Grand Jury Targets Comey Confidant

A new federal grand jury subpoena for Daniel Richman pulls a long-running leak fight back into the spotlight and closer to sworn testimony.

Story Snapshot

Prosecutors issued a new grand jury subpoena to Daniel Richman, a longtime confidant of James Comey.
Richman previously confirmed relaying the substance of at least one Comey memo to the New York Times in 2017.
Court filings link Richman to the government’s theory on how information reached reporters, though the exact content at issue remains unclear.
Richman’s reported statements to investigators at points contradict the prosecution’s narrative on authorization.

What the new subpoena signals about the investigation

ABC News reported that a federal grand jury has issued a new subpoena to Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law School professor and longtime adviser to former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey. The renewed demand suggests prosecutors want more records or testimony tied to media contacts around the 2016 and 2017 period. CNN previously reported Richman had already been interviewed by the FBI and received a subpoena during the revived inquiry last year. Subpoenas reflect evidence gathering, not proof of a crime.

Senate records show this line of inquiry stretches back to 2017, when Judiciary Committee leaders asked Richman to provide any memos Comey shared with him “to be leaked to the media”. That request captured early congressional concern that an outside associate may have served as a bridge to reporters during a stormy political moment. The question is not only who shared what, but whether any sharing was authorized or involved protected information. That distinction often defines leak cases.

The known record of memo sharing and disputed authorization

PBS documented that Richman confirmed he shared the substance of at least one Comey memo with the New York Times in 2017, after Comey left the FBI. CBS later reported court filings that identified “Person 3” as Richman, connecting him to the government’s disclosure theory, while also noting uncertainty about the exact information at issue. The Washington Examiner reported prosecutors obtained emails they say show Comey tracked or encouraged Richman’s media efforts, a claim central to the dispute over intent and direction.

ABC News, citing sources familiar with interviews, reported Richman said Comey twice told him not to engage with the media and that Comey never authorized him to provide information to a reporter anonymously ahead of the 2016 election. That account clashes with the narrative that Richman was a sanctioned channel for leaks. Conflicting accounts raise stakes for any future testimony under oath, where email context and timing could matter. Jurors often weigh such contradictions against documentary records.

Why this fight matters beyond partisan lines

Leak cases often become battles over trust in institutions, not just one person’s conduct. A Justice Department Office of Inspector General report showed investigators have, at times, used legal tools to obtain records from lawmakers and reporters to hunt leak sources, underscoring how aggressive leak probes can be. That history fuels concern on the right about double standards and on the left about press freedom and selective enforcement. Many Americans see a system that shields insiders while punishing dissent.

Trends research shows leak prosecutions rise and fall with political priorities, adding to the sense of uncertainty and unfairness. People want equal rules, clear lines on what officials can share, and transparency about why some cases advance while others fade. In this case, earlier inquiries ended without charges, which will lead some to suspect politics, while the new subpoena will lead others to expect accountability if laws were broken. Both reactions reflect wider distrust in government processes.

What to watch next: records, testimony, and clarity

Court filings and possible motions to limit or quash the subpoena could reveal what categories of emails, messages, or devices prosecutors now seek. ABC reported prosecutors previously met with Richman, suggesting they view him as a key witness to disputed events. If emails referenced by reporters surface in court, they could show whether Comey directed, discouraged, or merely observed Richman’s media contacts, and when. A clear timeline could resolve differences between witness accounts.

🚨 James Comey’s close friend, lawyer, and former FBI special employee just got SUBPOENAED By a Federal Grand Jury

Daniel Richman just received a federal grand jury subpoena in a revived classified leak probe to the New York Times during Trump Term 1 in 2018

Joe Biden killed… pic.twitter.com/a6msjKmuvZ

— J (@JayTC53) August 31, 2026

CBS noted that the precise information allegedly leaked remains unclear in public records, which limits outside review. Until filings or transcripts are unsealed, the public picture will rely on selective leaks and secondhand summaries. That cycle feeds the view that elites manage narratives while citizens are kept in the dark. The cleanest path to trust is sunlight: document releases, sworn testimony, and consistent rules that apply to every official, whether the facts help them or hurt them.