Deep State Cover-Up: Clinton Judge Orders DESTRUCTION of Key Evidence in Case Against James Comey
by Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge December 16, 2025
(Zero Hedge)—A Clinton-appointed federal judge in Washington has stepped into the James Comey saga with an order that effectively tells the FBI to wipe a key evidentiary trail tied to the former director’s obstruction case, and to do it quickly.
The move drops the Justice Department into a separation-of-powers storm at the same time it is trying to salvage its prosecution of the man who helped ignite the Trump-Russia hoax.
Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted in September on charges of making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding, stemming from his 2020 testimony about Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
The indictment alleged that Comey lied when he denied authorizing anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source for media reports damaging to Donald Trump, and that he used Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman1 as an outside conduit to leak material while Richman simultaneously worked as a government contractor.
Emails between the two are critical to the case against Comey.
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie2, a Bill Clinton appointee, dismissed the indictments against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James last month, ruling that the appointment of Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who pursued the charges, was unconstitutional, and thus the indictments were invalid.
Six years ago, a warrant approved by Judge James Boasberg allowed the FBI to seize Richman’s devices.
Today, another Clinton-appointed judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly3, has ordered the FBI to destroy the emails by 4 p.m. on Monday.
According to Michael R. Davis, the founder and president of the Article III Project, the ruling “threatens the separation of powers essential to the Republic, and either the D.C. Circuit or Supreme Court must intervene immediately.
Richman, who is not charged in the case and has no standing as a defendant, filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) to reclaim those emails, arguing that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Rule 41(g) typically allows individuals to seek a court order to return property obtained through an unlawful search.
Still, its use here departs from legal norms because Richman is not the target of the prosecution, and Comey himself lacks standing to challenge the warrant executed on Richman’s accounts.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted the motion and, on December 13, ordered the Justice Department to return all data seized from Richman, concluding that prosecutors handled the material with “callous disregard” for Richman’s rights and had improperly used it to indict Comey.
She directed that a copy of the emails be delivered to Biden-appointed Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is presiding over the Comey case in the Eastern District of Virginia, but even with that copy preserved, the ruling bars the FBI and prosecutors from reviewing these emails as they pursue a new indictment.
“This salvation of a copy of the emails, however, does not lessen the impact of Kollar-Kotelly’s horrible ruling,” explains Davis.
“The FBI and the prosecution will be unable to review them in their efforts to seek a new indictment if Currie’s dismissal ruling survives on appeal.”
The statute-of-limitations law allows the government only six months after an indictment’s dismissal, suspended during the appellate process, to seek a new indictment.
The inability to view this evidence would substantially increase the time necessary to seek an indictment.
Even if a higher court reverses Currie, the government’s failure to review the emails for use as evidence and to prepare for trial would severely hamper its case.
Kollar-Kotelly’s decision raises grave separation-of-powers concerns because it involves a judge outside the criminal case, and outside the district where it is pending, ordering the destruction of evidence that was lawfully obtained.
“Usually, Rule 41(g) comes into play where a defendant has had property wrongly seized, and he moves to reclaim it,” Davis explains.
“Here, Comey is not seeking to reclaim anything; Richman, a then-government contractor with whom Comey communicated extensively about government business, is seeking this evidence.
“Richman has run to a partisan Democrat judge not even involved in the criminal case — and not even in the same district — to procure the destruction of crucial evidence in that case in an obvious effort to assist his friend Comey.”
Ordinarily, the judge presiding over the criminal case decides whether to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment, not a different judge in another district using a third party as a vehicle to attack the warrant.
Comey cannot challenge the warrant against Richman because he lacks standing to do so.
Incredibly, Kollar-Kotelly suggested that Richman could move to quash this evidence in Virginia.
She’s going way out of her way to help Comey.
Judges presiding over cases often have excluded evidence against defendants as having been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
It is, however, extraordinary for a different judge — especially in a different district — to interfere in and dramatically hamper the prosecution’s case based on a claim by a third party of a wrongful search and seizure, especially when the evidence the government wishes to use consists of communications between that third party and the defendant — a defendant who was a senior government official.
The episode fits within a broader pattern in which left-leaning judges have allowed or intensified lawfare against President Trump and his allies while shielding alleged lawfare perpetrators, such as Comey, from accountability.
“If higher courts do not reign in these rogue judges, Congress must do so through oversight, withholding of funds from judicial appropriations, and impeachment,” argues Davis.
“A system where the judiciary enables lawfare and then shields its perpetrators from legal consequences is unsustainable, and higher courts must put a stop to it.”
Daniel C. Richman is the Paul J. Kellner Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. He teaches and writes about criminal adjudication, federal criminal law, sentencing, and cybersecurity, data privacy, and surveillance law. Before joining Columbia’s faculty, he taught at Fordham Law School and the University of Virginia School of Law. He also served as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, where he was the chief appellate attorney. Richman clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall on the U.S. Supreme Court and Chief Judge Wilfred Feinberg on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He is a recipient of Columbia University’s Presidential Award for Teaching.
