It was late September 2025 when the news broke, and honestly, it felt like a time warp. A federal grand jury in Virginia had just indicted former FBI Director James Comey on two counts: making a false statement and obstructing a congressional proceeding. For anyone who’s followed the dizzying saga of the 2016 election investigations, the "Russia thing," and the various Inspector General reports, this felt like the final, messy chapter.
But let’s be real—trying to figure out what James Comey actually lied about under oath is like trying to untangle a bowl of cold spaghetti. There’s a lot of partisan noise, some very specific legal jargon, and a whole lot of "he said, she said."
Basically, the 2025 indictment boils down to one specific moment from a 2020 Senate hearing. It’s not about the memos he wrote or the firing itself. It’s about a very narrow question regarding leaks.
The 2020 Testimony: The Moment Everything Changed
The core of the legal trouble centers on James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 30, 2020. During that hearing, Senator Ted Cruz was digging into how the FBI handled sensitive information.
Cruz basically asked Comey if he had ever authorized someone at the FBI to be an anonymous source for news reports about the bureau's investigations into either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
Comey’s answer? A flat "No."
The Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi in 2025, alleged that this was a lie. They claimed he did authorize someone to act as an anonymous source. Specifically, the indictment points toward an October 2016 article in The Wall Street Journal. That article was about the DOJ’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails—the infamous Weiner laptop discovery that upended the final days of the 2016 campaign.
The Andrew McCabe Connection
You can’t talk about Comey’s "lies" without talking about his former number two, Andrew McCabe. Back in 2017, Comey told investigators he didn't authorize McCabe to talk to the press about the Clinton email investigation. However, a later Inspector General report found that McCabe did disclose information to the Journal and claimed that Comey knew about it.
This created a massive discrepancy.
💡 You might also like: Air Pollution Index Delhi: What Most People Get Wrong
Comey says: "I didn't authorize it."
McCabe says: "He knew I was doing it."
In the 2020 hearing, when Cruz asked him to stand by his 2017 testimony, Comey said he did. The 2025 indictment argues that by reaffirming that "no," Comey committed perjury because the government believes they have proof he actually green-lit the disclosure.
The "Memos" and the Daniel Richman Leak
Wait, didn't he admit to leaking? Sorta.
In June 2017, Comey famously testified that he gave the contents of his personal memos (detailing his meetings with Trump) to a friend—Columbia Law professor Daniel Richman. He did this specifically to prompt the appointment of a Special Counsel.
Now, while the Inspector General later slammed him for this, saying it violated FBI policy, he wasn't charged with lying about it. Why? Because he admitted it under oath. He was upfront about the fact that he used an intermediary to get the story out.
The legal distinction here is vital:
- The Richman Memo: He admitted to this. No "lie" under oath, just a policy violation.
- The WSJ Article: He denied authorizing this. The DOJ claims this was the lie.
Was it Perjury or Just a Bad Memory?
Comey’s defense team, led by Patrick Fitzgerald, hasn't been quiet. They argue that Senator Cruz’s questions were "fundamentally ambiguous."
If a lawyer asks a vague question, and the witness gives a technically true but narrow answer, is it a lie? That’s what the courts have been wrestling with. Comey’s team argues that he understood the question to be about specific types of "anonymous sourcing" or specific people, and that his "No" was literally true in his mind.
📖 Related: Why Trump's West Point Speech Still Matters Years Later
Also, we’re talking about events from 2016 being discussed in 2020. Human memory is notoriously garbage. Proving that Comey "willfully and knowingly" lied—rather than just being mistaken or confused by a crafty Senator—is a high bar for prosecutors.
The Inspector General’s "Lack of Candor" Findings
Long before the 2025 indictment, the DOJ’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, had already issued a scathing report. While that report didn't initially lead to charges, it provided the "receipts" that critics use to claim Comey lied.
The IG report noted that Comey was "insubordinate" in his handling of the Clinton email announcement. It also highlighted instances where his recollection didn't quite line up with the documentation or the testimony of other FBI officials. For example, the IG found that Comey’s decision to hide his press conference plans from his bosses at the DOJ was a breach of protocol, even if Comey claimed he did it to "protect" the institution.
What Really Happened With the Weiner Laptop?
One of the most persistent accusations is that Comey misled Congress about the timing of the Hillary Clinton email discovery on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.
In May 2017, Comey told the Senate that "hundreds and thousands" of emails had been forwarded to the laptop. The FBI later had to send a "correction" letter to Congress, clarifying that the actual number of forwarded emails was much smaller and that most were just backups.
Critics called it a lie. Supporters called it an honest mistake by a director who was briefed on broad strokes, not every single data packet. Regardless, it added to the narrative that Comey's testimony wasn't always airtight.
The 2025 Indictment: Political Retribution or Justice?
It’s impossible to ignore the context of the 2025 charges. They landed just as President Trump was publicly calling for the prosecution of his "political enemies."
Because of this, the case is incredibly polarized. One side sees a "dirty cop" finally getting what’s coming to him for misleading the public. The other side sees the "weaponization" of the DOJ to punish a whistleblower who stood up to the President.
👉 See also: Johnny Somali AI Deepfake: What Really Happened in South Korea
The grand jury vote itself was unusually close—reportedly only 14 out of 23 jurors voted to indict. That suggests even a room full of people seeing the evidence found it to be a "gray area" case.
Summary of Alleged "Lies"
To keep it simple, here is the breakdown of what the 2025 indictment and historical critics point to:
- Authorization of Leaks: Denying that he authorized FBI employees to talk to the Wall Street Journal as anonymous sources in 2016.
- The McCabe Knowledge: Claiming he didn't know or approve of Andrew McCabe’s disclosures to the press.
- The "Memos" Timeline: Discrepancies regarding when he shared his memos with Daniel Richman versus when the media already had the info.
- The Email Count: Providing inaccurate numbers regarding Huma Abedin’s emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.
Actionable Insights: How to Cut Through the Noise
If you’re trying to follow this case or talk about it without losing your mind, keep these three things in mind:
1. Watch the Verbs. When someone says Comey "leaked," ask what they mean. He admitted to sharing his own personal memos (unclassified). He denied authorizing official FBI "leaks." These are different things legally.
2. Follow the "Lack of Candor" Standard. In the FBI, "lack of candor" is a specific term for being less than 100% honest. You can be fired for "lack of candor" even if you aren't charged with "perjury." Much of what people call "lies" fall into this administrative category rather than the criminal one.
3. Check the Source Dates. A lot of the confusion comes from mixing up 2017 testimony, 2018 IG reports, 2020 Senate hearings, and 2025 indictments. Always check when he said something and what specific investigation he was talking about.
The trial, set for the Eastern District of Virginia, will likely be the only place where the "truth" is finally hammered out—or at least where a jury decides if a "No" was a lie or just a really bad day at the office.
Next Steps: You might want to look up the 2019 OIG report on James Comey’s handling of memos, which provides the foundational evidence for how he managed sensitive information outside of official channels.