Former Special Counsel John Durham Finds No Evidence to Charge James Comey

Former Special Counsel John Durham, who led a four-year investigation into the origins of the FBI's probe into alleged ties between Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and Russia, informed federal prosecutors that he found insufficient evidence to support charges against former FBI Director James Comey.

In August, Durham met remotely with federal prosecutors in Virginia to discuss his findings. His conclusions suggest that Durham, once anticipated by some Republicans to prosecute high-level officials involved in the investigation of Trump's 2016 campaign, could now play a role in Comey's defense.

Prosecutors in Virginia, after conducting their own two-month investigation, reached the same conclusion as Durham and their counterparts in Washington, D.C.: they lacked sufficient evidence to prove that Comey made false statements to Congress to obstruct their investigation. Their findings were detailed in a lengthy declination memo, which explicitly referenced the other investigations to support their recommendation against charging Comey.

Despite these recommendations, Lindsey Halligan, appointed by President Trump as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, rejected the advice and sought a three-count indictment against Comey. Last month, a grand jury indicted Comey on two charges of making false statements to Congress and obstruction, while rejecting an additional false statements count sought by Halligan.

The case centers on two aspects of Comey's 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee: his alleged approval of leaks to the media and his purported unawareness of an unverified intelligence report suggesting that then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton attempted to create a "scandal" by linking Trump's campaign to Russia.

Durham's team extensively investigated whether Comey's testimony about his unawareness of the intelligence report was intentionally misleading. According to sources, Durham concluded that he could not support false statements charges based on Comey's purported lack of memory and that evidence did not fully establish that Comey had seen the intelligence report.

During a video conference in late August, Durham reiterated his team's finding that Comey's testimony did not support false statements charges. The 2025 investigation of Comey followed the same evidence and matched the conclusion reached by Durham, whose extensive investigation spanned four years and two presidential administrations.

The grand jury, which recently heard evidence against Comey, appeared to reach the same conclusion that Comey did not lie to Congress about the intelligence report, returning a no bill for the first false statements count sought by Halligan.

The grand jury did return an indictment on two counts sought by Halligan regarding Comey's alleged role in using his friend and former lawyer Daniel Richman to provide reporters with information about an FBI probe of Clinton.

Over four years, prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., had also investigated Comey for allegedly leaking information, including using Richman as a conduit to the press. By 2021, they called Comey to testify before a grand jury about the allegations; however, they declined the case, believing there was no conclusive evidence that Comey had ever used Richman as an anonymous source or leaked classified information.

These D.C. prosecutors provided their evidence to the prosecutors in Virginia and met to discuss their decision-making. The team that investigated Comey this summer ultimately reached the same conclusion, advising Halligan that pursuing an indictment without clear probable cause would be unethical. She proceeded nonetheless.

In a press release following the indictment, Halligan stated, "The balance of power is a bedrock principle of our democracy, and it relies upon accountability and a forthright presentation of facts from executive leadership to congressional oversight."

During his probe, Durham brought three criminal cases, none involving senior ranks of the FBI or DOJ involved in investigating Trump's 2016 campaign. Two of the cases that went to trial resulted in acquittals, including one in the Eastern District of Virginia.

In his 306-page final report detailing his investigation's findings, Durham outlined the high bar required to initiate federal prosecutions, explaining why his office may have opted not to seek charges against specific individuals, even when it determined their actions were improper.

"If this report and the outcome of the Special Counsel's investigation leave some with the impression that injustices or misconduct have gone unaddressed, it is not because the Office concluded that no such injustices or misconduct occurred," Durham stated in his report. "It is, rather, because not every injustice or transgression amounts to a criminal offense, and criminal prosecutors are tasked exclusively with investigating and prosecuting violations of U.S. criminal laws."