From Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity to Betrayal: An Agent’s View of James Comey’s Indictment

Perhaps the most significant moment in FBI history, certainly within the last three decades, occurred on July 5, 2016.

Then-FBI Director James B. Comey stepped before the press in the J. Edgar Hoover Building to deliver a succinct 15-minute briefing. He declared that although Hillary Clinton and her aides had been "extremely careless" in handling classified information—including Top Secret material—via her private home server, the FBI would not recommend criminal charges.

I remember that moment distinctly. At the time, I was an FBI agent and listened to Comey's press briefing with an increasing optimism as Comey ran through a litany of criminal activity that would land any FBI employee in federal prison. Comey built a seemingly unassailable battlement of criminal liability—then astoundingly destroyed the entire structure with a devious and malicious ploy. He effectively assumed the authority and office of the Attorney General and preemptively declared Hillary Clinton absolved of all wrongdoing—since no reasonable prosecutor could bring charges against Clinton based on the FBI's investigation.

I was astounded. Leading up to Comey's infamous statements, I was thrilled at the prospect of finally being part of an FBI which held the political elite accountable—an FBI that followed the facts wherever they led, even if the trail of criminal suspicion implicated those insulated by money, power, or politics. Instead, Comey unabashedly politicized one of the most significant investigations of the 21st century and took his place among the worst examples of partisanship and purveyors of injustice.

But Comey's betrayal of the FBI's core ethos of Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity was not limited to the exoneration of his political ally.  

James Comey spearheaded the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which was predicated on nothing more than a completely fabricated dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. The so-called Steele Dossier was the spark that lit the Russiagate inferno—a political fiction disguised as intelligence. Compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, the dossier was commissioned by Fusion GPS, a Washington opposition-research firm bankrolled by the Democrat National Committee and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign through the hyper-partisan law firm Perkins Coie.

In other words, Clinton's own legal team paid for foreign-sourced dirt on Donald Trump, then laundered it through cut-outs to give it the sheen of legitimate intelligence. The FBI, eager for a pretext, used Steele's unverified allegations to justify surveillance on members of the Trump campaign, even as exculpatory evidence piled up. It was an incestuous operation: Clinton's campaign manufactured the "Russia collusion" narrative, the Bureau ran with it, and the media amplified it—all while Clinton herself faced possible criminal liability for mishandling Top Secret information on her unsecured private server.

Crossfire Hurricane, far from being a righteous counterintelligence investigation, served as a diversionary smokescreen—a way to shift public attention from Hillary's own breaches of national security to a fabricated tale of Trump's betrayal. Recent information released by the House Judiciary Committee proves that then-CIA director John Brennan fed the illicit information to Comey, who happily ignored the obvious indications of the spurious nature of the information.

All that mattered was getting Trump, at any cost.

The Tables Turn

In light of Comey's newly reported indictment, it is striking to revisit just how declarative and consequential his 2016 judgment was. At the time, that statement closed (for the moment) the chapter on Clinton's private email server. But what remains unsettled—and what the indictment now forces the public to re-examine—is whether Comey's handling of classified material, his public disclosures, and his legal judgments were ever fully beyond reproach.

But what is specifically in question in light of Comey's indictment is his September 30, 2020 testimony. Comey asserted that he had not authorized anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source to the media about investigations, including the Russia-Trump probe, or to provide information in that matter. Given his demonstrated lack of candor and obvious political bias during the 2016 presidential election cycle and beyond, Comey's assertions of innocence ring hollow.

His response to Sen. Ted Cruz's questioning is also probative. Cruz asked if he'd ever authorized leaks to the media in relation to the Trump-Russia investigation (or the Clinton foundation probe). Comey denied that he had authorized such disclosures. However, this denial was contradicted by then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who stated that he leaked information to the press with Comey's awareness or approval.

The indictment of James Comey is far more than a legal event; it is a moment of reckoning. After years in which establishment media, Democrat politicians, and the intelligence-bureaucracy class have held Comey up as a paragon of integrity, the DOJ's decision to charge him forces a reexamination of just how insulated he truly was from accountability.

At its core, the indictment accuses Comey of making false statements to Congress (specifically in his 2020 Senate testimony) and obstructing a congressional investigation. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements) and 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (obstruction), the government alleges that he claimed he did not authorize someone at the FBI to function as an anonymous source.

These allegations will not be easy to prove. U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan certainly has her work cut out for her.

She will be required to prove that Comey knew his statements were false at the time and were intentionally misleading—not merely mistaken, forgetful, or imprecise. She must prove the statements were objectively false—not ambiguous or technically true, but misleading. And she must prove that his statements were material and had a natural tendency to influence, or were capable of influencing, Congress's decision or investigation.

But what's beyond reasonable debate is that James Comey is a bad actor, perhaps the worst Director in FBI history. As someone who worked as an agent during his tenure, I can say with certainty that he was an embarrassment to every man and woman who strove to uphold the fundamental tenets of Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity.

(READ MORE: FBI-Suppressed Data Shows Armed Citizens Stop Over 50% of Active Shooters, Not 3.7%)