DOJ appeals judge’s order blocking evidence in Comey case

Dec. 10 (UPI) — The Justice Department has appealed a federal judge’s order blocking prosecutors from using evidence to bring a second indictment against former FBI Director James Comey.

In a court filing Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, prosecutors said Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly’s temporary restraining order issued Monday “has effectively enjoined the government from investigating and potentially prosecuting Comey.”

A friend of Comey’s, attorney Daniel Richman, sought the restraining order to prevent prosecutors from using evidence he said was gathered illegally from his devices during a previous investigation looking into a possible national security leak. No indictments came of that probe, CNN reported.

Now, the Justice Department seeks to use the evidence it gathered as part of a case charging Comey with lying to and obstructing Congress as to whether he leaked information about a 2016 investigation into President Donald Trump to the media through Richman.

Most of the evidence from the case was based on emails and other information from Richman’s laptop. The judge said the evidence hadn’t been legally approved to be used in the current Comey investigation.

Prosecutors said Richman’s request for a temporary restraining order shouldn’t be able to derail a criminal prosecution, CNN reported.

Richman’s “motion is not designed to secure the return of property that he needs or wants,” federal prosecutors said in their filing Tuesday. “It is a strategic tool to obstruct the investigation and potential prosecution of James Comey.”

Richman’s lawyers said Wednesday that the Justice Department’s latest filing shows the government doesn’t care about following the law.

“The government has a vast trove of Professor Richman’s personal and professional data and no lawful basis to retain in,” they said, according to The Hill.

“Tellingly, the government does not seriously argue that it did not violate Professor Richman’s Fourth Amendment rights. Rather, it claims that the court must disregard its repeated Fourth Amendment violations because it needs the fruits of those violations to prosecute James Comey.