Central witness undermines case against James Comey, prosecutors concluded: Sources

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: ABC News

October 8, 2025, 10:36 AM


Federal prosecutors investigating former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly making false statements to Congress determined that a central witness in their probe would prove "problematic" and likely prevent them from establishing their case to a jury, sources familiar with their findings told ABC News.

Comey, who pleaded not guilty at his arraignment Wednesday, was indicted last month on charges of making a false statement and obstruction related to 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee -- but Justice Department officials have privately expressed that the case could quickly unravel under the scrutiny of a federal judge and defense lawyers.

Daniel Richman -- a law professor who prosecutors allege Comey authorized to leak information to the press -- told investigators that the former FBI director instructed him not to engage with the media on at least two occasions and unequivocally said Comey never authorized him to provide information to a reporter anonymously ahead of the 2016 election, the sources said.
DOJ adds 2 out-of-state attorneys to Comey case ahead of his arraignment

According to prosecutors who investigated the circumstances surrounding Comey's 2020 testimony for two months, using Richman's testimony to prove that Comey knowingly provided false statements to Congress would result in "likely insurmountable problems" for the prosecution.

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/US/central-witness-undermines-case-james-comey-prosecutors-concluded/story?id=126311648

[stopdiggin]

1. that doesn't sound 'problematic' .. that sounds unequivical

leading one to believe that there must be other aspects .. ? Other points and charges that they still believe they can proceed on?
Or - - that there is other evidence (emails, records?) that directly disprove and refute the professors testimony?

But, other than that ... That ain't 'problematic', son. That's your witness callin' you a liar!

[Happy Hoosier]

3. Probably not.

Trump wanted Comey charged. He just found lackey willing to charge regardless of the likelihood of a conviction, which is near zero. The lackey, quite correctly, assumes that Trump cares more about loyalty to him than anything else.

[rzemanfl]

2. From the article-

"Prosecutors further expressed concerns about the department's ability to take the case to trial quickly due to problems identifying all the relevant materials that would need to be handed over to Comey's lawyers, sources said. They also raised alarms over the potential for Comey's defense to cite the statute of limitations for the case, which derives from testimony in 2017 and was only reinforced by Comey during his 2020 testimony in response to a question from Republican Sen. Ted Cruz."

I raised this in a post here shortly after Comey was charged.

https://democraticunderground.com/100220676539

[Buddyzbuddy]

4. I keep flashing back to Dustin Hoffman's character

in the movie "Wag the Dog" in regards to the InJustice Dept. having no witness nor evidence. Throughout the movie when confronted by seemingly insurmountable challenges the character keeps chanting "that's nothing".