DOJ’s Case Against Comey Collapses as Andrew McCabe Refuses to Back Prosecution
“I’m not aware of Jim Comey ever authorizing some other person to leak information.” — Andrew McCabe, former FBI Deputy Director
A Political Prosecution in the Trump Era
The Justice Department’s pursuit of former FBI Director James Comey on perjury charges has already raised eyebrows. The case, pushed forward during Donald Trump’s second term, centers on claims that Comey lied to Congress about authorizing media leaks tied to the FBI’s handling of Russian election interference in 2016.
But the DOJ now finds itself in a precarious position: their star witness former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has repeatedly and publicly stated that Comey did not authorize leaks, undercutting the very foundation of the government’s case.
McCabe’s Testimony and Public Statements
McCabe’s position has been consistent across sworn testimony and public interviews:
Congressional Testimony (2018): In appearances before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees, McCabe acknowledged he himself had authorized disclosures to the press but stated Comey never instructed him to do so. This put clear distance between his own actions and Comey’s conduct.
Inspector General Report (2018): The DOJ Inspector General found that McCabe misled investigators about his role in leaks but again, there was no evidence that Comey had directed those disclosures.
CNN Interview (Sept. 2025): McCabe went further, telling Dana Bash:
“I’m not aware of Jim Comey ever authorizing some other person to leak information. That’s not something I experienced personally. It’s not something I saw in all the time I spent working around Jim Comey.”
Follow-up Statement: McCabe emphasized he never sought Comey’s approval because he had his own authority:
“I never asked Jim Comey to authorize any disclosure to the media because I didn’t have to. At that time in the FBI, there were only two people who had the authority to make that decision independently. One was Jim Comey, and the other was me.”
Together, these statements leave prosecutors without corroboration that Comey himself directed leaks.
The DOJ’s Case on Shaky Ground
With McCabe refusing to validate the central allegation, the DOJ is effectively pursuing a high-profile prosecution without the cooperation of its most relevant insider witness. That choice has sparked criticism across the legal community:
Weak Evidence: Prosecuting Comey without McCabe’s testimony risks exposing the case as politically driven rather than factually sound.
Trump’s Shadow: Because Trump publicly called for Comey’s prosecution for years, critics say this indictment looks less like justice and more like presidential revenge.
Credibility Gap: McCabe himself has had his credibility questioned due to the Inspector General’s findings, but his refusal to implicate Comey ironically strengthens Comey’s defense.
Revenge Politics Masquerading as Justice
At its core, the case against James Comey appears less about law than about power. Trump’s allies have long vilified Comey as the embodiment of the “deep state.” Now, with the DOJ spending political capital on a prosecution its key witness won’t even support, the spectacle looks more like retribution than accountability.
As former Commissioner Steve Geller recently said of Florida’s budget fight, “do the math.” Here, the math is clear: no credible witness, no corroborating evidence, and no case. The DOJ is hanging its reputation on a trial that already looks like it’s collapsing from within.
Sources
