In a surprising twist, former Special Counsel John Durham appears to have weakened the allegations against ex-FBI director James Comey during his discussions with federal prosecutors. According to reliable sources, Durham, who dedicated nearly four years to investigating the origins of the FBI's inquiry into President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and its purported connections to Russia, informed federal prosecutors that he found no evidence to substantiate claims of false statements or obstruction against Comey.
This meeting took place remotely in August between Durham and federal prosecutors in Virginia, who were seeking clarity on his findings. The implications of Durham's conclusions are noteworthy, especially considering he was once thought to be positioned by Trump and other Republicans to take action against high-ranking officials involved in the investigation of Trump's campaign.
Interestingly, the prosecutors had previously met with a team from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., who had conducted extensive investigations into Comey, including having him testify before a grand jury in 2021. However, much to their chagrin, these investigators were unable to pinpoint any actions by Comey that warranted charges.
After conducting their own investigation over two months, the prosecutors in Virginia echoed the findings of both Durham and their D.C. colleagues: they could not establish that Comey had made false statements to Congress that would obstruct their investigation. In a comprehensive memo outlining their decision, they reinforced their stance by referencing the two other investigations that arrived at the same conclusion, which emphasized the lack of probable cause to bring charges against Comey.
However, Lindsey Halligan, a former insurance lawyer chosen by Trump to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, vehemently dismissed this recommendation and sought a three-count indictment against Comey. Just last month, a grand jury chose to indict Comey on two counts of making false statements to Congress and obstruction, while they declined to pursue an additional charge that Halligan had sought. Trump's prior remarks about Halligan suggested he expected her to take aggressive action against individuals like Comey.
When approached for comments by ABC News, Durham did not respond, nor did a spokesperson from the Justice Department. The contentious nature of this case becomes even more significant as it stands in stark contrast to the judgment of at least two prosecutors appointed by Trump himself. This situation arises in a context where the former president is actively advocating for an increased number of charges against his political adversaries, indicating a quest for retribution over the numerous criminal cases he has faced since leaving office.
Trump expressed his opinions plainly, stating, "There'll be others. Look, that's my opinion -- they weaponized the Justice Department like nobody in history. What they've done is terrible," he told reporters shortly after Comey's indictment. He went on to assert, "I hope there are others, because you can't let this happen to a country."
Yet, the intricacies surrounding the prosecution could bolster arguments suggesting Comey was unfairly targeted. Observations by insiders reveal that at least three other prosecutorial teams opted against pursuing charges against Comey, which raises questions about the case's credibility. Additionally, sources have indicated that the senior officials at the Justice Department were often skeptical about the case, with no career prosecutor willing to present the case to the grand jury as requested by Halligan.
The prosecution originally aimed at Halligan reportedly revolves around two specific parts of Comey's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020. The first alleges Comey lied about approving leaks to the media, and the second claims he was unaware of an unverified intelligence report suggesting that then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton attempted to fabricate a scandal connecting Trump's campaign with Russia.
Durham's investigation delved deeply into whether Comey's statements regarding his lack of awareness about the intelligence report—and his claim that the allegation "doesn't ring any bells"—were deliberately misleading. Sources indicate that Durham ultimately concluded he could not substantiate false statements charges based solely on Comey's claimed inability to recall, and thus, evidence failed to demonstrate that Comey had been briefed on that intelligence report.
During an hour-long video conference with federal prosecutors in late August, Durham reiterated that his investigation's findings did not support charges of false statements against Comey, according to insiders familiar with the discussion. Interestingly, a grand jury that looked at the evidence surrounding the case reached a similar verdict, choosing not to indict Comey regarding his alleged lies to Congress about the intelligence report, effectively returning no bill on the first count sought by Halligan.
Nevertheless, the grand jury did agree to indict Comey on two counts concerning his purported false statement regarding his role in leaking information to the press about the Russia investigation. Reports suggest that one of these counts involves Comey allegedly using his former attorney, Daniel Richman, to relay information to journalists about an FBI probe linked to Clinton.
Over four years, lawyers from the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. also conducted an inquiry into Comey's actions concerning alleged leaks, including his interaction with Richman as a means of delivering information to the media. Despite calling Comey to testify before a grand jury in 2021, these prosecutors ultimately resolved not to pursue charges due to insufficient evidence proving that Comey had used Richman as a confidential source or leaked classified information.
The D.C. legal team shared their findings with their Virginia counterparts, contributing to the discussions around the decision-making process. The team that subsequently investigated Comey this summer arrived at the same conclusion, informing Halligan that proceeding with an indictment without clear probable cause would be unethical. Nonetheless, Halligan chose to move forward regardless.
While publicly asserting that 'the balance of power is a bedrock principle of our democracy,' Halligan insisted the Justice Department must maintain accountability and transparently present facts regarding executive leadership's actions to ensure proper congressional oversight following the indictment.
Throughout his extensive probe, Durham brought forth only three criminal cases, none of which implicated senior members of the FBI or Department of Justice involved in investigating the 2016 campaign. Notably, two of these cases led to acquittals, one occurring in the Eastern District of Virginia.
In the culmination of his investigation, Durham released a detailed 306-page report which outlined the high threshold that needs to be met to initiate federal prosecutions. This explanation shed light on why his office might have opted not to press charges against certain individuals, even when there were indications of their misconduct. "If this report and the outcome of the Special Counsel's investigation leave some with the impression that injustices or misconduct have gone unaddressed, it is not because the Office concluded that no such injustices or misconduct occurred," Durham remarked in his report. "It is, rather, due to the reality that not every injustice or wrongdoing constitutes a criminal offense, and criminal prosecutors are charged solely with investigating and prosecuting violations of U.S. criminal laws."
Discussion Points:
- How do you feel about the contrasting decisions made by the various prosecutorial teams regarding Comey's charges?
- Is it fair to say that this situation might reveal selective prosecution at play?
- In this ongoing discourse over accountability and justice, could we be witnessing a significant political trial?
- What implications might this case have for the future landscape of political investigations in the United States? Engage with us in the comments and share your thoughts!
