Third Time Unlucky? The Department of Justice Pursues James Comey Again

When federal prosecutors bypass a grand jury to file a criminal information directly, institutional confidence is rarely the driving force. James Comey, the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, finds himself targeted by the Department of Justice for a third time. The latest charges allege that he leaked national defense information to the New York Times back in October 2016.

The filing in Washington DC contains just two counts, yet it revives an affair a decade old. Comey's attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, pointed out that two separate teams of prosecutors previously examined this precise disclosure during Donald Trump's first presidency and concluded that no prosecution was warranted. Undeterred by those earlier assessments, the current Justice Department has decided to try its luck once more.

The procedural choice itself is telling. A criminal information allows prosecutors to file charges directly without securing an indictment from a grand jury. For a case centered on an event nearly ten years old, this shortcut speaks volumes about either urgency or reluctance to test the evidence before a panel of citizens. Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner noted that the ten-year statute of limitations presents a formidable hurdle for the prosecution, making an early dismissal a distinct possibility.

This latest maneuver fits a familiar pattern of legal friction between Comey and the current administration. The former FBI director was fired in 2017 after initiating an inquiry into claims of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Since then, the Department of Justice has mounted repeated efforts to hold him criminally liable. A September 2025 indictment charging him with lying to Congress fell apart within two months. A separate case, stemming from an Instagram post showing seashells arranged as "86 47", remains ongoing under the theory that it constituted a threat against the 47th president.

The timing of these new counts carries its own irony. On the exact day the filing against Comey became public, a federal judge ordered the reinstatement of his daughter, Maurene Comey. She had been dismissed from her role as a federal prosecutor in New York in July 2025. The court determined that her termination was unlawful, stemming from political hostility toward her father, and ordered back pay.

Whether this third legal assault against the former FBI director survives pre-trial motions remains a matter of statutory deadlines and judicial scrutiny. Yet the episode highlights a broader problem: when legal proceedings increasingly resemble personal retribution, the authority of federal institutions suffers long after the dockets are closed.

Written by Andreas Hofer andreas.hofer@alpineweekly.com