In the midst of the flurry of activity on Capitol Hill and in the courts, a single subpoena from federal prosecutors last week went largely unnoticed by many in Washington. However, it could represent a significant development in the long-standing and unresolved questions surrounding the exit of James Comey as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The subpoena was served on Columbia law professor Daniel Richman, a close friend of Comey’s who has been accused of serving as his conduit for leaks to the media.

James Comey has long been one of the most carefully self-constructed images in Washington. Comey’s tenure often seemed more performative than professional, as with his controversial press conference in which he declared that Hillary Clinton had violated federal criminal law with her emails but declined to charge her.

Comey had long been a political operator who portrayed himself as an apolitical public servant, immune to the temptations or trappings of the political class. Investigations have produced a contrary image.

When President Donald Trump canned him in his first term, Comey dropped any pretense. He was later found by the Inspector General to have removed FBI material when he left the bureau related to Trump and the Russian investigation. Some of that information was later given to the New York Times.

The respected veteran investigative reporter Catherine Herridge reported on a June 2017 memorandum that documented a phone call with Richman and the so-called “Comey memos,” which detailed his conversations with President Trump.

According to sources, five days earlier, on June 8, 2017, Comey “asked Professor Richman to disclose the content of at least one of those memoranda to the press…”

The sources said that Richman was dismissive over the violation of federal rules stating  “something to the effect, of, ‘You do things by your rules’ and ‘I do things by my rules.’” Richman seemed to claim that he was serving as counsel and allegedly insisted that “there is a substantial extent to which I would raise attorney-client issues.”

Richman later was quoted as saying that he did not think that he confirmed classified material from Comey to New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt while admitting that he did speak to him.

However, he admits that he did share the content of Comey’s stolen memos about his interactions with Trump.

The Inspector General was scathing and found that Comey was a leaker and violated FBI policy in his handling of FBI memos, including material containing the “code name and true identity” of a sensitive source. It did not find that he disclosed the classified information.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz found that Comey took “the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.” He further added that Comey “set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands of more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.”

Comey was not criminally charged. He is now under investigation again, and the subpoena for his friend, Richman, can only be viewed as ominous.

Notably, when Trump was indicted, Comey celebrated and called it a “good day.” Since then, he has been ridiculed for conveying bizarre, including threatening messages, found in seashells along the beach.

Yet, Comey still fashions himself (with the help of an enabling media) as the model of what he calls “ethical leadership.” Past investigations have already left his prior claims almost comically contradicted, including that “Ethical leaders lead by seeing above the short term, above the urgent or the partisan, and with a higher loyalty to lasting values, most importantly the truth.”

The investigation may now lead to Comey himself being called and placed under oath. The man who pursued leakers and those accused of false statements will now face renewed questions over his own hypocritical conduct.

For Richman, a subpoena carries increased risks because he has previously spoken to both the media and investigators. He reportedly has already met with federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia. Any alleged misrepresentation could result in a charge to pressure him to cooperate as a witness against Comey.