A new court filing in Washington has pulled back the curtain on the Justice Department's pursuit of James Comey, placing the government's methods under a harder light than before. Daniel Richman, the former F.B.I. aide and longtime confidant whose records sit at the heart of these cases, argues that prosecutors have turned their investigative power against the people around Comey as much as against Comey himself. Whether that account will hold weight in court remains an open question, and the outcome will shape how far the government can reach in pursuing political adversaries.
Key Comey Witness Says Justice Dept. Ran a 'Harassment Campaign' to Secure Testimony
Daniel Richman says he was harassed through a grand jury subpoena and threatened with obstruction charges, while building workers were compelled to testify.
A bill of particulars laying out how Richman says he was badgered
Mark
Why does this filing matter if it was really about CNN's request to unseal documents?
Mimi
Because it works as a ledger. Richman's lawyers use it to list what they say the government did to him, from the subpoena episode to the threats of obstruction charges.
Mark
The building workers seem like the odd detail.
Mimi
They are. Two people who refused an agent entry were hauled before a grand jury in Florida, and they had nothing to do with Comey.
Luke
Keep in mind that this account comes from Richman's filing. He is an interested party, and the Justice Department hasn't responded.
Mark
So the harassment label is his side's characterization?
Luke
Yes. The phrase belongs to his lawyers, and it's an argument for keeping materials unsealed. What's documented elsewhere is judges' rulings in the first case.
Mimi
Those rulings are concrete: unlawfully obtained evidence, grand jury mistakes, and an improper appointment that ended the indictment.
Mark
And the confusion over whether Richman was a target?
Luke
Again, that's his description of three prosecutors giving different answers. We don't have the prosecutors' version.
Mark
What's the stake with the statute of limitations?
Mimi
The leak case was filed a decade after the Times article. Adding Richman or The Times could extend the deadline past October.
Luke
Prosecutors have only raised the possibility. Nobody has been added yet.
Il Polso
- Building workers were hauled before a Florida grand jury after blocking an F.B.I. agent from entering a New York apartment to serve a subpoena.
- Richman says prosecutors threatened him with obstruction charges even though his lawyers had already agreed to accept the subpoena on his behalf.
- Earlier Comey indictments have already crumbled, with one judge finding evidence unlawfully reused and another voiding the case over an improper prosecutor appointment.
- A statute-of-limitations fight is tightening, with prosecutors floating new defendants that could stretch the deadline past October as Comey's lawyers push for dismissal.
A new court filing in Washington has pulled back the curtain on the Justice Department's pursuit of James Comey, placing the government's methods under a harder light than before. Daniel Richman, the former F.B.I. aide and longtime confidant whose records sit at the heart of these cases, argues that prosecutors have turned their investigative power against the people around Comey as much as against Comey himself. Whether that account will hold weight in court remains an open question, and the outcome will shape how far the government can reach in pursuing political adversaries.
Late on a Friday, a filing from Daniel Richman, the former F.B.I. aide and longtime confidant of James Comey, landed in federal court in Washington. Richman's lawyers argue that the government's recent conduct reveals a "harassment campaign" rather than a serious investigation. The document was meant to support CNN's bid to unseal sealed papers from a related case, but it reads as a catalog of grievances.
The most striking episode came this summer. Two workers at a New York apartment building, according to the filing, were dragged before a grand jury in Florida after refusing to admit an F.B.I. agent who wanted to serve a subpoena on Richman. Prosecutors also threatened him with obstruction charges, even though his lawyers had already agreed to accept the subpoena for him. Richman's papers describe prosecutors who gave three different answers about whether he was a target or merely a subject, and who could not agree on granting him immunity. He ultimately invoked his Fifth Amendment right.
