Lead
On Nov. 5, 2025, a federal magistrate in the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge William Fitzpatrick, sharply reprimanded prosecutors handling the Trump-era case against former F.B.I. director James B. Comey for failing to produce seized communications from Comey confidant Daniel C. Richman. The hearing focused on whether the office of newly installed U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan withheld evidence obtained from Richman’s devices in 2019 and 2020. Judge Fitzpatrick ordered prosecutors to turn over grand jury materials and other seized evidence by the end of the day on Thursday, pressing the government on disclosures it had recently made public. Comey attended the hearing but did not speak; he faces charges of lying to and obstructing Congress about whether he authorized an F.B.I. employee to be an anonymous source.
Key Takeaways
- On Nov. 5, 2025, Judge William Fitzpatrick criticized prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office for what he called a rushed, investigatory approach to the Comey case.
- The dispute centers on communications seized from Daniel C. Richman, a Columbia law professor, taken in searches in 2019 and 2020 and claimed by prosecutors to show he relayed information to reporters.
- Fitzpatrick ordered the government to deliver all grand jury materials and other evidence linked to Richman and Comey by the end of the day on Thursday (court-ordered deadline).
- Prosecutors filed a 48-page submission asserting Comey used an intermediary to pass information to the press; the filing has been criticized for narrative detail that does not squarely map to the indictment’s charges.
- Defense counsel allege vindictive or politically motivated prosecution and have challenged the legality of Lindsey Halligan’s September 2025 appointment as U.S. attorney after her predecessor declined to indict.
- Judge Fitzpatrick — a former chief of the financial crimes and public corruption unit in the same office before his 2022 judgeship — rebuked prosecutors for releasing private texts and other material without first allowing Comey’s team to review them.
Background
James B. Comey served as F.B.I. director during the 2016 investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia. The underlying legal conflict relates to testimony Comey gave to Congress, including a question about whether he authorized an F.B.I. official to act as an anonymous source in news reports. Those answers form the basis of charges alleging false statements and obstruction.
Daniel C. Richman, a Columbia University law professor, has been identified by prosecutors as a conduit between Comey and journalists during the post-2016 period. Federal agents executed search warrants on Richman’s electronic devices in 2019 and again in 2020 as part of an internal leak probe; material from those searches is now central to the defense’s ability to prepare.
In September 2025, Lindsey Halligan was installed as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after the prior U.S. attorney declined to bring charges against Comey. Halligan’s rapid promotion and limited prosecutorial background have become focal points in defense challenges and public debate over the case’s independence.
Main Event
At the Nov. 5 hearing, Judge Fitzpatrick pressed prosecutors about recent disclosures they had made in filings, including private text messages and other communications. He specifically questioned Nathaniel Lemons, a deputy in the U.S. attorney’s office, on whether the defense had been given prior access to materials the government had released. Lemons acknowledged that Comey’s lawyers had not been offered pre-release review.
The judge said that withholding review opportunities placed an “unfair” burden on the defense and ordered immediate corrective action. He emphasized the unusual posture of the prosecution, telling the courtroom that the proceedings had, in his view, drifted toward an “indict first, investigate second” approach. Fitzpatrick then set a firm deadline for the turnover of grand jury and related materials.
Prosecutors previously filed a 48-page document outlining evidence they say shows Comey used a confidant to provide information to reporters, though the filing did not always tie those assertions directly to the counts in the indictment. Defense attorneys have argued that the narrative-heavy submission and the selective release of materials impair their ability to prepare a complete defense.
Comey attended the hearing but remained silent as his lawyers pressed both the appointment question and the government’s discovery practices. A motion by defense counsel Rebekah Donaleski to bar prosecutors from dumping similar material into future filings was denied by the judge, who nevertheless demanded immediate disclosure of withheld evidence.
Analysis & Implications
Legally, the judge’s order to produce grand jury material and seized communications raises immediate discovery and due-process questions. Federal rules and Supreme Court precedents require timely disclosure of evidence that is material to a defendant’s case; withholding such evidence can expose a prosecution to suppression motions, sanctions or appellate reversal. The defense’s contention that it needs access to Richman’s communications to cross-check prosecutorial claims highlights the centrality of those documents to fair preparation.
The appointment and role of Lindsey Halligan complicate the case’s optics. Her September 2025 elevation after a predecessor declined to indict has prompted assertions — by defense attorneys and some former prosecutors — that the prosecution is influenced by political pressure. Even absent proof of improper motive, the sequence of events is likely to feed pretrial motions challenging both the appointment’s legality and prosecutorial intent.
Politically, high-profile prosecutions involving figures tied to the Trump era carry broader repercussions for perceptions of Department of Justice independence. If the court finds discovery lapses or procedural shortcuts, that outcome could amplify claims of politicization and further erode public confidence. Conversely, thorough judicial enforcement of disclosure obligations could mitigate such concerns by demonstrating courts’ gatekeeping role.
Practically, the immediate turnover deadline could change the case’s trajectory: newly produced material may support the defense’s assertions of selective or vindictive prosecution, or it could strengthen the government’s narrative — depending on what the documents show. Either way, the judge’s intervention signals that discovery disputes will be determinative in pretrial strategy and scheduling.
Comparison & Data
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016 | F.B.I. investigation into Trump campaign–Russia contacts; questions about anonymous sources in reporting |
| 2019–2020 | Search warrants executed on Daniel C. Richman’s devices; material seized by investigators |
| September 2025 | Lindsey Halligan installed as U.S. Attorney for EDVA after predecessor declined to indict |
| Nov. 5, 2025 | Judge Fitzpatrick orders production of grand jury materials and rebukes prosecutors |
The table summarizes the discrete moments driving the current discovery dispute. The 2019–2020 searches supplied the evidentiary material now contested; Halligan’s appointment and the timing of the recent filings have crystallized defense claims about prosecutorial conduct. The judge’s demand for immediate production compresses the pretrial calendar and focuses attention on whether the government complied with discovery obligations when it released excerpts to the public.
Reactions & Quotes
Courtroom exchanges captured the tension between the bench and the prosecution and framed the dispute as primarily procedural but with political undertones.
“We are in a little bit of a posture of indict first, investigate second.”
Judge William Fitzpatrick
“We’re going to fix that and we’re going to fix that today,” the judge said when ordering prompt turnover of the disputed materials.
Judge William Fitzpatrick
Prosecutors filed a lengthy submission highlighting communications they say show use of an intermediary to reach reporters; they contend those facts are relevant to the government’s theory of the case.
U.S. Attorney’s Office filing
Unconfirmed
- Whether the seized communications definitively show Comey authorized an anonymous source is not established by the public filings; relevance to the indictment’s specific counts remains contested.
- Allegations that the prosecution was launched solely in response to former President Trump’s public demands are reported by some sources but not proven in the public record before the court.
- The full content and context of the private texts prosecutors released have not been independently verified outside the government filings and defense review is ongoing.
Bottom Line
The judge’s rebuke and the forced turnover deadline make discovery the immediate battleground in the Comey prosecution. Access to communications seized from Daniel C. Richman — and the timing and manner of their release by prosecutors — could materially affect defense strategy and the court’s view of prosecutorial conduct.
Beyond the legal dispute, the episode underscores larger questions about the independence of prosecutorial decision-making in politically charged, high-profile cases. How the court resolves discovery and appointment challenges will determine whether this case proceeds to trial on an evidentiary footing that both sides and the public can accept.
Sources
- The New York Times — Media report of the Nov. 5, 2025 hearing and filings