Previously, we told you that news reports suggested that former FBI Director James Comey was about to be indicted, and last night, those predictions came true. And here, you can read the entirety of the indictment:
CONFIRMED: @Comey INDICTMENT
— Catherine Herridge (@C__Herridge) September 25, 2025
COUNT 1: FALSE STATEMENT
18 USC 1001
"...falsely stating to a US Senator during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he, JAMES B COMEY had not ‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports..’”
COUNT 2:… pic.twitter.com/tdsbMu1wu2
The cut-off text:
COUNT 2: OBSTRUCTION CONGRESS
18 USC 1505
"...did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede..."
If you don’t want to squint, you can pull up a PDF copy of it, here:
Working on a piece, discussing the Comey indictment. You can read it, here: https://t.co/B38b9oWyaW
— (((Aaron Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) September 26, 2025
Essentially, it involves lying to Congress, which can trigger two different statutes—a single act can constitute two crimes simultaneously, and that is what is alleged here. It is not technically perjury, although the difference between perjury and just lying to Congress is very slight—it is whether or not Comey was sworn in or not. Still, the most critical allegation surrounds what he lied about, specifically, claiming that he committed the crime of lying to Congress…
…by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate Judiciaiy Committee hearing that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., had not ‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports’ regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.
2. That statement was false, 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 an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.
And Catherine Herridge thinks she knows exactly what the indictment is talking about:
With the newly declassified records via @FBIDirectorKash into media leaks and the role of third parties,
— Catherine Herridge (@C__Herridge) August 14, 2025
Director Comey’s 2017 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about leaks appears problematic.@ChuckGrassley : Director Comey have you ever been an anonymous source in… pic.twitter.com/i2m6aRFCaj
The cut-off text:
@ChuckGrassley: Director Comey have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?
@Comey: Never
Grassley: Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?
Comey: No
Grassley: Has any classified information relating to President Trump or his associates been declassified and shared with the media?
Comey: Not to my knowledge
Now, a sharp-eyed reader who read this author’s prior post on the possibility of charges against Comey might object and say something like, ‘Isn't the statute of limitations five years? So whatever Comey said in 2017 is outside that period, right?’
And the answer is yes. The statute of limitations has run for his 2017 testimony, but Herridge explains how Senator Ted Cruz forced Comey to repeat his statement on September 30, 2020:
Based on @comey indictment, this appears to be the incriminating exchange from the 2020 congressional testimony with questions from @SenTedCruz
— Catherine Herridge (@C__Herridge) September 25, 2025
"On May 3rd, 2017, in this committee, Chairman @ChuckGrassley asked you point blank, "Have you ever been an anonymous source in news… https://t.co/W6PRn9dnCm
The cut-off text:
‘On May 3rd, 2017, in this committee, Chairman @ChuckGrassley asked you point blank, ‘Have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?’ You responded under oath, ‘Never.’ He then asked you, ‘Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?’ You responded again under oath, ‘No.’ Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who’s telling the truth?
Mr. Comey:
I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.
There are a few key points to note here. First, Herridge clearly identifies Person 1 as President Trump and Person 3 as Andrew McCabe, and if she accurately quotes that congressional testimony, we would say she is almost certainly correct.
Second, we think Cruz was very deliberately setting a trap for Comey. Imagine hypothetically that Comey lied in that 2017 testimony. Obviously, we are usually supposed to give a person a presumption of innocence, but to illustrate how this trap would work, let's assume Comey was lying in that 2017 testimony. Then Comey would be in a true dilemma when Senator Cruz asked him those questions. If he continued his lie, then he would basically be resetting the clock on prosecution for lying to Congress all the way to the end of September of 2025. He might have felt good that Biden was about to win the 2020 election, but there was no way to know who might be president in 2025. However, if he admitted to lying in 2017, he could face prosecution for that prior testimony, as the five-year statute of limitations had not yet passed in 2020, and Trump was still president on that day.
