A federal grand jury has subpoenaed Daniel Richman, a longtime adviser to former FBI Director James Comey, in a new Justice Department investigation into alleged classified leaks to the media, a move raising serious questions about past accountability at the nation’s highest law enforcement agency.
The Justice Department revealed that a subpoena was issued Monday to Daniel Richman as part of a new investigation into whether classified information was improperly leaked to The New York Times. Richman, a law professor at Columbia and former special FBI employee, is no stranger to controversy over his ties to Comey and his reported role in relaying information to the press during the tumultuous years surrounding the 2016 election and its aftermath.
This subpoena comes amid a broader legal storm for Comey himself, who is already facing a two-count federal indictment alleging he threatened the life of President Trump. Prosecutors say the Instagram post at the center of that case, reading simply “86 47”, was a menacing message directed at the president. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche did not hold back in announcing the charges:
“Threatening the life of the President of the United States is a grave violation of our nation’s laws,” Blanche said. “The grand jury returned an indictment alleging James Comey did just that, at a time when this country has witnessed violent incitement followed by deadly actions against President Trump and other elected officials. The temperature needs to be turned down, and anyone who dials it up and threatens the life of the President will be held accountable.”
The new grand jury action against Richman is not the first time his conduct has drawn official scrutiny. Back in 2016, prosecutors alleged that Richman communicated with reporters about investigations into Hillary Clinton. In 2018, an initial leak investigation took place, but no charges resulted. When Joe Biden entered office, that probe was cut off, according to Fox News reporting.
The legal clouds over Comey have only grown darker in recent months. Prosecutors relied on files tied to Richman to charge Comey with making false statements and obstructing Congress, stemming from his 2020 testimony about anonymous leaks by FBI officials to news outlets. The latest indictment unveiled by the Justice Department accuses Comey of threatening the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce, exposing him to a potential 10-year prison sentence.
The Justice Department’s April 28 statement announcing the indictment made clear the seriousness with which federal authorities are treating threats against elected officials. The charges come as the country faces mounting concerns about political violence and the rule of law at the highest levels of government.
Richman, who previously testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007, has been a recurring figure in investigations involving FBI leaks and politicized law enforcement. His devices were seized as part of earlier probes in 2019 and 2020, prompting him to file a lawsuit. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled in Richman’s favor in that case in December of last year, though the details of the ruling are not specified in the record provided.
Despite this checkered history, Richman remained a fixture in elite legal and academic circles. His connections to Comey and his reported communications with journalists during sensitive FBI investigations have raised persistent questions about whether the law applies equally to those at the top of the federal bureaucracy.
The new subpoena and renewed investigation come after the Biden administration cut off the earlier leak inquiry when it entered office, according to Fox News. That decision left unresolved questions about the handling of classified information and the extent of media contacts by high-ranking law enforcement officials and their close associates.
Now, with a grand jury once again seeking evidence from Richman, lawmakers and the public are likely to push for long-overdue answers. Acting Attorney General Blanche’s scheduled Senate testimony signals that Congress is watching closely, and the Justice Department is under pressure to show that accountability is not reserved for political opponents alone.
It remains to be seen whether this renewed investigation will break the cycle of soft treatment for insiders and restore public trust in the equal application of justice. The American people deserve to know that power and privilege do not place anyone above the law.
