DOJ Charges James Comey a Third Time, Apparently Because Twice Wasn't Embarrassing Enough

An unsealed court file on a pale stone surface, with courthouse columns blurred in the background

By Dakota Jones
Desk: Crime, Law & Justice, Courts & Litigation

Introduction

Three federal cases in little more than a year. Against the same guy. By the same department.

At some point, this stops being prosecution and starts being a subscription service. On Monday, Oct. 26, 2026, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., unsealed a criminal information charging former FBI Director James Comey with two crimes involving national defense information. Comey’s lawyers say the case concerns an alleged disclosure to The New York Times on Oct. 5, 2016. They also argue the 10-year statute of limitations had expired before the DOJ filed.

Yes, you read that right. The government may have filed the charges ten years after the clock expired. That is the central issue for now: what the government alleges, what the defense disputes, and whether the case was filed in time. The allegations are not proof of guilt. And a court filing is not a verdict, however many sequels the paperwork gets.

What happened

The DOJ filed the criminal information on Oct. 5, 2026, and obtained a sealing order from Judge Trevor McFadden that same day, citing an ongoing criminal investigation. Comey’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 9. They argued the deadline for prosecuting conduct from Oct. 5, 2016, had passed, and accused the DOJ of filing a faulty information under seal to put the statute of limitations on hold.

On Monday, at Comey’s request, McFadden agreed to unseal it. Which is how the public found out the DOJ had been sitting on a sealed case against a political critic for three weeks.

The information alleges two offenses:

  1. Knowingly communicating national defense information to someone not entitled to receive it.
  2. Conspiring with others to do so.

According to the filing, Comey, “through one or more co-conspirators,” directed an unnamed individual to disclose national defense information to a reporter for a national news publication. Comey’s lawyers say the alleged disclosure was to The New York Times.

There is an important procedural distinction here. This is a criminal information, a charging document filed directly by a prosecutor, not a grand jury indictment. The distinction does not settle the dispute about timing or the allegations. It does tell you what kind of charging document the DOJ filed.

A federal courthouse corridor with a legal folder in the foreground

Comey’s attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, said two separate U.S. Attorneys investigated the alleged 2016 disclosure over the past ten years and both declined to prosecute. Fitzgerald said: “For the third time in little more than one year, the Department of Justice has attempted to charge Mr. Comey with a federal crime. Mr. Comey steadfastly maintains his innocence.”

Two separate prosecutors looked at this exact alleged leak over ten years. Both passed. That is not a witch hunt failing to find a witch once. That is twice, by two different teams, over a decade.

Comey responded in a video posted to Substack: “Well, they’re back, again.” He called the case “an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice, one that we cannot become numb to,” and said he remains innocent, is not afraid, and believes in the independent federal judiciary.

Why it matters

The statute-of-limitations dispute is not a footnote. It might be the whole ballgame.

The DOJ filed the information exactly ten years after the date Comey’s lawyers say the alleged conduct occurred. Ten years. To the day. His attorneys argue that the filing did not stop the clock. Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner told the BBC the case may have exceeded the 10-year limit and described the motion to dismiss as having “a very good chance of being granted.” He also called the case a “revenge-fuelled attempt” by President Donald Trump to have his DOJ find something that might stick. Those are Kirschner’s assessments, not a court ruling. But when your headline legal theory is “we sealed it, so time stopped,” you are not doing law anymore. You are doing wishful thinking with a filing fee.

Comey has faced two earlier federal cases:

  • September 2025: He was indicted in Virginia on false statement and obstruction charges related to his Sept. 30, 2020, Senate Judiciary testimony. The case was dismissed on Nov. 24, 2025, after a judge ruled interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan had been invalidly appointed.
  • April 2026: He was charged in North Carolina with threatening Trump’s life over an Instagram photo of seashells arranged as “86 47.” Comey denies wrongdoing, and that case is ongoing.

The newest case also became public on a consequential day for Comey’s family. A federal judge in New York ruled that the DOJ unlawfully fired Comey’s daughter, Maurene Comey, as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York in July 2025. The judge ordered her reinstatement with back pay. That ruling is separate from James Comey’s case.

A plain court folder beside a timeline represented by blank tabs

For anyone who cares about journalism and justice, the stakes reach beyond one defendant. The allegations concern information allegedly provided to a reporter. The public has a legitimate interest in whether national defense information was improperly disclosed, and an equally legitimate interest in whether prosecutors follow their own rules when bringing a case. Because here is the uncomfortable part: the precedent cuts both ways. A Justice Department that can seal a filing, park it against the clock, and dust it off against a critic when convenient is not a tool you want handed to the next administration. Both questions matter. Neither is answered by the headline.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has Comey been convicted?
No. The new filing contains allegations. Comey maintains his innocence.

Is the new case based on a grand jury indictment?
No. It was filed as a criminal information, a charging document filed directly by a prosecutor.

Why are Comey’s lawyers seeking dismissal?
They argue the 10-year statute of limitations had expired and that the sealed information did not properly pause it.

What happens next?
The court must address the defense motion. The new case’s outcome has not been decided.

Verdict

The DOJ has brought a third case against Comey in little more than a year. This one turns, at least initially, on a basic question with a very un-basic filing history: did prosecutors act before the deadline, or did the clock run out while the paperwork was under seal?

That is for the court to decide. Until then, the responsible verdict is not “guilty,” and it is not “case dismissed.” It is that the allegations remain unproven, the limitations challenge is serious enough to be front and center, and repeated prosecutions make careful scrutiny more, not less, important.

Three swings at one man do not make the fourth document self-validating. If the case survives the statute of limitations, it will deserve real scrutiny. If it does not, the DOJ will have burned a third swing on a ten-year-old leak that two prosecutors already declined to touch. Either way, the court gets the last word. The paperwork, for once, should have to earn it.

For more reporting, visit the LD3 Productions news desk.

Sources