James Comey Is Charged Again, Ten Years After the Alleged Leak

James Comey has been charged by the Justice Department for the third time. The new case concerns events from Oct. 5, 2016, when Comey was FBI director. Ten years later, prosecutors filed a sealed criminal information on the same date the statute of limitations was set to run out.

That is the part worth sitting with. The government says it filed the document in time. Comey’s lawyers say the clock had already expired because the charge was filed as an information, not a grand jury indictment. A judge has not ruled yet.

The New Charges

The Justice Department charges Comey with knowingly transmitting national defense information to an unauthorized person. It also charges him with conspiracy to violate laws against sharing defense information. The filing alleges that Comey, through one or more co-conspirators, directed an unnamed person to disclose national defense information to a reporter for a national news publication.

The case was filed under seal on Oct. 5, 2026. Judge Trevor McFadden cited a risk to an ongoing investigation. Comey’s lawyers asked for it to be unsealed, and the judge agreed.

Comey’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 9. Their argument is narrow and legal. They say the alleged conduct occurred on Oct. 5, 2016, and that the 10-year statute of limitations for obtaining a grand jury indictment expired on Oct. 5, 2026. They argue the government used a criminal information instead because it did not have an indictment.

The Justice Department’s position is that filing the information stopped the limitations clock. Comey’s lawyers say that rule applies to indictments, not informations. Both sides now have a clean dispute for a judge.

The Timing

The timing is hard to ignore. The alleged disclosure happened a decade ago. The charge was filed on the last possible day under the government’s own theory. The document stayed sealed for three weeks. Then it became public on the same day a federal judge ruled that the Justice Department had unlawfully fired Comey’s daughter, Maurene Comey.

I do not assume motive from timing. Courts require evidence, not coincidence. But when a department files a decade-old case at the edge of a deadline, then unseals it beside an adverse ruling involving the defendant’s family, a careful reader is allowed to ask what the sequence was meant to accomplish.

Maurene Comey was a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled that her firing last year violated the separation of powers, the Administrative Procedure Act, and her due-process rights. He ordered her retroactively reinstated and awarded back pay from her July 2025 firing through Dec. 20, when she took a private-sector job.

The Justice Department says the new case against James Comey was filed because of the statute of limitations. That may be true. It is also not the only fact a reasonable person would weigh.

Three Cases, One Defendant

This is not Comey’s first encounter with federal prosecutors in this administration. In September 2025, a Virginia grand jury indicted him on false-statement and obstruction charges tied to Senate Judiciary Committee testimony from Sept. 30, 2020. A judge dismissed that indictment on Nov. 24, 2025, ruling that prosecutor Lindsey Halligan’s appointment was invalid. The same judge dismissed an unrelated case against New York Attorney General Letitia James.

In April 2026, Comey was charged in North Carolina with threatening President Donald Trump’s life. The case concerns an Instagram photo of seashells arranged to form “86 47.” Comey faces an indictment there, and his lawyers are seeking dismissal.

Now comes the third case. Different alleged conduct. Different legal theory. Same defendant, same department, same president.

Comey said in a Substack video, “They’re back - again.” He called it “Almost funny, but appalling abuse of DOJ.” He also said, “I’m still innocent. Still not afraid.” His lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, said, “Third charge in little over a year - DOJ keeps targeting me.”

Those are defense statements. They are not proof. But they are not empty words either. A person charged three times in roughly a year is entitled to say the pattern matters.

What Is Proven, What Is Not

The documented facts are straightforward. Comey has been charged with transmitting national defense information and conspiracy. The charges arise from alleged events on Oct. 5, 2016. The government filed a criminal information, not a grand jury indictment. Comey’s lawyers have moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds. The court has not decided that motion.

What remains unknown is larger. It is not known whether the information was timely. It is not known whether the evidence supports the charges. It is not known why the filing was sealed, why it was unsealed when it was, or how the Justice Department will answer the defense’s legal challenge.

The government says its filing preserved the case. The defense says the government missed its window. One of those arguments will have to win in court. Until then, the public should resist treating either side’s certainty as fact.

The Larger Cost

I have watched enough Washington legal fights to know that process is not a technicality. Process is the difference between a prosecution and a pursuit. When a case arrives late, sealed, and beside another adverse ruling, the public’s trust pays the bill even if every charge eventually collapses.

The Justice Department has enormous power. It can open cases, seal documents, choose charging instruments, and decide when to make them public. Those powers are legitimate. They are also easy to abuse when the target is a political opponent and the deadlines look engineered.

Comey may be guilty. He may not be. The charges deserve a fair hearing, not a verdict from a press release. But the third filing, ten years after the alleged act and on the final day claimed by prosecutors, does not look like routine law enforcement. It looks like an institution testing how much repetition the public will accept.

The answer should be: not this much.