James Comey case: Ex-special counsel John Durham undercut case against James Comey in interview with prosecutors: Sources

John Durham, the former special counsel who spent nearly four years examining the origins of the FBI investigation into President Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and its alleged ties to Russia, told federal prosecutors investigating James Comey that he was unable to uncover evidence that would support false statements or obstruction charges against the former FBI director, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

Federal prosecutors in Virginia met remotely with Durham in August to understand the findings of his investigation, according to sources familiar with the meeting, and his conclusions raise the prospect that Durham -- who was once elevated by Trump and other Republicans believing he would prosecute high-level officials involved with the investigation of the president's 2016 campaign -- could now become a key figure aiding Comey's defense.

The prosecutors also met with a team of lawyers at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., who had investigated Comey for years -- including calling him to testify before a grand jury in 2021 -- but were unable to identify any chargeable offenses committed by Comey, sources familiar with the meeting said.

[Virginia prosecutors also came to the same conclusion, and hence the firings.]

Justice Department defends Trump's post as it urges judge to reject Comey's effort to dismiss case​

I mean, I'm not sure what else we could expect DOJ to do.

Prosecutors defended President Donald Trump’s September social media post demanding that action be taken in the Comey investigation, contending it reflects “legitimate prosecutorial motive” and is no basis to dismiss the indictment accusing Comey of lying to Congress in 2020.

Are presidents prosecutors now? The number of firings at DOJ for people who don't do what Trump tells them to do suggests that experienced prosecutors don't see these cases the same way as the President.

'Indict first, investigate second': Judge questions DOJ in Comey case​

A federal magistrate judge on Wednesday sharply questioned the Justice Department's handling of evidence in its criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, describing prosecutors' conduct as "highly unusual" and indicative of a rushed effort to indict Comey while potentially violating his constitutional rights.

Comey's attorneys raised separate concerns that by using those materials at all, the government may have violated Comey's rights -- not just by reviewing potentially privileged information, but also by revisiting evidence obtained by warrants that would now be considered stale.

Judge Fitzpatrick appeared to agree with those concerns during Wednesday's hearing, as he repeatedly pressed Assistant U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons over what materials the government had reviewed and why the disputes over privilege were not settled during the more than five years that the government had those communications in its possession

Judge orders grand jury material to be given to Comey, citing "disturbing pattern" of DOJ missteps​

The judge recognized the magnitude of his decision to allow Comey's lawyers access to the grand jury material, which is typically kept secret, writing in a scathing 24-page decision that he is granting an "extraordinary remedy" to fully protect Comey's legal rights. Fitzpatrick said such a step is warranted because of "the prospect that government misconduct may have tainted the grand jury proceedings."

At a hearing earlier this month, Fitzpatrick admonished the Justice Department for what he said is its posture to "indict first, investigate second." (post #3)

Fitzpatrick himself reviewed the grand jury materials and wrote in his decision that he identified two statements Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, made to the grand jurors that "on their face appear to be fundamental misstatements of the law that could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process."

Fitzpatrick said one statement Halligan made to the grand jury "suggests" that Comey does not have a constitutional right to not testify at trial. The second remark from Halligan suggested that the grand jury "did not have to rely on only the record before them" and that there was "more evidence — perhaps better evidence" that the Justice Department had that would be used at trial, the judge said.

Lots more hinky stuff in full article.