And since Senator Cruz has also worked as a lawyer, we tend to assume that he did that intentionally. We aren’t complaining, mind you, but we think he was very deliberately forcing Comey into exactly that dilemma because Cruz probably believed Comey was lying.
Wouldn’t this be an ongoing conspiracy to defraud and obstruct justice not to mention sedition and high treason?
— Bradley (@BCook2334) September 26, 2025
No, because a conspiracy requires an agreement between two people. One person can lie alone, so it is not facially an allegation of a conspiracy. And of course it is neither sedition or treason, even if the allegations are factual.
So he's being charged based on what this McCade said with no other evidence to support McCabe's claims? I'm on the side of the right but it does not seem like Comey should be charged. Beyond a reasonable doubt based on this?
— will.b.like.a.g☃️👹💀 (@WillieBthaG) September 26, 2025
The indictment doesn’t say it is based solely on McCabe's word. It doesn't tell us what their evidence is at all. Ted Cruz only had McCabe's word in 2020, but it doesn't follow that the indictment is solely based on that evidence. Still, in any trial, a jury is unlikely to convict unless McCabe can be supported by evidence. Otherwise, it is just ‘he said, he said’ and the jury is not likely to believe that is enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But in this age of emails, text messages, and the like, a guilty person is more likely than ever to leave a digital ‘paper trail.’ Even a contemporary memo written by McCabe to himself might bolster any testimony and be sufficient to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Is there any chance a reasonable jury could find him innocent, Catherine?
— Master Chief (@BasedSierra117) September 26, 2025
This seems open and shut
No, at this point, we have not seen any evidence. This author wouldn’t trust Comey further than he could throw him, but right now, the indictment is just a bundle of allegations. They will have to prove those allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
That being said, you might notice that this was in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia. That is more or less what locals call ‘Northern Virginia,’ which is a roundabout way of saying ‘the Virginia side of the greater Washington, D.C. region.’ This is not quite as consumed by liberalism/leftism as Washington, D.C., but it is pretty strongly in that camp. It would be much harder to get an indictment against Comey than oin ther places.
Lmfao
— Miss Norma Jeane 🗽🇺🇸 🏴☠️💋🐾 (@rosanthony3) September 26, 2025
Well then Lindsey Halligan better start planning a new line of work because Ted Cruz was wrong @C__Herridge
Sorry Linz but your law license is on borrowed time https://t.co/65C6Y6twgo
One person linked to a thread in an attempt to rebut the charges against Comey, and we found it interesting enough to confront it:
Comey's testimony in 2020
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) September 25, 2025
On left:
In hearing, Senator Cruz erroneously claimed McCabe had said Comey "directly authorized" leak to press. Comey denied that.
On right:
McCabe did not say Comey authorized the leak (source: Inspector General Report, on which Cruz relies) pic.twitter.com/UzXaiftdab
2/ Grassley's question to Comey in 2017 focused on authorization.
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) September 25, 2025
(In 2020, Comey testified that he stands by his 2017 testimony.)
So, Comey should be able to stand on that as being truthful and consistent with McCabe's account.
Grassley: "have you ever authorized..."⤵️ pic.twitter.com/EzMu71HPnA
3/ Also note the discrepancy in Cruz's letter to DOJ making criminal referral.
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) September 25, 2025
On left:
At hearing, Cruz asked Comey whether he was aware AND authorized the leak
On right:
Cruz letter to DOJ falsely frames it as Comey testifying he NEITHER was aware NOR authorized the leak. pic.twitter.com/ZQ3FnE1vxD
4/ Cruz also appears to fudge it in letter to DOJ.
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) September 25, 2025
He described McCabe as having said Comey "approved—effectively authorizing the leak after the fact."