Richman has authored scholarship on various legal topics, including prosecutorial discretion, administrative crimes, and the endurance of police localism. His recent works include the articles “Accounting for Prosecutors” and “Defining Crime, Delegating Authority – How Different are Administrative Crimes?” He also co-authored “Understanding Recent Spikes and Longer Trends in American Murders” with Columbia Law Professor Jeffrey Fagan. Richman’s scholarly writings include over 30 law review articles and chapters from a forthcoming Federal Criminal Law casebook.
Daniel Richman is a longtime friend and adviser to former FBI Director James Comey. In December 2025, Richman filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department, requesting an emergency order to prevent the department from accessing his files and to hold a hearing on whether his constitutional rights were violated. The lawsuit claims there is no lawful basis for the government to retain images of his computer, even though a prior investigation concluded in 2021. In September 2025, federal prosecutors subpoenaed Richman as part of a criminal investigation into whether Comey lied in congressional testimony.
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie is a senior United States district judge for the District of South Carolina. She was born in Florence, South Carolina, in 1948 and received her Bachelor of Arts from the University of South Carolina in 1970 and her Juris Doctor from George Washington University Law School in 1975. President Bill Clinton nominated her to the federal bench in 1994, and she assumed senior status on October 3, 2013. Judge Currie previously served as a U.S. Magistrate for the District of South Carolina and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and the District of South Carolina. She has also been an adjunct professor of law at the University of South Carolina Law Center. On November 24, 2025, Judge Currie dismissed the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Judge Currie’s decision to dismiss the indictments against Comey and James was based on her ruling that Lindsey Halligan, whom President Trump appointed as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was unlawfully appointed and therefore lacked the lawful authority to present the indictments. The cases were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the Department of Justice could potentially refile the charges. The White House, through Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, stated that the Justice Department plans to appeal Judge Currie’s ruling.
Perspectives
Support for Judge Currie’s ruling, emphasizing the importance of legal process and checks on executive power.
Judge Currie’s ruling upheld the statutory power structure and served as a check on what was described as President Trump’s efforts to use the criminal justice system against his perceived enemies and his administration’s legal maneuvering to install a loyalist prosecutor.
The judge’s decision underscored that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Lindsey Halligan was invalid, and she had no lawful authority to present the indictments, as the administration’s actions circumvented established law regarding interim U.S. attorney appointments.
The dismissal of indictments opens the door for potential new legal scenarios, including federal judges having the authority to appoint a new U.S. attorney, should the ruling hold on appeal.
Criticism of Judge Currie’s ruling, viewing it as judicial overreach and politically motivated.
Some characterize Judge Currie’s ruling as judicial activism, alleging she manipulated statutory language to achieve a politically favorable outcome for Democrats, which is expected to be overturned on appeal.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated the administration disagrees with the ruling, asserting that Judge Currie took an ‘unprecedented action’ to shield James Comey and Letitia James from accountability based on a ‘technical ruling,’ despite claims that James Comey lied to Congress.
Some have interpreted the ruling as evidence that the justice system is not impartial but rather influenced by politics, given Judge Currie’s appointment by President Clinton.
Colleen Constance Kollar-Kotelly, born on April 17, 1943, serves as a senior United States district judge for the District of Columbia. President Bill Clinton nominated her to the U.S. District Court in January 1997, and she received her commission in March 1997. She earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in English and her Juris Doctor from Catholic University of America in 1965 and 1968, respectively. Before she was appointed a federal judge, she served as a law clerk, an attorney in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1969 to 1972, and as chief legal counsel to Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital until 1984. She was appointed Associate Judge of the D.C. Superior Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, serving until 1997. From 2002 to 2009, Kollar-Kotelly also served as a judge and presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly has issued several significant rulings. She blocked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from obtaining access to certain Treasury Department payment records. In 2017, she blocked the enforcement of the transgender military ban, stating that the directives would injure plaintiffs. She also ruled against President Trump’s executive order requiring proof of U.S. citizenship on federal voter registration forms, noting that the Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the states and Congress, not the President. In May 2024, Judge Kollar-Kotelly sentenced Lauren Handy to 57 months in prison and Paulette Harlow to two years in federal prison for blocking access to an abortion clinic, actions that violated the FACE Act. She also rebuked President Trump’s pardons for individuals convicted of crimes during the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, praising the heroism of police officers who responded.
Commentary on Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s rulings includes criticism of her courtroom responses, particularly in a case involving a dying activist’s husband, where her remarks were perceived as lacking compassion. Additionally, she was asked by Emptywheel to demand that someone at the Department of Justice put ethical skin in the game regarding a previous DOJ order to cease violating Dan Richman’s Fourth Amendment rights. A commentary also highlighted her age, noting that she is 82 years old and questioning the mental fitness of senior judges who continue to serve.
Phk 'em. If the criminals can conspired and destroy evidence they are supposed to retain, then the righteous can retain evidence they're wrongfully ordered to destroy. These socialist bastards are turning things inside out and upside down. Time to stop being complicit in their games.