A federal grand jury has subpoenaed Daniel Richman, a longtime adviser to former FBI Director James Comey, as part of a new investigation into whether Comey leaked classified information to the press, a move that raises new questions about accountability at the highest levels of federal law enforcement.
On Monday, a federal grand jury issued the subpoena to Richman in connection with an ongoing probe into allegations that classified information was leaked from Comey to The New York Times. Law enforcement sources cited by Fox News Digital described this as a “new investigation,” signaling that the Justice Department is not letting prior controversies fade quietly into the past. The Justice Department has not released the details of what specific information is alleged to have been leaked, nor the precise timing or location of the subpoena’s service.
This latest development casts a harsh light on the enduring questions surrounding James Comey’s conduct at the FBI and after. Comey, who led the Bureau during some of the most politically charged years in recent memory, is already under indictment in a separate case for allegedly threatening President Trump. Prosecutors say an Instagram post containing the phrase “86 47” constituted a threat against Trump, and Comey now faces two federal charges that could result in up to 10 years in prison.
The Justice Department’s renewed interest in the leak allegations comes after an initial investigation in 2018, in which Richman played a central role. Richman is not only a former adviser and attorney for Comey but also a law professor at Columbia Law School and a former special FBI employee. According to the reporting, Richman was previously swept up in investigative actions by prosecutors, who seized material from his electronic devices in 2019 and 2020, actions Richman later challenged in court, ultimately winning a ruling in his favor from a federal judge in Washington, D.C. in December of last year.
The stakes in this case extend well beyond the fate of a single former FBI official. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is set to testify before lawmakers at a Senate hearing, stated, “Threatening the life of the President of the United States is a grave violation of our nation’s laws.” He went on:
“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’s warning was explicit: “The temperature needs to be turned down, and anyone who dials it up and threatens the life of the President will be held accountable.”
Richman’s involvement in both past and present investigations underscores the tangled web of relationships and conduct that have dogged Comey since his tenure at the FBI. The new subpoena reportedly aims to uncover whether classified information was funneled to the press via Richman, specifically targeting leaks to The New York Times. The details of the alleged leak remain under wraps, but the use of a grand jury subpoena suggests the Justice Department sees reason to dig deeper, despite previous inquiries being curtailed after Joe Biden took office.
The backdrop to these developments is a Justice Department and federal law enforcement establishment that has too often appeared above the rules that govern ordinary Americans. Comey’s critics have long argued that he and his circle benefited from political favoritism and selective enforcement, accusations that gained traction after the initial leak investigation was reportedly cut off when the Biden administration began. The reopening of the case now raises the prospect that the full story, and the consequences for those involved, may finally come to light.
Daniel Richman’s legal challenges highlight the fraught nature of these investigations. After prosecutors seized information from his devices in 2019 and 2020, Richman sued, claiming that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. A federal judge sided with him in December of last year, but the new subpoena places Richman back at the center of a legal storm with potential national implications.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department’s separate case against Comey continues. That indictment, announced in late April, charged Comey with threatening the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. The case has already seen the original prosecutor resign earlier this summer, raising additional questions about the continuity and integrity of the process.
As acting Attorney General Todd Blanche prepares to testify before the Senate, lawmakers from both parties are expected to press him on the department’s handling of the Comey indictments and the leak investigation. With public confidence in federal law enforcement at a low ebb, the accountability of senior officials and their advisers is under a microscope. The Justice Department’s willingness to revisit old cases and issue new subpoenas will be tested by its ability to deliver real answers, and real consequences, no matter who is involved.
When those entrusted with the nation’s secrets use their power for personal or political ends, the rule of law itself is put on trial. Americans deserve a Justice Department that enforces the law without fear or favor, and the coming weeks will show whether that standard still applies in Washington.
