💥 SHOCKWAVE ERUPTS: TRUMP DOJ GUTTED WITH A DEVASTATING NEW RULING — A SECRET LEGAL MELTDOWN ROCKS WASHINGTON AND EXPOSES A BREWING POWER SHOWDOWN ⚡

WASHINGTON — A federal judge’s sharply worded order blocking prosecutors from using evidence taken from James Comey’s longtime friend and legal adviser has thrown a central pillar of the government’s case into doubt and renewed scrutiny of how investigators handled politically sensitive searches during both Trump administrations.

The ruling, issued last week by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court in Washington, concluded that the government likely violated constitutional protections when it retained and later searched a complete copy of Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman’s personal computer. Richman, who previously served as Comey’s outside legal adviser during his tenure as FBI director, was at the center of the now-faltering prosecution of Comey for allegedly authorizing an improper leak.

“The court concludes that petitioner Richman is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that the government has violated his Fourth Amendment right,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote, citing the retention of “a complete copy of all files on his personal computer” and subsequent searches carried out without a valid warrant.

The order is temporary — structured in such a way that it will dissolve once the government submits its formal response — but legal experts say its framing makes it nearly impossible for prosecutors to appeal it at this stage. The tactical maneuver, they say, reflects a growing trend in how federal judges are managing disputes involving Trump 2.0 cases before the Roberts Court, which has repeatedly used emergency procedures to intervene in politically charged matters.

A Search That Went Far Beyond Its Warrant

Richman’s computer was first seized in 2021 under a warrant narrowly authorizing investigators to search for evidence related to potential leaks of classified information. But according to Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor who has reviewed public filings, investigators combed through far more material than the warrant permitted — and then kept the data long after the initial inquiry fizzled.

“Under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, once a search yields nothing, you’re supposed to return or destroy what you collected,” Epner said in an interview. “Instead, they retained the entire image of his computer for years.”

Then, when prosecutors sought to revive leak-related charges in a second Trump administration, they returned to the archived material rather than seeking a fresh warrant supported by new probable cause.

“That is the core problem,” Epner said. “They treated previously seized data as a kind of evergreen source of evidence, which the Fourth Amendment absolutely does not allow.”

Potential Violations of Attorney-Client Privilege

Compounding the legal complications, investigators allegedly failed to establish a so-called “taint team” — a group of independent Justice Department lawyers tasked with filtering out attorney-client communications before prosecutors review seized material.

Richman had acted as Comey’s personal lawyer during the tumultuous period following Comey’s dismissal by President Donald J. Trump. That relationship made careful screening essential. Yet according to filings discussed in court, investigators did not implement a taint team until after reviewing substantial portions of the material themselves.

Even then, Epner noted, the taint attorney did not maintain strict separation. “Rather than keeping privileged information quarantined, he reported it — even if ‘in general terms’ — to the prosecution team,” Epner said. “That can be fatal. Anyone who sees privileged material typically has to be disqualified.”

Together, these allegations amount to what Epner described as “a turducken of Fourth Amendment violations with a Sixth Amendment problem on top,” referring to the constitutional right to counsel.

A Case With a Fragile Foundation

The government’s theory hinges on the claim that Comey authorized Richman to disclose details to the press — a charge prosecutors contend contradicts Comey’s 2020 congressional testimony. But even that theory has shown signs of strain.

Comey was asked whether he had authorized any current FBI officials to leak. Richman was not a government employee at the time, a distinction that could undermine the prosecution’s central allegation. “It is already a tenuous case,” Epner said. “Without the Richman evidence, they effectively have no case at all.”

Former federal judge William Fitzpatrick previously called the search of Richman’s materials the “centerpiece” of the Comey investigation.

A Strategic Ruling Designed to Resist Appeal

Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s order has drawn attention for its unusual structure. By making the injunction temporary and explicitly dissolvable the moment the government files its counterarguments, the judge effectively blocked the prosecution from appealing to the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court.

“An appellate court would say there’s nothing to review because the very act of appealing would moot the order,” Epner explained. “It’s a way of insulating the ruling from the shadow docket.”

Legal observers say the approach reflects a broader shift among federal judges, who have increasingly crafted orders with built-in protections against emergency reversals amid concerns about Supreme Court intervention in politically charged cases.

Uncertain Future for a High-Profile Prosecution

For now, the Justice Department must decide whether to continue pursuing a case whose evidentiary foundation has been shaken. Without the disputed computer files, prosecutors may have little basis to proceed.

“If they don’t have the Richman evidence, they don’t have a case. Period,” Epner said.

The government is expected to file its response in the coming days, but Judge Kollar-Kotelly has already signaled that she will then reconsider the matter on a full evidentiary record — a process that could extend well into next year.

What is already clear, legal analysts say, is that the ruling has become a significant moment in the evolving judicial landscape of Trump-era litigation, one that may have far-reaching implications for search practices and attorney-client protections in politically sensitive investigations.