Newly surfaced emails paint a troubling picture: James Comey appeared to expect a role in a possible Clinton administration and was aware of, perhaps complicit in, anonymous media outreach about the Clinton email probe. Those messages, now cited by prosecutors, suggest the former FBI director knew more about internal leak activity than he admitted. This piece lays out what the emails reveal and why accountability matters.
The fresh documents show Comey trading messages that read like someone who assumed he would have a place in a Clinton presidency. Conservative outlets quickly picked up the reporting, and the emails themselves were referenced in a prosecutorial filing that challenges Comey’s claims of malicious prosecution. From a Republican perspective, it looks like a clear conflict between what Comey said publicly and what he appears to have known privately.
Those emails also align with broader concerns about selective enforcement and political bias inside the FBI. The comparison to other high-profile mishandlings of classified material underscores a pattern: when senior officials skirt rules, the system loses credibility. Voters have every right to demand no one is above the law, regardless of rank or past service.
He knew the rules; that’s why he kept his secretaries in the dark. The latest trove of emails reported by multiple outlets shows Comey knew about the media leaks regarding the Clinton email server and may have even given the green light for some of them. He was also hoping to work for a possible Clinton administration in 2016:
Federal prosecutors revealed Monday they have unearthed a trove of personal emails showing then-FBI Director James Comey openly talked in the days before the 2016 election that he expected to be working soon for President-elect Hillary Clinton and was being kept apprised by a top FBI aide on efforts to anonymously provide information to the news media.
“Well done my friend. Who knew this would. E [sic] so uh fun,” Comey wrote in an early November 2016 email after then-FBI special government employee Dan Richman briefed the FBI director on Richman’s efforts to provide information and guidance to The New York Times on an article involving Clinton’s email scandal.
The emails were referenced in a bombshell court filing by acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan and her deputy, Tyler Lemmons in which the government rejected Comey’s argument that he was being maliciously prosecuted for misleading Congress about actions he took as FBI director.
Halligan cited and attached to the filing numerous emails in which Comey was clearly aware that Richman was working to provide information anonymously to news outlets about the Clinton email case and that he expected those outreach efforts would end with Clinton defeating Donald Trump in the November 2016 election.
“Some day they will figure it out. And as [Individual 1 and Individual 2] point out, my decision will be one a president-elect Clinton will be very grateful for (although that wasn’t why I did it),” Comey wrote Richman in one such email in late October 2016.
Halligan’s filing said the emails showed Comey was aware of and encouraging Richman’s contacts with the media, contrary to his claims to Congress.
Those words, sitting in prosecutors’ paperwork, are striking because they undercut Comey’s insistence that he acted alone from principle and without political calculation. If a senior official coordinated or turned a blind eye to anonymous media outreach, that crosses from poor judgment into potential misconduct. Republicans rightly see this as proof that accountability can’t be selective.
Beyond the legal questions, the political damage is obvious: when FBI leaders behave like partisans, public trust evaporates. The Justice Department exists to enforce the law impartially, not to play favorites or shield allies. Restoring credibility requires open, thorough investigation and consequences where rules were broken.
Comey has called the charges against him malicious, but the emails complicate that defense by showing contemporaneous communications that contradict his congressional testimony. From a conservative viewpoint, this isn’t about settling scores; it’s about ensuring equal application of justice and deterring future abuses. Let the facts guide outcomes, and let accountability follow.
The nation deserves an FBI that operates transparently and without political gamesmanship. These emails are a reminder that institutions fail when those at the top assume they are untouchable. That reality fuels the argument for reforms that lock in impartiality and restore public confidence in federal law enforcement.
