By: Russ Spencer

The Justice Department is weighing whether to indict former FBI Director James Comey for perjury, according to a report on Wednesday at Fox News Digital, in a development that could mark a dramatic escalation in the long-running controversy over the FBI’s handling of the 2016 Russia probe. With the statutory five-year deadline for bringing charges set to expire next week, prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia are said to be in the final stages of deliberation.

The focus of the case, as reported by Fox News Digital, is Comey’s testimony before Congress on September 30, 2020. Lawmakers at the time pressed him on his role in overseeing the FBI’s investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. The central question now under review by federal prosecutors is whether Comey provided false or misleading statements under oath, an offense that carries potential criminal penalties if proven.

Under federal law, prosecutors must bring charges for perjury within five years of the alleged offense. That deadline falls on Tuesday, leaving only days for the Justice Department to decide whether to proceed with an indictment. Sources told Fox News Digital that a grand jury is already reviewing evidence in Virginia, with an announcement expected imminently.

“The Department of Justice is close to deciding whether to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress in September 2020,” one source familiar with the matter told the outlet. “A decision could come any day.”

The possible indictment of a former FBI director—an exceedingly rare event in American history—would reverberate across Washington, reopening bitter debates over the FBI’s credibility, the politicization of intelligence, and the legitimacy of the Trump-era “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

For years, President Trump and his allies have argued that Comey misused his office to undermine his presidency. Trump has consistently accused Comey and other intelligence officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, of orchestrating a partisan campaign under the guise of national security.

Speaking to reporters this past summer, Trump lashed out at the former officials, calling them “very dishonest people” and “crooked as hell.” He added bluntly: “Maybe they have to pay a price for that.”

The roots of the current inquiry stretch back to the most divisive scandal of the Trump presidency: the Russia investigation. The FBI launched the Crossfire Hurricane probe in 2016 to examine potential coordination between members of Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives. That investigation, which was later handed off to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, produced no evidence of a criminal conspiracy, though it did document a range of contacts between campaign figures and Russian intermediaries.

Trump, citing those conclusions, has long characterized the investigation as a “Russia hoax” and a “rigged witch hunt.” As Fox News Digital has often noted in its coverage, the episode profoundly shaped U.S. politics, eroding public trust in institutions and souring relations between Washington and Moscow.

In 2019, amid mounting criticism of the FBI’s handling of the case, the Justice Department appointed Special Counsel John Durham to investigate whether bureau officials had abused their authority. Durham ultimately brought charges against three lower-level FBI employees. Although his final report detailed serious missteps—including failures in vetting sources and misrepresentations to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court—it concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge senior leadership figures such as Comey with criminal misconduct.

Nevertheless, the Durham findings reinforced Republican claims that the FBI’s leadership, under Comey, was negligent at best and politically motivated at worst.

According to the information provided in the Fox News Digital report, the current inquiry zeroes in on inconsistencies between Comey’s congressional testimony and internal records about the FBI’s decision-making during the Russia probe. While it remains unclear which specific statements are under review, perjury statutes require prosecutors to prove that a witness knowingly provided false information under oath about a material matter.

The burden of proof is high. Former Justice Department officials have cautioned that perjury prosecutions, especially those involving prominent figures, can be difficult to sustain. Juries must be persuaded that the witness’s misstatements were not the product of faulty memory, ambiguity, or misunderstanding, but intentional deceit.

Yet the mere fact that a grand jury has been empaneled signals that prosecutors believe they have evidence worth presenting. “This isn’t something the Department would entertain lightly,” one former federal prosecutor told Fox News Digital. “For a case like this to get this far, it suggests they believe they have something substantial.”

The looming decision arrives in a fraught political climate. Trump has repeatedly demanded accountability for politically motivated attacks against him. The potential indictment of Comey, the man he fired in May 2017, would be seized upon by Trump’s supporters as long-overdue vindication.

Democrats, meanwhile, are likely to view the case as an attempt to relitigate partisan battles from the past. Some legal analysts, speaking to Fox News Digital, have already warned that moving forward could further politicize the Justice Department.

Still, the optics are hard to ignore. Comey, once hailed as a straight-shooting lawman, has become one of the most polarizing figures in recent American history. His role in the 2016 election—first by announcing the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, and then by pursuing the Russia probe—has left both major parties at times accusing him of bias.

For Trump, the possibility of Comey facing charges is deeply personal. He has long argued that the FBI’s actions under Comey’s leadership damaged his presidency and cast an illegitimate shadow over his 2016 victory. In public remarks, Trump has frequently accused Comey of “treasonous” behavior, though legal experts note that such charges were never realistically in play.

According to the information contained in the Fox News Digital report, Trump sees the case not just as a matter of accountability but as proof that his longstanding claims of a politicized intelligence apparatus were justified. “It was a witch hunt from the beginning,” Trump has said, pointing to the Mueller report’s failure to find collusion as validation.

If prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia decide to pursue charges, Comey would face arraignment in federal court, marking the first time in modern history that a former FBI director has been indicted. The timeline is tight: with the five-year statute of limitations expiring next Tuesday, a decision must be reached immediately.

Fox News Digital has reached out to both the Justice Department and the White House for comment. Neither has responded, underscoring the sensitivity of the deliberations.

Legal analysts note that even if charges are filed, the outcome is far from certain. A high-profile trial would invite intense media scrutiny, partisan commentary, and legal wrangling over the interpretation of testimony delivered years earlier. Convictions for perjury, while serious, are not easy to secure—especially when defendants are experienced lawyers capable of mounting sophisticated defenses.

Still, the symbolic weight of an indictment could be immense, reopening painful chapters of American political life and reshaping the legacy of the Russia probe.

The Justice Department’s deliberations over whether to indict James Comey have drawn the attention of political leaders, legal analysts, and the American public alike. As theFox News Digital report emphasized, the case represents a rare moment of potential accountability for a former FBI director who has stood at the center of some of the most divisive episodes in recent history.

For Trump, the case is about vindication. For Comey, it could determine how history judges his controversial tenure. And for the Justice Department, the decision will test its ability to navigate the treacherous waters between law and politics, truth and perception.

With the statute of limitations set to expire, the clock is ticking. Whether the DOJ chooses to indict or not, the legacy of James Comey and the Russia investigation will continue to cast a long shadow over America’s political and legal landscape.