Report: Federal Grand Jury Subpoenas James Comey Adviser Regarding Alleged Leaks to New York Times

A federal grand jury has subpoenaed Daniel Richman, a long-time adviser to former FBI Director James Comey, as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged leaks of classified information to the New York Times. The subpoena, issued Monday, follows years of scrutiny surrounding Comey's conduct during and after his tenure at the FBI. Law enforcement sources told Fox News that the subpoena is linked to the broader probe into Comey’s alleged threats against President Donald Trump’s life. Richman, who served as a special FBI employee, is under examination for his communications with journalists regarding investigations related to the 2016 presidential election. In 2018, he played a key role in the initial inquiry into the leak of information about the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s email server. Later, he filed a lawsuit alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when materials from his personal devices were seized during subsequent investigations. Prosecutors used those materials to build cases against Comey, including charges of making false statements and obstructing Congress. The current probe appears to focus on Comey’s alleged threats against Trump. In May 2025, Comey posted an Instagram message that included the phrase “86 47,” which some interpreted as a reference to a potential attack on Trump. The message was associated with an image of seashells arranged on a beach, leading to speculation about its meaning. Comey was subsequently indicted for allegedly threatening the president’s life. U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche emphasized that the case involves a substantial body of evidence gathered over 11 months, rather than being based solely on the social media post. Blanche clarified that the decision to charge Comey was made by the grand jury, not by the Department of Justice or himself. During a press briefing in August 2026, he reiterated that the indictment reflects the findings of the grand jury, underscoring the seriousness of the allegations. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has criticized Comey, accusing him of lying to Congress and leaking sensitive FBI information to the media. Hawley described Comey as someone who “lies, he lies, he lies” and suggested that he should face the consequences of his actions. Comey has challenged the charges, arguing that the “86 47” post constitutes protected political speech rather than a credible threat. Recently, he sought to have the charges dismissed, asserting that the message does not meet the legal threshold for criminalizing threats against a public figure. His defense hinges on the argument that the content of the post is not a direct threat but a form of expression. The investigation into Comey has spanned multiple administrations and has drawn attention due to the high-profile nature of the individuals involved. Under President Trump, there was an initial probe into the leak, but it was effectively halted when President Joe Biden assumed office. The current legal proceedings represent a continuation of this effort, with the Department of Justice seeking to hold Comey accountable for alleged misconduct. As the case unfolds, legal experts anticipate further developments, particularly concerning the interpretation of the “86 47” message and whether it qualifies as a legitimate threat under existing laws. The outcome could set important precedents regarding free speech and the limits of what constitutes a threat in legal terms. For now, the focus remains on the evidence presented to the grand jury and the determination of the judicial process.