These tactics sit within a larger pattern of cases that have repeatedly faltered. One judge found investigators had unlawfully reused a search warrant to obtain messages between Comey and Richman, another faulted the inexperienced prosecutor's conduct before the grand jury, and a third threw out the indictment because the prosecutor had been improperly appointed. Meanwhile, a North Carolina case over a seashell photograph and a New York Times leak case brought in Washington remain pending, with Comey's lawyers arguing the latter runs past the ten-year statute of limitations. Watch for the judges' rulings on unsealing and on whether prosecutors add Richman or The Times to that case.
Late on a Friday night, a new filing landed in Federal District Court in Washington, and it added a fresh chapter to what has become a long account of how the Justice Department has pursued James B. Comey. The document was submitted by Daniel C. Richman, a law professor at an Ivy League school who once served as an aide to Comey at the F.B.I. His lawyers wrote that the government's recent actions suggest its interest in certain sealed materials is not tied to a viable investigation but is instead part of a "harassment campaign."
The filing was nominally meant to support CNN's effort to persuade a judge to unseal secret papers the Justice Department has submitted over recent months in a case related to the Comey prosecutions. In practice, it served as a detailed list of grievances. One episode stood out. This summer, according to the filing, two workers at a New York apartment building were hauled before a grand jury in Florida after they refused to let an F.B.I. agent inside to serve a subpoena on a resident. That resident was Richman, a longtime confidant of Comey's from whom the government wanted testimony.
Prosecutors also threatened to charge Richman with obstruction of justice for supposedly evading the subpoena. He says his lawyers had already agreed to accept it on his behalf. The Justice Department did not respond to a message seeking comment.
Richman has been at the center of investigations into Comey reaching back to Donald Trump's first term. Prosecutors have repeatedly tried to build a case that he and Comey broke the law by working together to give the news media information about sensitive investigations. In September, he was summoned before a grand jury in Florida, where prosecutors are working on the so-called grand conspiracy case. That inquiry rests on the far-fetched theory that criminal investigations into Trump over the past decade or so, including some Comey worked on, were a single plot to sink his political prospects. It has been marred from the start by a lack of focus and a wave of firings and resignations among the prosecutors in charge.
Richman's papers deepen that picture of disarray. They describe "a series of unsettling and irregular communications" in which three prosecutors gave him different answers on whether he was a target or merely a subject of the inquiry. They also indicate prosecutors could not agree on whether to grant him immunity before he appeared. He ultimately invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
The pattern, hard-edged tactics undermined by fumbling execution, runs through the three cases filed against Comey so far. In the first, an indictment in Alexandria, Va., accusing him of lying to Congress about his dealings with the news media, three judges took issue with the department's conduct. One found investigators had unlawfully obtained a critical trove of evidence, messages exchanged by Comey and Richman, by reusing a search warrant secured in a different case. Another found that the inexperienced prosecutor Trump picked made several mistakes before the grand jury. A third threw out the case, ruling that the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, once Trump's personal lawyer, had been improperly appointed.
The second case, in the Eastern District of North Carolina, accuses Comey of threatening Trump's life by posting a photograph of seashells arranged on a beach to read "86 47." Prosecutors claim it showed a wish to "86," or kill, the 47th president. To support that, investigators interviewed Salvatore Gravano, a former mafia hit man, hoping he would help show that Comey, who worked mob cases as a young prosecutor, would have known "86" is mafia slang for killing.
The third case accuses Comey of authorizing the release of national security information in October 2016 that appeared in a New York Times article. It was brought by criminal information, a document prosecutors can file alone without the immediate approval of a judge or grand jury, in Washington exactly a decade after a Times article exposed a novel surveillance technique on Yahoo's email platform. Comey's lawyers say the government is skirting the 10-year statute of limitations and have asked a judge to dismiss it. Prosecutors have raised adding defendants, Richman or possibly The Times, in a way that could extend the limitations period past October. Watch for rulings on the unsealing request and on whether anyone is added to that case.
Citazioni salienti
The government's interest in the covered materials is not related to a viable investigation but instead part of a harassment campaign.— Lawyers for Daniel C. Richman, in a court filing
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su The New York Times ↗