(Zero Hedge)—A Clinton-appointed federal judge in Washington has stepped into the James Comey saga with an order that effectively tells the FBI to wipe a key evidentiary trail tied to the former director’s obstruction case, and to do it quickly. The move drops the Justice Department into a separation-of-powers storm at the same time it is trying to salvage its prosecution of the man who helped ignite the Trump-Russia hoax.
Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted in September on charges of making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding, stemming from his 2020 testimony about Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The indictment alleged that Comey lied when he denied authorizing anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source for media reports damaging to Donald Trump, and that he used Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman as an outside conduit to leak material while Richman simultaneously worked as a government contractor. Emails between the two are critical to the case against Comey.
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Bill Clinton appointee, dismissed the indictments against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James last month, ruling that the appointment of Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who pursued the charges, was unconstitutional, and thus the indictments were invalid.
Six years ago, a warrant approved by Judge James Boasberg allowed the FBI to seize Richman’s devices.
Today, another Clinton-appointed judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, has ordered the FBI to destroy the emails by 4 p.m. on Monday. According to Michael R. Davis, the founder and president of the Article III Project, the ruling “threatens the separation of powers essential to the Republic, and either the D.C. Circuit or Supreme Court must intervene immediately.
Richman, who is not charged in the case and has no standing as a defendant, filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) to reclaim those emails, arguing that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Rule 41(g) typically allows individuals to ask a court to return property obtained in an unlawful search.
Still, its use here departs from legal norms because Richman is not the target of the prosecution, and Comey himself lacks standing to challenge the warrant executed on Richman’s accounts. Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted the motion and, on December 13, ordered the Justice Department to return all data seized from Richman, concluding that prosecutors handled the material with “callous disregard” for Richman’s rights and had improperly used it to indict Comey. She directed that a copy of the emails be delivered to Biden-appointed Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is presiding over the Comey case in the Eastern District of Virginia, but even with that copy preserved, the ruling bars the FBI and prosecutors from reviewing these emails as they pursue a new indictment.
“This salvation of a copy of the emails, however, does not lessen the impact of Kollar-Kotelly’s horrible ruling,” explains Davis.
“The FBI and the prosecution will be unable to review them in their efforts to seek a new indictment if Currie’s dismissal ruling survives on appeal.”
The statute-of-limitations law allows the government only six months after an indictment’s dismissal, suspended during the appellate process, to seek a new indictment. The inability to view this evidence would substantially increase the time necessary to seek an indictment. Even if a higher court reverses Currie, the government’s inability to review the emails to use as evidence and prepare for trial would massively hamper its case.
Kollar-Kotelly’s decision raises grave separation-of-powers concerns because it involves a judge outside the criminal case, and outside the district where it is pending, ordering the destruction of evidence that was lawfully obtained.
Usually, Rule 41(g) comes into play where a defendant has had property wrongly seized, and he moves to reclaim it,” Davis explains. “Here, Comey is not seeking to reclaim anything; Richman, a then-government contractor with whom Comey communicated extensively about government business, is seeking this evidence. Richman has run to a partisan Democrat judge not even involved in the criminal case — and not even in the same district — to procure the destruction of crucial evidence in that case in an obvious effort to assist his friend Comey.”
Ordinarily, the judge presiding over the criminal case decides whether to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment, not a different judge in another district using a third party as a vehicle to attack the warrant.
Comey cannot challenge the warrant against Richman because he lacks standing to do so. Incredibly, Kollar-Kotelly suggested that Richman could move to quash this evidence in Virginia. She’s going way out of her way to help Comey. Judges presiding over cases often have excluded evidence against defendants as having been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is, however, extraordinary for a different judge — especially in a different district — to interfere in and dramatically hamper the prosecution’s case based on a claim by a third party of a wrongful search and seizure, especially when the evidence the government wishes to use consists of communications between that third party and the defendant — a defendant who was a senior government official.
The episode fits within a broader pattern in which left-leaning judges have allowed or intensified lawfare against President Trump and his allies while taking steps to shield alleged lawfare perpetrators, such as Comey, from accountability.
“If higher courts do not reign in these rogue judges, Congress must do so through oversight, withholding of funds from judicial appropriations, and impeachment,” argues Davis. “A system where the judiciary enables lawfare and then shields its perpetrators from legal consequences is unsustainable, and higher courts must put a stop to it.”
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.