Former FBI Director James Comey’s trusted confidant, Daniel Richman, has admitted to the FBI that he worked to steer media narratives, raising questions about the integrity of the Russia collusion saga, as Just the News reports.
In 2017, the FBI launched its “Arctic Haze” investigation to probe leaks of classified intelligence fueling stories that pushed a now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative. The probe zeroed in on eight articles from April to June 2017, published by outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. These stories, laced with sensitive details, helped craft a public perception of scandal that never materialized.
The investigation targeted pieces like a New York Times article claiming Comey tried to keep the FBI apolitical while shaping the 2016 election. Another, from the Washington Post, spun tales of Russian hacking with dramatic flair. Each fed a frenzy that conservatives argue was designed to undermine Trump’s presidency.
Daniel Richman, a Columbia law professor, emerged as Comey’s go-between with the press. Granted Top Secret clearance in 2015 as a Special Government Employee, Richman had access to sensitive FBI matters. He used this privilege to shape stories, particularly with New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt, a relationship dating back to 2008.
Richman told FBI agents he routinely fed Schmidt information to “correct” stories critical of Comey. His aim? To polish the FBI’s image outside official channels, a move that smells of manipulating public perception.
In the April 2017 New York Times piece, Richman defended Comey, saying he acted with “independence and integrity.” That quote, dripping with self-righteousness, conveniently ignored how Comey’s actions fueled political firestorms. It’s the kind of spin that makes conservatives roll their eyes at establishment sanctimony.
Comey himself admitted to leaking memos about Trump’s comments on Mike Flynn to spark a special counsel probe. The move led to Robert Mueller’s appointment on May 17, 2017, just a day after a New York Times story by Schmidt. Mueller’s two-year investigation found no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, proving the narrative was more smoke than fire.
Richman, when pressed by the FBI, claimed he was “pretty sure” he didn’t leak classified intel to Schmidt. His caveat? He wasn’t certain “with a discount,” a slippery dodge that reeks of covering tracks.
The FBI’s Arctic Haze probe, launched in August 2017, was deemed an espionage investigation, underscoring the gravity of the leaks. Yet, by September 2021, it closed without charges, as the Justice Department cited insufficient evidence to pin down the leakers. Another investigation, another shrug from the deep state.
Other FBI probes, like Tropic Vortex and Foggy Falls, targeted similar leaks to outlets like the Washington Post and Buzzfeed News. These investigations exposed a pattern: sensitive information flowing freely to paint a damning picture of Trump. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called out December 2016 leaks to NBC News and the Washington Post as “blatantly false,” accusing them of misrepresenting Russia’s election interference.
Gabbard’s critique, based on a recent ODNI assessment, criticized intelligence officials for leaking claims of Russian cyberattacks before official reports were finalized. Such leaks, she argued, were crafted to sway public opinion, not inform it. It’s the kind of tactic that fuels distrust in institutions conservatives already view as compromised.
Comey’s own words to the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2017 admitted that classified information shaped his decisions on the Clinton email probe. He claimed it justified his July 2016 announcement clearing Clinton and his subsequent decision to reopen the case in October 2016. The flip-flopping reeks of political theater, not justice.
Comey didn’t just leak; he directed the FBI’s Office of Public Affairs to assist the New York Times with its April 2017 story. Agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page briefed reporters on the Clinton probe, further blurring the line between law enforcement and media spin. It’s a cozy arrangement that undermines the FBI’s claim to impartiality.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz slammed Comey in 2019 for leaking memos to push for Mueller’s appointment. Horowitz called it an “unauthorized disclosure” for a “personally desired outcome.” That’s a polite way of saying Comey played dirty to get his way.
The Russia collusion narrative, propped up by these leaks, collapsed under scrutiny, but not before years of headlines smeared Trump. Conservatives see this as a textbook case of the deep state weaponizing information to kneecap a presidency. The lack of accountability only deepens the skepticism.
