A Columbia law professor, closely tied to former FBI Director James Comey, has landed in the crosshairs of a federal probe that could spell trouble for the embattled ex-official.

According to ABC News, Daniel Richman, a friend and adviser to Comey, was subpoenaed last week by prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of a criminal investigation into whether Comey misled Congress during testimony.

This development revives scrutiny of Comey’s actions following his 2017 firing by President Donald Trump, a move sparked by Trump’s frustration over the FBI’s probe into his 2016 campaign. The saga, steeped in political tension, now pulls Richman, a key intermediary, into the spotlight.

Richman’s Role in the Memo Controversy

Richman has openly admitted to acting as a go-between for Comey and the press, notably sharing content from Comey’s memos about his interactions with Trump with a New York Times reporter. These memos became a lightning rod, with Trump accusing Comey of illegally disclosing classified information.

Richman, however, pushed back in a statement to ABC News, asserting that none of the documents bore classification markings. His defense raises questions about whether the outrage over the leaks was more about political score-settling than genuine security concerns.

The timing of this subpoena, tied to Comey’s September 2020 congressional testimony about the Russia investigation, suggests prosecutors are digging into whether his statements under oath hold water. It’s a thread that could unravel more than just one man’s credibility if discrepancies are found.

Meeting with Prosecutors and Past Scrutiny

Sources confirm Richman met with federal prosecutors in Virginia on Tuesday, though details of the discussion remain under wraps. Neither Richman’s attorney nor Comey’s legal counsel offered immediate comment to ABC News, leaving the public to speculate on the meeting’s outcome.

Comey, for his part, has consistently defended his handling of the Russia probe, insisting no political bias against Trump influenced his decisions. Yet, a prior Justice Department inspector general report criticized him for breaching FBI policies with the memo affair, even if the DOJ under Trump’s first term opted not to press charges.

That earlier pass on prosecution doesn’t mean the book is closed, especially when trust in institutions is already on thin ice. If this probe gains traction, it could reignite debates over accountability at the highest levels of law enforcement.

Political Undertones of the Investigation

The investigation’s focus on Comey’s congressional testimony feels like a delayed reckoning for a figure who became a polarizing symbol during the 2016 election fallout. With Trump’s accusations of lawbreaking still echoing, this subpoena to Richman hints at a deeper effort to hold Comey’s feet to the fire.

Critics of Comey argue his actions, from the memo leaks to his public statements, eroded public faith in the FBI’s impartiality, a wound that festers in an era of rampant distrust. Supporters, however, might see this as a politically motivated witch hunt, designed to distract from larger issues.

Whichever side you take, the lack of comment from the Justice Department only fuels suspicion about the probe’s intent. Transparency here isn’t just a courtesy; it’s a necessity to avoid the perception of weaponized justice.

Broader Implications for Public Trust

As this case unfolds, it’s hard to ignore the shadow it casts over the integrity of federal investigations, especially those tangled with political heavyweights. Comey’s tenure as FBI director was marked by decisions that pleased few and angered many, and this latest chapter might cement his legacy as a lightning rod.

Richman’s involvement, though seemingly peripheral, underscores how personal loyalties can complicate matters of national consequence. The question isn’t just whether Comey fibbed to Congress, but whether the system can still deliver answers without the taint of partisan agendas.

For now, the public watches as another layer of the Comey saga peels back, revealing the messy intersection of law, politics, and personal ties. If nothing else, this probe serves as a reminder that no one, not even former top cops, is above scrutiny when the stakes are this high.