Third Comey charge in two years, and the prior two outcomes are missing
The Justice Department filed a two-count criminal information Monday accusing James Comey of communicating national defense information to The New York Times in October 2016 and conspiracy. That is the surface story. Underneath it is a question almost no outlet answered: what happened to charges one and two? Comey's lawyers noted the leak allegation had already been investigated without resulting in charges. The sentence a reader can use: this is the third prosecution attempt in under two years, and the first two have not produced convictions.
DOJ charges former FBI Director James Comey for third time over alleged national security leaks
16 sources · hover a dot to see coverage
What happened
The Justice Department on Monday unsealed a two-count criminal information charging former FBI Director James Comey with unlawfully communicating national defense information and conspiracy. The charges center on an alleged leak of sensitive information to The New York Times in October 2016, during the final stretch of that year's presidential campaign. Comey was fired by President Trump in May 2017. This is his third federal indictment under the current Trump administration; Forbes reported the second came in April, over an alleged social media threat against Trump's life. Comey responded publicly, calling the charges something that "would almost be funny if it weren't such an appalling abuse" of the Justice Department. Fourteen outlets covered the filing. What separates the coverage is whether any of them told readers what became of the first two rounds.
The AP and Reuters framed this as an attempt, not a charge
The Associated Press headlined its piece "Trump administration attempting to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey again," and Reuters ran "Ex-FBI chief James Comey charged again by Trump administration's DOJ." Both wire services attributed the prosecution to the Trump administration by name in their headlines, a construction that signals ongoing contest rather than settled legal fact. That framing choice puts the political actor front and center. No other outlet in the set matched it in the headline. The AP's word "attempting" is the only instance in fourteen sources where the headline itself raised the question of whether the effort would succeed.
Right-leaning outlets led with the allegation; the prior record went unmentioned
Fox News headlined "James Comey faces new DOJ case over alleged national defense disclosure" and described a "two-count criminal information" accusing Comey of communicating national defense information. The Daily Caller led with the indictment and quoted Comey's "it would almost be funny" response. The Washington Examiner noted this was his "third federal indictment in just under two years" but did not report the status of the first two. None of the three outlets addressed whether the prior charges had produced convictions, plea deals, or dismissals.
The NYT named the specific prior investigation that closed without charges
The New York Times was the only outlet in this set to report that Comey's lawyers said the leak allegation "had already been investigated and had not led to charges." That detail is material: it means the Justice Department is returning to a factual record that a prior investigation reviewed and declined to prosecute. No other outlet included it. The Times also identified the alleged leak as occurring in October 2016, placing it inside the final weeks of the presidential campaign Comey's FBI was simultaneously investigating.
What one side told you that the other didn't
Nobody told readers what happened to charges one and two.
Forbes is the only outlet that named the second charge at all, reporting it came in April over an alleged social media threat against Trump. No outlet in the set reported the current legal status of that case, or of the first indictment. Readers finishing any of these fourteen stories know Comey has been charged three times. They do not know whether any prior charge produced a conviction, a dismissal, or is still pending. That gap makes it impossible to assess whether the pattern represents escalating legal jeopardy or escalating prosecutorial failure.
Only one outlet reported the prior investigation closed without charges.
The New York Times included the detail that Comey's lawyers said the underlying leak allegation had already been investigated and not prosecuted. That is a specific, checkable legal history that changes how a reader evaluates the new filing. Thirteen other outlets omitted it. If the allegation was previously reviewed and declined, the third indictment is a different kind of story than a fresh accusation. One outlet had that fact. The rest did not.
The word 'attempting' appeared in one headline out of fourteen.
The AP's headline framed the DOJ action as an attempt rather than an accomplished prosecution, the only outlet to do so. That single word carries the entire question of whether this charge will fare differently than its predecessors. Every other headline treated the filing as the news event, full stop. Given that the prior two charges have not produced public convictions, the AP's framing is the one that fits the available record. Thirteen outlets left that inference to the reader.
The 2016 campaign timing of the alleged leak went mostly unreported.
The Times placed the alleged leak in October 2016, the final month of a presidential campaign that Comey's FBI was actively investigating. Al Jazeera noted Comey "was fired during Trump's first term" without dating the underlying conduct. Most outlets described the alleged leak as occurring in 2016 without specifying the month. The timing matters because it puts the alleged disclosure inside one of the most consequential periods of Comey's tenure. The date appeared in the charging document. Few outlets passed it through.
What to watch
Comey's lawyers have already signaled they will argue the underlying conduct was previously investigated and declined for prosecution. If they file a motion to dismiss on that basis before the end of November, watch whether outlets that omitted the prior-investigation detail in their initial coverage include it when reporting the motion. That will show whether the gap was a deadline problem or a framing choice.
See how outlets across the political spectrum framed this differently — and what each side left out.