Evidence suggests Comey approved classified information leaks

Brace yourself for a bombshell that could shake the foundations of trust in our nation’s top law enforcement agency. Newly declassified memos have surfaced, pointing to former FBI Director James Comey as potentially authorizing leaks of classified information to the press just before the 2016 presidential election, as Just the News reports. It’s a revelation that demands answers, not excuses.

Evidence uncovered by federal prosecutors and detailed in memos discovered by current FBI Director Kash Patel suggests Comey may have greenlit the release of sensitive data to the New York Times in October 2016, with no charges ever filed despite multiple investigations.

Let’s rewind to the lead-up to the 2016 election, a time when political tensions were already at a boiling point. Federal prosecutors found evidence that Comey, through his chief of staff James Rybicki, instructed then-FBI general counsel James Baker to disclose classified information to reporters. Baker himself admitted to sharing such details with The New York Times, believing he had Comey’s blessing.

Declassified memos reveal shocking allegations

Fast forward to early this year, when Kash Patel unearthed these memos, initially redacted by the Justice Department before being sent to Congress. Thanks to Attorney General Pam Bondi’s intervention, the unredacted versions landed with the House and Senate Judiciary committees, exposing the full scope of the allegations. As Bondi put it, “There must be accountability for those who were entrusted with safeguarding our nation’s secrets and failed to do so.”

Accountability, indeed — turns out actions have consequences, even if they’re delayed by nearly a decade. These memos, backed by interviews from U.S. Postal Inspection Service agents, zero in on leaks tied to a specific October 2016 article, likely titled “Investigating Donald Trump, FBI Sees No Clear Link to Russia.” The specifics of the leaked data remain unclear, but the implications are anything but.

Comey, however, has a different story to tell. In May 2017 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he flatly denied ever being a source for news stories about investigations into Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, saying, “Never.” When asked if he authorized others at the FBI to leak, his answer was a curt “No.”

Comey’s denials clash with evidence

Those denials now sit uncomfortably next to the declassified evidence. If Baker’s account is accurate, Comey’s testimony raises serious questions about transparency at the highest levels of the FBI. It’s not just a matter of miscommunication; it’s about trust in institutions already battered by perceptions of bias.

Multiple investigations followed these allegations, starting with a probe led by then-acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente in March 2017, which handed the case to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to avoid FBI conflicts of interest. Future special counsel John Durham took over, concluding by late 2017 with a recommendation against prosecuting Baker or others. By 2019, the FBI’s Washington field office reviewed the findings but found no new leads.

Even as evidence mounted, no charges stuck. Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., during Trump’s first term, and later Durham, declined to pursue criminal action against Comey or his associates. It’s a frustrating outcome for those who believe the rule of law should apply equally, no matter the title.

Broader probes into potential misconduct

The story doesn’t end with these leaks. Patel has since launched a broader criminal investigation into what he calls a decade-long conspiracy of intelligence abuses, from the Russia collusion narrative to the Mar-a-Lago raid. Bondi, in turn, has authorized a strike force with grand jury powers to dig deeper into these claims.

Legal experts point out that espionage laws could extend the statute of limitations to 10 years if the leaks harmed national security or were part of an ongoing conspiracy. As former Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer Mike Davis noted, a probe into “malicious disclosure” remains possible. It’s a glimmer of hope for those seeking justice, even if it feels like a long shot.

Then there’s the role of the press in this saga, with Comey reportedly using intermediaries like Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman to shape coverage with the New York Times. A DOJ Inspector General report from 2019 criticized Comey for leaking personal memos about Trump to trigger a special counsel appointment. Yet, once again, no prosecution followed.

Pattern of leaks, absent accountability

This isn’t an isolated incident but part of a pattern, with the FBI launching over half a dozen investigations into media leaks tied to the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. None resulted in accountability, leaving many Americans wondering if the system protects its own. It’s a bitter pill to swallow in a nation built on fairness.

Patel’s take cuts to the core: “These newly declassified memos show how former FBI leadership authorized classified leaks and withheld the truth from Congress and the American people.” His push for transparency, backed by Bondi’s resolve, offers a chance to right past wrongs. But will it be enough to rebuild trust?

The question looms large as we digest this evidence against Comey and his inner circle. While progressive agendas often decry accountability as partisan revenge, the pursuit of truth isn’t about politics — it’s about principle. Let’s hope the system finally catches up to the idea that no one is above the law, no matter how powerful.