The story that Washington’s power players prayed would never resurface has just detonated like a political earthquake.
After years of whispers, cover-ups, and finger-pointing, the Department of Justice has finally unsealed its long-awaited
indictment against former FBI Director James Comey — and the revelations inside are every bit as explosive as insiders feared.
But as journalists and political operatives scrambled to digest the charges, two mysterious figures buried in the indictment stood out. They were not named directly but referred to in sterile legal code as
“PERSON 1” and “PERSON 3.”
At first glance, those designations might have seemed meaningless — placeholders in a lengthy court filing. But within hours, new leaks and confirmations turned those two words into political dynamite.
Because “PERSON 1” has now been confirmed as Hillary Clinton, and “PERSON 3” as Comey’s longtime confidant and sometimes personal attorney, Daniel Richman.
And with that, the entire story of Comey’s post-2016 behavior — from his media leaks to his under-oath denials before Congress — is being rewritten before the public’s eyes.
When the indictment first dropped, Washington insiders were glued to one question: who exactly were these unnamed “persons” connected to the former FBI chief’s alleged crimes?
Now that their identities are known, the puzzle pieces fall into place.
According to ABC News investigative reporter Mike Levine, who broke the confirmation late Friday night, the DOJ’s first count against Comey centers on
false statements made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2020 — specifically, his sworn insistence that he never “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” regarding an investigation connected to Hillary Clinton.
The indictment tells a different story.
“That statement was false,” it reads. “Because, as JAMES B. COMEY JR. then and there knew, he in fact had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding [the] FBI investigation.”
That single line may become one of the most damning sentences in Comey’s career.
Not only does it accuse the former FBI director of lying under oath, but it also establishes that his “anonymous source” was
But prosecutors say that wasn’t a casual leak. It was deliberate — and part of a long-running effort by Comey to control public narratives surrounding Hillary Clinton and the FBI’s actions in the tumultuous final months of the 2016 election.
A Hidden Channel to the Press
The revelations go deeper than anyone expected.
Levine’s follow-up reporting cited internal FBI documents showing that Comey didn’t just tolerate Richman’s media connections — he
empowered them.
“While Comey instructed the FBI to hire Richman as a Special Government Employee — with Top Secret clearance — to work on ‘Going Dark’ matters, Comey also used Richman as a liaison to the media,” the report states.
That phrasing — “liaison to the media” — jumps off the page.
In plain language, it means the man tasked with protecting the nation’s most sensitive secrets allegedly built his own secret back channel to shape press coverage, defend his reputation, and possibly shield political allies.
The FBI’s 2021 internal report spelled it out:
“Richman contacted journalists to correct stories critical of Comey, the FBI, and to shape future press coverage. Richman did this both when he was an SGE and after he resigned from the FBI.”
This paints a deeply uncomfortable picture for both men.
Comey, once held up as a symbol of bureaucratic integrity, now stands accused of manipulating the media through an insider — someone with clearance, connections, and access to privileged FBI information.
And that insider — Richman — wasn’t just a friend. He was the “anonymous source” in stories about Hillary Clinton’s FBI investigation, the one Comey swore didn’t exist.
The Leak Trail
It wasn’t the first time Comey’s relationship with Richman raised red flags.
In 2017, after Comey’s dismissal by President Trump, Richman became the messenger for one of the most infamous leaks in modern political history. It was Richman who
hand-delivered Comey’s personal memos to The New York Times — memos detailing private conversations with Trump that ultimately helped trigger the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
At the time, Comey defended the move, calling it a moral decision. “I thought it was important for the public to see the contents,” he told Congress.
But now, prosecutors allege that wasn’t the only time Comey used his friend to leak — and that the earlier leaks were not about “Trump,” but about Hillary Clinton.
In short, the new indictment reframes Comey not as a one-time whistleblower, but as a repeat political manipulator who
In fairness, Daniel Richman has long denied any wrongdoing. During the FBI’s 2021 internal probe, Richman told investigators that Comey
But the paper trail tells another story.
Even in redacted form, the FBI documents show that Richman did speak with reporters about
That revelation raises fresh questions about why someone with such clearance would be permitted to act as an off-the-record intermediary to journalists — and whether the information he leaked might have violated federal law.
