playlist thumnail

Richman v. United States

3 videos
Updated 5 days ago
Just days after United States v. Comey was dismissed for Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan being unlawfully appointed, Daniel Richman, who is Person 3 from the indictment in the Comey case, filed a civil case against the DOJ. Richman wants the property seized pursuant to the four Arctic Haze search warrants that were executed on him years ago returned and/or deleted and the government to be restricted from using any of it. The materials gathered during that investigation became the source of much of the evidence in the now dismissed Comey case, and if prosecutors are going to refile that case, they will need these materials. On the surface, this appears to be a case meant to delay or gum up any DOJ effort to refile against Comey. And that may be all that it is. Richman does not NEED the materials back. They are just copies/images of his PC hard drive, iCloud account, iPhone and iPad devices, and his email accounts from years ago. But could more than that be going on here? And could an adverse ruling actually cement the DOJ's retention of and access to the seized materials? The only way to find out is to read the documents.
  1. Richman v. United States—Judge's Memo & New Orders, DOJ ask for Clarity, and I Take Rabbit Trails
    56:14
  2. Richman v. United States—DOJ Opposition & Judge's Order
    37:19
  3. Intro to Richman v. United States—Motion for Return of Property & TRO
    53:53
Rumble logo