Clinton-Appointed Judge Orders FBI to Destroy Evidence in Comey Case
A Clinton-appointed federal judge has ordered the FBI to destroy emails at the heart of the obstruction and false statements case against former FBI Director James Comey, a move legal analysts warn could cripple prosecutors’ ability to pursue a renewed indictment and ignite a constitutional clash over separation of powers.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the D.C. District Court issued the unexpected order on December 13, directing the FBI to permanently delete all data seized from Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman—Comey’s longtime confidant and a former government contractor—by 4 p.m. Monday.
The material slated for destruction includes email exchanges between Richman and Comey that prosecutors say demonstrate Comey authorized leaks to the media and later provided false testimony regarding his role in Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation.
The ruling comes just months after Comey was indicted in September on two felony counts: making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. Prosecutors allege that Comey lied during his 2020 testimony by denying he used intermediaries to leak sensitive information and that he relied on Richman as an outside conduit for anti-Trump disclosures while Richman was under a government contract.
Complicating matters further, the emails were lawfully seized years earlier under a warrant approved by Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee. Kollar-Kotelly’s order—issued in a separate court and unrelated proceeding—now commands the destruction of evidence previously obtained under that warrant.
“This ruling threatens the separation of powers essential to the Republic, and either the D.C. Circuit or Supreme Court must intervene immediately,” said Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project and a former Senate Judiciary Committee counsel.
Richman, who has not been charged, sought the return of the emails under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, claiming the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Rule 41(g) is typically invoked by defendants seeking the return of unlawfully seized property. In this case, however, Richman is a third party, not a defendant, and the communications include evidence central to a criminal case against Comey.
Nonetheless, Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted the request. While she ordered that a single copy of the emails be provided to Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is overseeing the Comey case in Virginia, she barred federal prosecutors from reviewing or relying on the evidence in any future filings.
“The FBI and the prosecution will be unable to review them in their efforts to seek a new indictment if [Judge Cameron] Currie’s dismissal ruling survives on appeal,” Davis warned. “Even if a higher court reverses Currie, the government’s inability to review the emails to use as evidence and prepare for trial would massively hamper its case.”
Judge Currie, a Clinton appointee in South Carolina, dismissed the Comey indictment last month, ruling that the appointment of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—who led the prosecution—was unconstitutional. The Justice Department has appealed that decision to the Fourth Circuit.
Davis described Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling as “unprecedented judicial sabotage,” arguing that “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.”
In a separate Fox News op-ed, Davis said the decision reflects a broader trend of “leftist judicial interference” designed to shield political allies while undermining accountability for those who spearheaded Trump-era lawfare.
“Now, a Clinton-appointed judge in the District of Columbia, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, has interfered even more egregiously with the government’s case,” Davis wrote. “Courts do not order the FBI to destroy evidence in pending investigations — except when the evidence is harmful to a lawfare perpetrator like Comey.”
The Justice Department is expected to seek an emergency stay from the D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court before the deadline expires.
If the order is allowed to stand, prosecutors could lose access to one of the few remaining bodies of direct evidence allegedly tying Comey to leaks and obstruction. Legal observers warn that failure by higher courts to intervene would mark a rare—and deeply troubling—instance of a federal judge outside a criminal proceeding ordering the destruction of critical evidence against a former FBI director.