Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Attempt to Restrict Comey's Evidence Access

 October 14, 2025

Hold onto your hats, folks—a federal judge just dropped a bombshell by rejecting the Department of Justice’s attempt to keep sensitive evidence under wraps in the case against former FBI Director James Comey.

In a ruling that’s got the legal world buzzing, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff ordered prosecutors to hand over all required discovery materials to Comey’s defense team, despite the DOJ’s push for restrictions, while Comey stands accused of making false statements and obstructing congressional proceedings during his 2020 Senate testimony, as Newsmax reports.

This saga kicked off when Comey entered a not guilty plea to charges tied to his testimony before the Senate, setting the stage for a high-stakes trial in Alexandria, Virginia, come January 5, 2026.

Judge Stands Firm on Discovery Deadline

As the case unfolded, Comey’s legal team raised alarms over delays in receiving critical evidence, pushing for full access to build their defense.

Prosecutors, however, weren’t keen on playing open book, arguing for a protective order to limit what Comey and his team could see or keep, citing the “law enforcement sensitive” nature of materials like internal communications, private emails, and text messages.

The DOJ’s stance was clear—they wanted access restricted to just Comey’s lawyers and a select few, but let’s be honest, that smells like a convenient way to control the narrative in a case already dripping with political undertones.

DOJ’s Protective Order Bid Falls Flat

Enter Judge Nachmanoff, appointed under a previous administration, who didn’t bite on the DOJ’s request and instead mandated that all discovery be turned over by a strict 5 p.m. deadline on Monday.

He even shot down the idea of staggered deadlines for challenges, showing he’s not here for bureaucratic games when a man’s freedom—facing up to five years if convicted—is on the line.

Now, the judge did toss a warning shot, noting that if both sides can’t hash out terms for a protective order by the deadline, a hearing will be scheduled faster than you can say “courtroom drama.”

Comey’s Defense Pushes Back Hard

Comey’s legal team wasn’t shy about pushing back, arguing that suggesting their client can’t be trusted with sensitive data “controverts his long career of distinguished government service.”

That’s a fair jab—after all, this is a man who’s handled classified info at the highest levels, so the DOJ’s distrust feels more like a political jab than a legitimate concern.

On the flip side, prosecutors countered with, “Both the defendant and the government have an interest in a fair trial with impartial jurors making decisions based only on the evidence that is part of the record.”

Fair Trial or Political Theater?

Sure, prosecutors want a fair trial—who doesn’t?—but their insistence on limiting evidence access hints at a deeper fear of what might come to light, especially in a case so tied to Washington’s power struggles.

Let’s not kid ourselves: this isn’t just about legal nitty-gritty; it’s about a broader clash between government overreach and individual rights, a tension conservatives have been sounding the alarm on for years against progressive oversteps.

As this case barrels toward trial, it’s a stark reminder that justice must cut through the fog of politics, and Judge Nachmanoff’s ruling is a small but significant win for transparency over bureaucratic stonewalling.