Newly revealed emails from November 2016 paint a startling picture of James Comey’s actions leading up to the presidential election. The correspondence suggests a deliberate strategy of guiding media narratives through a trusted insider, effectively authorizing leaks to influence public opinion.
At the heart of this revelation is Daniel Richman, a former FBI official identified as Comey’s “friend” and a key conduit to the press. These emails directly contradict Comey’s current claims of being unfairly targeted, as they demonstrate a proactive engagement with media manipulation.
The motivation behind this calculated approach appears deeply tied to Comey’s expectation of a Hillary Clinton victory. He openly discussed anticipating a future role within a Clinton administration, revealing a clear preference and potential bias.
One email stands out, revealing Comey’s anticipation of Clinton’s gratitude for a specific decision he had made. He wrote to Richman, acknowledging that his actions would be “one a president-elect Clinton will be very grateful for,” though he insisted that wasn’t his primary reason.
Lindsey Halligan, in a court filing responding to Comey’s motion to dismiss a malicious prosecution claim, released these emails as evidence. The filing directly challenges Comey’s narrative and presents a compelling case against his assertions of innocence.
The emails detail a clear collaboration between Comey and Richman to anonymously feed information about the Clinton email scandal to The New York Times. This wasn’t simply passive awareness; Comey was actively briefed on Richman’s efforts and offered encouragement.
A particularly telling email shows Comey’s enthusiastic response to Richman’s updates, writing, “Well done my friend. Who knew this would be so uh fun.” This casual tone underscores a disturbing level of comfort with manipulating the media landscape.
Federal prosecutors uncovered this trove of personal emails, revealing a pattern of communication that directly undermines Comey’s public statements. The evidence suggests a concerted effort to shape the narrative surrounding the Clinton investigation in the crucial days before the election.
Halligan and her deputy, Tyler Lemmons, explicitly rejected Comey’s argument of malicious prosecution, citing the emails as proof of his awareness and approval of Richman’s media outreach. The government contends that Comey was fully informed about the anonymous leaks and their intended impact.
These revelations present a significant challenge to the established understanding of the 2016 election and raise serious questions about the integrity of the FBI’s actions during a pivotal moment in American history.
