Comey Indicted on Lying to Congress, Obstruction in Virginia Case

WASHINGTON — Former FBI director James Comey was indicted on two counts of lying to Congress and obstructing justice, a development that marks a rare criminal charge against a former federal official tied to leaks and testimony from the 2016-17 period. The indictment was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia by Acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan.

The government says the charges rest on Comey’s 2017 testimony before Congress in which he said he never was an anonymous source for information about investigations into President Trump and Hillary Clinton, and that he did not authorize subordinates to be anonymous sources for journalists. The case also cites statements by Comey’s former deputy, Andrew McCabe, who told the Justice Department inspector general that Comey told him it was 'good' that he had passed information to the Wall Street Journal for a Oct. 30, 2016 article about a pending Clinton Foundation investigation.

McCabe’s account, and how it intersected with a long-running leak dispute, plays a central role in the charging decision. The inspector general’s report quoted Comey as saying McCabe 'definitely' did not tell him about the leak, and McCabe testified that the director and the deputy director are the only two FBI officials who have the authority and responsibility to authorize the release of information to the media. The indictment rests on Comey’s statements to Congress, along with the timing and content of the 2016–17 leaks.

The Comey case has fed into broader political debate surrounding the Clinton investigations and the leaks that roiled the 2016 campaign. Trump publicly welcomed the indictment, framing it as justice against a longtime critic. The case also follows the resignation of former U.S. Attorney Erik Seibert, who authored a memo opposing charges against Comey; Seibert later left the Department of Justice.

Legal skeptics say the government faces challenging questions of proof and venue. Some former prosecutors caution that vindictive-prosecution concerns could arise in a district that leans Democratic and is overseen by a Biden-appointed judge, Michael Nachmanoff. Still, others say a grand jury found the facts strong enough to indict and that additional allegations could follow in a potential superseding indictment. Mike Davis, a former chief counsel for Sen. Chuck Grassley, suggested the case could expand, noting that Comey’s conduct and the surrounding timeline may invite further charges.

One former federal prosecutor, who spoke on background, said the case could be vulnerable if evidence from the inspector general’s office is introduced at trial to challenge McCabe’s credibility or Comey’s stated positions. Neama Rahmani argued that the case hinges on whether the leaks were material and whether Comey’s statements were knowingly false with the intent to mislead Congress. He also cautioned that the political environment in Northern Virginia could complicate jury perceptions, regardless of the facts.

The government has acknowledged that there was a single count of lying to Congress that was rejected by a grand jury, leaving two counts at issue. The fate of the case could hinge on how the defense frames Comey’s 2017 and 2020 testimony, and how prosecutors reconcile those statements with the inspector general’s findings about McCabe’s credibility.

Another layer of complexity is the potential for a superseding indictment that could bring additional charges or restructure the existing counts. Davis said the district’s dynamics could influence jurors’ reception of the case, particularly given high-profile political personnel involved and heated public commentary around Comey and the Clinton investigations.

The prosecution’s timing is influenced by a five-year statute of limitations that publications describe as driving a Sept. 30, 2025 deadline to pursue charges related to the alleged conduct. Comey has repeatedly stood by his 2017 testimony and asked lawmakers to judge the case on the facts rather than political considerations. The court in Alexandria, Virginia, is expected to set future hearings as the defense prepares. A trial date has not yet been announced.

In the broader politics of the moment, the indictment underscores tensions between the U.S. Department of Justice’s discretion in pursuing sensitive leaks and the polarized political environment surrounding former officials tied to the Trump era. Analysts caution that even with a jury pool in a Democratic-leaning district, trials of high-profile figures like Comey can produce unpredictable outcomes, as debates about intent, materiality, and credibility play out in the courtroom.

As the case progresses, observers will watch for how prosecutors present McCabe’s statements, the inspector general’s report, and Comey’s prior public remarks to Congress. The outcome could shape future prosecutions of officials accused of misrepresenting their involvement in leaks or other sensitive information disclosures.