The DOJ’s indictment doesn’t go that far — yet. But its tone makes clear that prosecutors believe Comey knowingly authorized Richman’s actions and then lied about it under oath.
For years, the name James Comey has hovered like a ghost over American politics — haunting both parties, symbolizing both defiance and distrust.
To Democrats, Comey was once the man who helped derail Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign by publicly announcing a renewed email investigation just days before Election Day. To Republicans, he became the FBI director who turned the bureau into a political tool to undermine Donald Trump.
Now, this indictment — and the unmasking of PERSON 1 and PERSON 3 — ties both legacies together.
Comey’s actions, prosecutors allege, were not the product of loyalty to law or principle but a carefully managed campaign of
And in the process, they say, he broke the very laws he was sworn to uphold.
The specific legal language in the indictment carries enormous weight.
By stating that Comey “willfully and knowingly” lied under oath, the DOJ is signaling that this was
That phrasing mirrors other historic perjury and obstruction cases — including those that took down public figures from Richard Nixon’s aides to Bill Clinton’s associates during the 1990s.
The legal stakes are serious. If convicted, Comey could face up to five years in federal prison per count, along with fines and the permanent loss of his security clearance and professional credentials.
But the political stakes may be even higher.
That Hillary Clinton — the 2016 Democratic nominee and longtime political heavyweight — has now been confirmed as “PERSON 1” in the Comey indictment adds a shocking twist.
For years, Clinton has sought to distance herself from Comey’s actions, often blaming his October 2016 letter to Congress for damaging her campaign at the worst possible moment.
Now, the DOJ is formally acknowledging that Comey’s alleged lies to Congress revolved around his handling of media leaks connected to her FBI investigation.
That revelation reopens old wounds — not just for the Democratic Party but for millions of Americans who never felt they got the full truth about the Clinton email saga.
Within minutes of the ABC report confirming the identities of PERSON 1 and PERSON 3, social media exploded.
Conservatives hailed the news as “vindication,” calling the indictment a long-overdue reckoning for a man they believe turned the FBI into a political weapon.
“Finally. The truth is coming out,” one viral post read. “Comey lied. Clinton benefited. The media helped.”
Meanwhile, most major networks — CNN, MSNBC, even The Washington Post — responded cautiously, opting for terse headlines without commentary. That silence spoke volumes.
Even among Comey’s former allies, few were willing to publicly defend him.
As one former DOJ official told Politico anonymously, “If what’s in that indictment holds up, it’s devastating. You can’t lie to Congress, and you can’t authorize leaks through back channels. This isn’t going away.”
The irony, of course, is that both Hillary Clinton and James Comey were once central players in the same political drama.
Comey’s original investigation into Clinton’s private email server dominated the 2016 campaign. His later firing by Trump became the catalyst for the Russia probe that consumed Trump’s presidency.
Now, almost a decade later, those same two figures — Clinton and Comey — are back in the headlines together, their names linked again under the cold, black ink of a criminal indictment.
The entire saga has come full circle.
What happens next will depend on the courts — but the ripple effects are already being felt across Washington.
Multiple congressional Republicans have called for a full public release of all FBI communications between Comey and Richman, including encrypted messages and phone logs. Others are demanding a review of every classified document Richman accessed during his time as a “Special Government Employee.”
Even some Democrats have privately acknowledged that the optics are “terrible.” One House staffer told reporters, “If it’s true that Comey used his security-cleared friend as a media cutout while denying it to Congress, that’s indefensible. Period.”
James Comey once said that sunlight was “the best disinfectant.” He used that phrase often — in speeches, in interviews, and in testimony — to justify the FBI’s transparency during controversial investigations.
Now, that same sunlight is turning on him.
And with Hillary Clinton confirmed as PERSON 1 and Daniel Richman exposed as PERSON 3, the story he thought he’d buried has come roaring back from the shadows.
The man who once stood before Congress as a self-proclaimed defender of truth and transparency is now accused of concealing both.
And this time, there’s no one left to leak for him.
The latest example of this delicate balance between fervor and accuracy emerged from a television appearance that was intended to deliver a serious constitutional argument about presidential fitness for office. Instead, the segment became a case study in how a fundamental error can overshadow substantive policy concerns and provide ammunition to political opponents eager to question a critic’s competence.