What is that?? Comey supposed to know that's meaning of authorized? And when McCabe had his own authority to disclose. pic.twitter.com/hE5mIhcvCn
Which prompted this response:
That’s nice, but later emails surfaced showing that Comey routinely authorized leaks. That makes his answer false. The specific McCabe matter is irrelevant, because Comey testified to the GENERAL claim that he never authorized leaks, and that was false.
— Thomas Brookside (@thomasbrookside) September 26, 2025
We are not sure if Brookside is being accurate, but we find it interesting. We will also note that an OIG report characterizing what someone testified to is not the same as their actual testimony and probably wouldn’t even be admitted into evidence. In other words, the testimony that the report relied on is probably admissible, but not a report characterizing the testimony, if the courts only apply the best evidence rule and the rule against hearsay. And frankly, the first pictured page actually sounds more ambiguous than Mr. Goodman seems to think. We would be curious to know exactly what McCabe said.
Should he be held accountable for this? pic.twitter.com/ooItdUoBCV
— K Moyer (@kmoyer63) September 26, 2025
We were always horrified by reports that the prosecutors allegedly used the threat to prosecute Flynn's son as leverage to win a plea deal, and we believe it should be a crime for any prosecutor to do so. Still, if any crime occurred related to the prosecution of Flynn, it is almost certainly too late to do anything about it, unless someone found a way to extend the statute of limitations. Paging Ted Cruz…?
Comey and McCabe…😳😳😳 pic.twitter.com/BQXDo9cULt
— j maguire III (@maguireIII) September 26, 2025
He didn't lie about the authorization.
— 3rdPrizeIsYou'reFired (@DadtoendallDads) September 26, 2025
This is splitting hairs and this case will fall apart quickly.
We should presume innocence, of course, but we don’t know how anyone can say that they know for sure Comey was definitely telling the truth.
Here’s a lawyer tip for you.
— Political Sock (@politicalsock) September 26, 2025
If you’re wanting to build a secure answer for cross examination, consider two questions:
1. “Have you ever authorized someone else AT THE FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?"… https://t.co/1jWcge6FUe
The cut-off text:
2. “Have you ever authorized SOMEONE ELSE to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?"
Question 1 is what Comey was actually asked.
— Political Sock (@politicalsock) September 26, 2025
If he used a cutout to leak information to the press, but the cutout was NOT part of the FBI, then he could technically answer “no” to question 1 truthfully.
That is true, but we agree with Herridge that McCabe is almost certainly person 3 in the indictment. But he is right to say Cruz made a harmless error in his wording.
We only need one count to freeze that bastard in perpetual legal bills.
— Izzypapa (@izzzypapa) September 26, 2025
He will rat on the gang eventually.
That is who Comey is. Weak. https://t.co/jK74lqRpPG
We get a bad feeling that Comey will get free legal representation.
I don't care if he's convicted or not.
— Angela 🌻 (@anglily1) September 26, 2025
The process is the punishment.
Eat it, Comey. Choke on it. https://t.co/bvI9Ehb1HT
It was almost certainly part of the plan in indicting Trump four times just in time for campaign season.
Finally:
Thank you @SenTedCruz for not letting that sleaze-ball wiggle his way out of answering the question directly.
— Grazia Xuereb (@GraziaXuereb) September 26, 2025
Yep, if Comey goes down, Ted Cruz will deserve a chunk of the credit.
RELATED: WATCH: Trump Tells the Press What the President of Somalia Said About Ilhan Omar (LOL)
WATCH: James Comey to Be Indicted Says ... MSNBC? And CNN?
WATCH: Trump’s Second Would-Be Assassin Allegedly Responds Violently to the Guilty Verdict
BREAKING: Tulsi Gabbard Blows Open Russiagate With Document Dump
BREAKING: An NYT Interview With Biden Just Undermined Thousands of His Late Pardons (A Deep Dive)
‘First Do No Harm:’ Fisking John Oliver on the Transgender/Sports Issue
Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at Twitchy, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.
Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. Join Twitchy VIP today and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member