This article may contain commentary
which reflects the author’s opinion.
A Clinton-appointed federal judge has ordered the FBI to destroy emails central to the obstruction and false statements case against former FBI Director James Comey, a decision that legal experts warn could cripple prosecutors’ ability to pursue a new indictment and set off a constitutional showdown over separation of powers.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who sits on the D.C. District Court, issued the surprise order on December 13, directing the FBI to permanently delete all data seized from Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman—Comey’s longtime friend and former government contractor—by 4 p.m. Monday.
The emails include key exchanges between Richman and Comey that prosecutors allege show Comey authorized leaks and false testimony about his role in Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
The ruling follows the September indictment of Comey on two counts—making false statements to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding—related to his 2020 testimony about the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. Prosecutors allege Comey falsely denied using intermediaries to leak classified material to the press, and that he used Richman as an outside conduit for anti-Trump leaks while Richman held a government contract.
Six years ago, Judge James Boasberg—himself an Obama appointee—signed the warrant that allowed the FBI to seize Richman’s devices. But Kollar-Kotelly’s order, issued from a separate court and in a separate district, now directs the destruction of that same evidence.
“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 is not charged in the case, petitioned for the return of his emails under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights by seizing and reviewing his communications. Rule 41(g) typically allows a defendant to recover property obtained in an unlawful search—but in this case, Richman is a third party, not a defendant, and the communications in question include evidence against a sitting defendant, James Comey.
Despite this, Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted Richman’s motion and ordered that a single copy of the emails be provided to Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is presiding over the Comey case in Virginia, but barred prosecutors from reviewing or relying on the material 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 said. “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, another 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 Currie’s ruling to the Fourth Circuit.
Davis called the ruling “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 op-ed published by Fox News, Davis warned that the decision fits a larger pattern of “leftist judicial interference” aimed at shielding political allies while undermining accountability for the Trump-era lawfare architects.
“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 Monday’s deadline.
If the order stands, prosecutors may lose access to one of the few remaining troves of direct evidence linking Comey to alleged leaks and obstruction. And if higher courts fail to intervene, it could mark the first time in recent memory that a federal judge outside a criminal case has ordered the destruction of key evidence against a former FBI director.