What unfolded reveals not only the challenges facing lawmakers who must navigate complex constitutional processes while under intense media pressure, but also the broader implications of how constitutional illiteracy can undermine legitimate political discourse in an era when every mistake is amplified and weaponized by opposing political forces.
Representative Maxine Waters of California stepped before MSNBC cameras on Friday with a clear mission: to articulate her concerns about President Donald Trump’s fitness for office and call for constitutional action to address what she perceives as dangerous presidential behavior. The veteran congresswoman, known for her passionate advocacy and willingness to take strong stands against policies she opposes, intended to make a serious constitutional argument about the limits of presidential power.
Waters’ appearance was prompted by Trump’s recent decision to dismiss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a move that the California Democrat characterized as both economically dangerous and potentially self-serving. Her concerns about the dismissal centered on its potential impact on monetary policy, interest rates, and the broader economy, issues that fall squarely within her expertise as a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee.
“It is time to call for Article [Amendment] 25 of the Constitution of the United States of America to determine his unfitness, to determine that something’s wrong with this president,” Waters declared during the appearance. “And I would suggest that we move very aggressively to talk about the danger to this country and to our democracy and not play around with this because this is absolutely one of the most destructive things that this president could do.”
However, Waters’ passionate plea was immediately undermined by a fundamental error that would overshadow her substantive concerns about economic policy. By referring to “Article 25” instead of the “25th Amendment,” she demonstrated a basic misunderstanding of constitutional structure that provided her critics with easy ammunition while detracting from her intended message about presidential accountability.
The mistake Waters made reveals a fundamental confusion about the structure and organization of the U.S. Constitution that is particularly problematic for a member of Congress who has sworn an oath to support and defend that document. The Constitution consists of seven articles that establish the basic framework of government, followed by 27 amendments that modify or add to the original text.
Article 25 simply does not exist in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution contains only seven articles: Article I establishes the legislative branch, Article II creates the executive branch, Article III establishes the judicial branch, Article IV governs relationships between states, Article V outlines the amendment process, Article VI establishes federal supremacy, and Article VII addresses ratification.
The 25th Amendment, which Waters clearly intended to reference, was ratified in 1967 and provides mechanisms for addressing presidential incapacity or inability to serve. Section 4 of the amendment allows the Vice President and a majority of cabinet members to declare a president unable to discharge presidential duties, effectively removing the president from power until the situation is resolved.
This distinction matters because it reflects basic constitutional literacy that voters rightfully expect from their elected representatives. When lawmakers demonstrate fundamental confusion about the documents they’ve sworn to uphold, it raises questions about their competence to participate in complex constitutional processes and undermines their credibility when making serious arguments about governmental power and accountability.
Understanding what Waters was attempting to invoke requires examining the 25th Amendment’s actual provisions and the high bar it sets for removing a president from office. The amendment addresses four scenarios related to presidential succession and incapacity, with Section 4 being the most relevant to Waters’ apparent concerns.
Section 4 allows the Vice President and a majority of principal cabinet officers to declare in writing to congressional leadership that the President is unable to discharge presidential duties. This declaration immediately transfers presidential powers to the Vice President as Acting President, but it also triggers a process that allows the President to contest the determination.
If the President contests the incapacity determination, Congress must decide the issue by two-thirds vote in both chambers within 21 days. This extraordinarily high threshold ensures that the 25th Amendment cannot be used as a routine tool for political disagreement but only in cases of genuine presidential incapacity that commands overwhelming bipartisan support.
The amendment has never been used to remove a sitting president, though it has been invoked voluntarily when presidents underwent medical procedures. Its invocation would represent an unprecedented constitutional crisis that would require extraordinary evidence of presidential incapacity beyond mere policy disagreements or concerns about decision-making quality.
While Waters’ constitutional reference was flawed, her underlying concerns about Trump’s dismissal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook touch on legitimate questions about presidential power over monetary policy and potential conflicts of interest. The Federal Reserve System was designed to operate with significant independence from political pressure, and Fed governors serve 14-year terms specifically to insulate them from short-term political considerations.