S. Attorney who brought the charges, Lindsey Halligan, had never been properly appointed to her position. She had no lawful authority to prosecute anyone. The whole indictment, the judge ruled, was built on sand.
Now the DOJ is trying again. It's unclear which jurisdiction's grand jury convened this time, or whether prosecutors have refined their allegations or simply re-filed the same ones through proper channels. The silence from the Justice Department is notable. So is the silence from Comey's defense team, which handled his first case and now faces a second.
The original dispute centers on a September 2020 Senate hearing where Comey testified before the Judiciary Committee. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas pressed him on a specific point: Had he ever leaked information to news outlets about the FBI's investigation into Donald Trump's ties to Russia, or into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server? Comey said no. Had he authorized anyone else at the FBI to leak such information? Again, no. He was under oath both times.
But Andrew McCabe, who served as the FBI's deputy director under Comey, had publicly stated something different. McCabe said he had leaked information to the Wall Street Journal about the Clinton investigation, and that Comey knew about it and approved it. Cruz laid this contradiction in front of Comey and asked the obvious question: Who is telling the truth? Comey's answer was to stand by his testimony. He offered no explanation for the gap between his sworn statements and McCabe's public claims.
That gap is what the government believes constitutes perjury and obstruction. Whether Comey actually authorized the leaks, whether he knew about them, whether his testimony was technically accurate or deliberately misleading—these are the questions a jury may now have to answer. The first time around, the case never got that far. A procedural flaw killed it before trial.
Now, with a properly appointed prosecutor behind it, the government is moving forward again. Comey is 65 years old. He has already endured one indictment, one dismissal, and the public spectacle of being charged with lying to Congress about his own conduct as one of the nation's most powerful law enforcement officials. He now faces the prospect of doing it all again.
Citações Notáveis
I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.— James Comey, responding to Senator Ted Cruz during 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter that the first indictment was dismissed on procedural grounds rather than on the merits?
Because it means the government never had to prove Comey lied. The judge threw it out on a technicality—the prosecutor wasn't properly appointed—so the underlying question of whether his testimony was actually false never went to a jury. Now they get another chance to make that case.
So the DOJ is essentially getting a do-over.
Exactly. They had a chance to prosecute him, and they bungled the appointment process. Now they're starting from scratch, presumably with the same allegations but through the proper legal machinery.
What's the core dispute here? Did Comey leak or not?
That's what's unclear. McCabe says he leaked and that Comey authorized it. Comey says under oath that he never authorized leaks and never leaked himself. One of them is lying, or both are telling a version of the truth that doesn't quite align. The government thinks Comey's testimony was false.
And if he's convicted this time?
He faces potential prison time and the permanent stain of a felony conviction for perjury. But more immediately, it's a question of whether the legal system can hold a former FBI director accountable for what he said under oath.
Does the silence from his lawyers suggest anything?
Caution, probably. They've already been through one indictment. They know what's coming. No comment is often the smartest move when you're about to fight the same battle twice.