Just the News published a new DOJ filing containing emails from former FBI Director James Comey that show he knew of and had no problem with leaks to the press, and that he expected to work with “President-elect Clinton.”
On September 25, a federal grand jury indicted Comey “on charges believed to stem from Comey’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2020 about the FBI’s investigation into links between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.”
Comey pleaded not guilty to the charges of alleged false statements and obstruction of Congress.
The latest filing comes after Comey asked a judge to drop charges against him, claiming he’s being maliciously prosecuted.
Acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan fired back:
The prosecution is not vindictive. The defendant has not produced “direct evidence” of a vindictive motive. And he has not shown that the prosecutor pursued this case “solely to punish” him for exercising his First Amendment rights. So he has not carried his heavy burden of establishing vindictive prosecution.The prosecution is also not selective. The defendant has not identified similarly situated individuals who were not prosecuted. And he has not provided evidence that the decision to prosecute him was made because of his protected activities. He has not produced the “clear evidence” required for dismissing an indictment based on selective prosecution.
“The societal interests in this prosecution are readily apparent and overwhelming,” added Halligan. “The defendant is a former FBI Director who lied to Congress about his conduct while at the helm of the Nation’s primary federal law-enforcement agency. His prosecution implicates societal interests of the highest order.”
Halligan then dropped the receipts.
Comey “emailed extensively with Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law School professor who also served as an FBI Special Government Employee since 2015” after he sent letters to Congressional committees about new information concerning the investigation into Hillary’s emails.
Richman told Comey that The New York Times asked him to write an op-ed regarding that letter.
At first, Comey shot it down and mentioned a certain someone:
The defendant responded: “No need. At this point it would [be] shouting into the wind. Some day they will figure it out. And as [Individual 1 and Individual 2] point out, my decision will be one a president elect Clinton will be very grateful for (although that wasn’t why I did it).”
Interesting.
But Comey changed his mind. He ended up praising Richman’s op-ed (I deleted citations and Halligan added the emphasis):
The defendant emailed Mr. Richman shortly thereafter, entitling the message “Pretty good” and sending a link to a New York Times piece regarding the defendant’s purported options in late October 2016 concerning the Clinton email investigation (Midyear Exam). The defendant wrote: “Someone showed some logic. I would paint the cons more darkly but not bad.” Mr. Richman responded: “See I *can* teach.” The defendant replied: “Well done my friend. Who knew this would. E so uh fun.”
Holy moly.
It happened again in April 2017 (I deleted the citations):
Similarly, in April 2017, the defendant emailed Mr. Richman apparently regarding a lengthy article in The New York Times—in which Mr. Richman was a named source regarding the Clinton email investigation (Midyear Exam). The defendant wrote that he had “read [t]he piece. Thanks so much for your words and tell [Reporter 1] he did a good job. Would be different if I wrote it but it is by and large fair.” Mr. Richman replied: “You’re ever so welcome. And will do re [Reporter 1]. Any badly or underdeveloped points for me to work on with the New Yorker? Or just the usual.”Consistent with the above-described correspondence, Richman corresponded extensively with members of the media regarding or on behalf of the defendant, including in an anonymous capacity.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY