Comey’s Trusted Confidant Faces New Scrutiny
Richman was far more than an acquaintance whom Comey occasionally contacted.
The Columbia Law School professor previously worked with the FBI as a special government employee and maintained a close relationship with Comey.
After Trump fired Comey in May 2017, that relationship suddenly became enormously important.
Comey had written memoranda describing his private interactions with Trump. He later acknowledged giving at least one memo to Richman and asking him to share its contents with a reporter.
The goal, Comey testified, was to encourage the appointment of a special counsel.
The strategy worked.
Richman provided information to The New York Times, helping ignite another wave of coverage surrounding Trump’s firing of the FBI director and the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The episode became particularly controversial after the Justice Department Inspector General examined Comey’s handling of the memos.
The watchdog concluded that Comey violated FBI policies concerning the retention, handling and disclosure of bureau records.
The Inspector General delivered a particularly harsh assessment, warning that Comey’s actions set “a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees.”
Comey maintained that he viewed the memos as personal recollections rather than ordinary FBI documents.
The watchdog disagreed with that characterization.
Legal Battle Over Richman Evidence
Now Richman is reportedly back at the center of the federal investigation.
According to the account surrounding the latest proceedings, a federal grand jury has subpoenaed Richman, potentially requiring him to provide records or testimony concerning his dealings with Comey.
That development matters because of an earlier dispute over evidence obtained from Richman’s electronic devices.
A federal judge previously found problems with the government’s seizure of certain materials and ordered evidence returned, creating a major obstacle for prosecutors attempting to use those records.
A grand jury subpoena, however, presents a different investigative avenue.
Rather than relying directly on material previously obtained through a disputed search, prosecutors can seek testimony or documents through the grand jury process, subject to applicable constitutional protections, privileges and any future court challenges.
That does not automatically prove wrongdoing by Comey or Richman.
But it does mean investigators may have another route for examining the events surrounding Comey’s disclosures.
And for Comey, that could revive questions he has been answering since 2017.
Comey’s Conduct Returns to Center Stage
The controversy has always revolved around an extraordinary sequence of events.
The FBI director privately met with the president.
He documented those conversations.
Trump fired him.
Comey then provided information from his records to a trusted associate and specifically asked that information be shared with the media.
Comey himself described the decision during congressional testimony.
“My judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square,” Comey testified in 2017.
He also explained what he hoped would happen next.
“I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter,” Comey said. “Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”
That admission immediately became political dynamite.
Comey’s defenders argued that he was attempting to protect the integrity of the Russia investigation following his dismissal.
Trump and his allies saw something very different: the former FBI director deliberately using a media intermediary to influence events in Washington after losing his job.
The Inspector General later concluded that Comey had failed to follow FBI requirements in his handling of the memoranda, although the Justice Department previously declined to prosecute him over that conduct.
The Stakes Are Bigger Than One Memo
The significance of the renewed Richman inquiry extends beyond the technical question of how a particular document reached a reporter.
Comey spent years presenting himself as a defender of institutional norms.
His critics have long argued that the memo episode undermined that image.
An FBI director has access to extraordinary amounts of sensitive information. The bureau therefore maintains strict rules governing official records and disclosures.
That was precisely why the Inspector General’s criticism was so damaging.
The watchdog’s conclusion was not simply that Comey had made an unconventional judgment call.
It was that the former director’s actions risked establishing a precedent for thousands of other FBI employees entrusted with sensitive government information.
Now investigators appear interested once again in the man Comey trusted to help bring his account into the public arena.
Richman’s testimony could provide investigators with additional details about what Comey gave him, what instructions accompanied those materials, what was communicated to reporters and how both men understood the status of the information at the time.
Whether that produces criminal charges is an entirely separate question.
A subpoena is an investigative demand, not a finding of guilt.
But politically, the development ensures that an episode Comey and his defenders might prefer to leave in the past is returning to Washington’s attention.
For years, Trump has insisted that Comey and other senior officials were treated differently from people who ran afoul of federal rules under less politically charged circumstances.
Comey’s critics now see the renewed grand jury activity as another opportunity to test that argument against the evidence.
The central facts that fueled the original controversy remain striking: Comey created records concerning his conversations with the president, provided information from those records to Richman and instructed his friend to get the substance into the hands of the press.
Comey said he wanted to trigger the appointment of a special counsel.
He succeeded.
Nearly a decade later, investigators are reportedly asking questions about that same chain of events again.
And this time, Daniel Richman may have to provide answers under the scrutiny of a federal grand jury.
