Tonight in Your Rights: Comey's ex-lawyer strikes back
The ex-FBI director's friend and former advisor sued over evidence allegedly obtained illegally.
A Columbia University law professor at the center of the case against James Comey filed a federal lawsuit that could keep the core evidence out of the hands of federal prosecutors.
The development could splash cold water on the reported plans of Donald Trump’s Justice Department to revive the case.
Professor Daniel Richman, who served as Comey’s legal advisor during the ex-FBI director’s tenure, has asked a federal judge to forbid the government from using any materials that it seized from his personal computer, email, and iCloud account. A federal judge said the contents formed the “central” evidence of the case against Comey and may have been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and attorney-client privilege.
“Before the indictment against Mr. Comey was dismissed, disclosures in the case brought to light troubling facts concerning the government’s handling of the materials it obtained from Professor Richman between 2017 and 2020,” his attorneys wrote in a 27-page memorandum.
In November, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick found that prosecutors likely exceeded the scope of the initial warrants authorizing the search of Richman’s devices during an earlier investigation of Comey over the potential disclosure of classified information.
Even though the earlier probe ended without charges in 2021, the government kept the unrelated materials found on Richman’s devices.
“Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, in a last-ditch effort to support its prosecution of Mr. Comey, the government conducted a new warrantless search of Professor Richman’s files in September 2025 in contravention of clear constitutional rules and the attorney-client privilege,” Richman’s memo states.
The 2025 search was premised on different charges alleging that Comey misled Congress by denying that he authorized leaks to the press. Trump’s Justice Department claims that Comey authorized the leaks through Richman, an allegation both Comey and Richman deny.
Richman’s attorneys say the government should not be able to build a case on evidence obtained in “callous disregard” of his constitutional rights. His case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee.
The judge granted Richman’s application to file certain evidence under seal “until further order of this Court,” a sign that more of the Trump Justice Department’s conduct during its investigation of Comey could come to light from Richman’s civil suit.
Read the memo here, first reported by Lawfare’s Anna Bower.
Not yet, Va. bar says of Halligan probe
The Virginia State Bar declined to initiate a disciplinary investigation into Trump’s former lawyer turned would-be federal prosecutor Lindsey Halligan, finding that the time wasn’t yet ripe for such an action.
Campaign for Accountability, the advocacy group that filed the bar complaint, publicized the Bar’s demurral for the first time on Tuesday.
In a once-confidential letter dated Nov. 14, the Virginia State Bar wrote: “Whether criminal indictments were obtained through‘material misrepresentations of fact and done for political purposes falls within the authority of the court to determine and not this office.”
“If the court determines that Ms. Halligan made false statements to the court and sanctions her for the conduct, the Virginia State Bar can initiate an investigation,” the letter continued. “Whether a lawyer violated federal law or agency regulations is a matter for determination by federal law enforcement and not the Virginia State Bar. If a lawyer is charged with and convicted of a crime, the Virginia State Bar can initiate a disciplinary investigation.”
In a statement, the group’s director Michelle Kuppersmith said that the state bar was passing the buck.
“If, when confronted with actions as egregious as Ms. Halligan’s, a state bar, which allegedly polices the conduct of its members, claims it can do nothing more than reiterate the findings of a court, what purpose does it serve?” Kuppersmith said.
Three days after the Bar’s letter, a federal judge found that Halligan made “fundamental misstatements of law” in her grand jury instructions, apparently reversing the burden of proof by suggesting Comey would have to testify to clear his name and stating that the panel could assume the government had more evidence than had been presented into the record. The cases against Comey and Letitia James collapsed before any sanctions were requested or granted.
“The courts have been doing their job in recognizing misconduct when they see it,” Kuppersmith said. “State bars must do the same.”
Read the letter here.
Upcoming Senate clash
On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled: “Impeachment: Holding Rogue Judges Accountable,” the culmination of a MAGA movement dedicated to punishing federal judges who rule against Trump.
The hearing falls shortly after a majority of the D.C. Circuit’s full en banc bench approved of Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s efforts to determine whether any Trump administration official should be held in contempt for flouting his orders to return El Salvador-bound flights to the United States in March.
Boasberg is one of the judges most vilified by Trump and his loyalists.
The hearing is scheduled for Weds., Dec. 3 at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
Trump's tentacles of corruption extend everywhere, and the damage could last for generations.
ALOHA. On the COCONUT WIRELESS..... .....Take care to you and yours... and be safe out there....... HO HO HO HO ..... Happy happy joy joy holidays everybody................. ALOHA...