Inclusion gate: RESOLVED 2026-11-10 — Anchor E not met. This session re-researched the case (CourtListener docket re-check; targeted searches for an OPR/IG finding, a ruling, an indictment, and any vindictive/selective-prosecution motion specific to this case) and ran the Good Faith and Presumption of Regular Order Assessment below. Summary: Farahnak is a career federal prosecutor, an Assistant U.S. Attorney based in the Eastern District of Texas’s Tyler office (State Bar of Texas record; Oct. 9, 2026 transcript appearance block), appearing in the Comey case as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney (NBC News). He has never been elected and never Senate-confirmed, so the Non-Speech Anchor Test governs (patriot-private-citizen-inclusion-gate §2); only Anchor E (use of official non-elected position) was ever arguable. It fails the Strip Test: by his own in-court account, the contested choices — the October 5 overt-act date, declining to name The New York Times as a co-conspirator, proceeding by waiverless information — were “leadership decisions” he carried out, and on the Times question he told the court he had personally argued for the opposite, broader theory. What remains once his advocacy-as-counsel is stripped out is not an independent act of his own; it is the Department’s decision, relayed. No court, inspector general or OPR finding against him was located (re-confirmed this session). Disposition: reclassified to institutional/network-mapping documentation. No individual accountability finding. Priority capped at P2. Full reasoning: see “Good Faith and Presumption of Regular Order Assessment” below. What would reopen it: an OPR/IG finding or court ruling naming his own conduct (not the Department’s), or evidence that a charging-theory decision attributed above to “leadership” was in fact his own.

Category: Federal prosecutor — Comey leak prosecution (D.D.C.) Role: Government’s lead courtroom attorney in United States v. Comey, D.D.C. No. 1:26-cr-00229, the third criminal case brought against former FBI Director James Comey in Trump’s second term Priority: P2 — network-mapping/institutional documentation. Anchor E not met; no individual accountability finding (see inclusion gate above).

Basis for Inclusion

Subject classification: Non-elected official (career federal prosecutor; AUSA, E.D. Tex., appearing as Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in D.D.C.) Anchor criterion: E — Use of Official Non-Elected Position. Resolved 2026-11-10: not met. The Strip Test fails — see the Good Faith and Presumption of Regular Order Assessment below. Retained as institutional documentation of the chain of command only; this is not an individual accountability profile. Basis: He is the prosecutor of record who wrote the government’s filing (NBC News, Oct. 26, 2026) and argued the Oct. 9 and Oct. 30, 2026 hearings in United States v. Comey (transcript; AP; The Hill). Scope limit: This profile documents conduct in his official capacity in that case only. It does not document private life, education, residence or unrelated casework. Speech note: The statements quoted below are statements made as counsel in court and in court filings. They are official acts of advocacy, not political speech.

Role

Farahnak is the attorney who has spoken for the United States in court in the Department of Justice’s third criminal case against James Comey. The case is a two-count Espionage Act information filed under seal in the District of Columbia on October 5, 2026, and unsealed on October 26. Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh signed the information, and CBS News reports that the special assistant U.S. attorneys on it were not drawn from the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office (CBS News). His statements in court are the main public record of how the Department built the case and why it used a waiverless information.

Background

Farahnak has been licensed in Texas since October 29, 2020. His primary practice location is the U.S. Attorney’s Office at 110 N. College Ave., Tyler, Texas, the Tyler office of the Eastern District of Texas (State Bar of Texas). The October 9, 2026 transcript lists that same office as his address for the government. In court he described his appellate experience as limited: “I have only had two appellate appeals in my history” (Oct. 9 transcript). The public record found in this session does not show how or when he came to the Comey matter. Whether he was formally detailed, and by whom, is [NEEDS VERIFICATION]. A targeted search this session for any OPR complaint, bar grievance, or misconduct finding naming Farahnak returned nothing (absence noted per accountability-profile-verification Step 5 — not confirmed as non-existent, since OPR findings are not all public).

Good Faith and Presumption of Regular Order Assessment

Conclusion: the current record supports the presumption of regular order. No individual accountability finding is warranted.

1. The contested theories are attributed to “leadership,” not to him, in his own words. By his own in-court account, the October 5 overt-act date, the decision not to pursue The New York Times as a co-conspirator, and the choice to proceed by waiverless information were each “leadership decisions” he carried out. On the Times question specifically, he told the court he had personally argued for the opposite, broader theory and lost that argument internally. A prosecutor who volunteers that kind of internal disagreement to the court — rather than presenting the Department’s position as his own unanimous judgment — is disclosing, not concealing. That cuts against a bad-faith reading.
2. No court has found misconduct. At the October 30, 2026 hearing, Judge McFadden deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss rather than finding vindictive or selective prosecution; he allowed the grand jury process to continue (AP, Oct. 30, 2026). As of this session (re-checked via CourtListener, Nov. 10, 2026), the docket shows no entries after the October 30 hearing — no ruling, and no indictment.
3. The vindictive/selective-prosecution claims in circulation belong to a different case. Reporting on a “vindictive prosecution” motion and “flagrant misconduct” allegations against DOJ in a Comey matter refers to the separate, earlier Eastern District of North Carolina prosecution — a grand jury indictment returned April 28, 2026 over a May 2025 Instagram post of seashells arranged to read “86 47” (Good Morning America/ABC News, Apr. 28, 2026). That case has its own prosecution team and is not Farahnak’s. Conflating the two would misattribute another team’s alleged conduct to him; this profile does not do so, and no such motion was found filed in this case (D.D.C. 1:26-cr-00229) as of Nov. 10, 2026.
4. Comey’s own motion to dismiss in Farahnak’s case is a charging-mechanism challenge, not a bad-faith allegation against Farahnak personally. It argues the information is time-barred and legally inoperable absent a waiver of indictment (AP, Oct. 30, 2026) — a challenge to the Department’s chosen procedure, not a claim that the line attorney who argued it acted in bad faith.
5. Nothing in his public professional record suggests an irregular path into this assignment. Texas Bar license since October 29, 2020; standing posting in the Tyler division of the Eastern District of Texas (State Bar of Texas). How and why an E.D. Tex. line prosecutor was assigned to a D.D.C. leak case remains [NEEDS VERIFICATION] — that is a documentation gap, not an adverse finding.

Bearing on the inclusion gate: Anchor E requires his own use of an official position to advance harmful conduct. Here, the Strip Test (patriot-private-citizen-inclusion-gate §2B) fails: remove his courtroom advocacy and what remains is the Department’s charging theory, which he describes performing rather than originating. A Strip Test failure — including “borderline” — is treated as failure under the skill. This profile is therefore retained only as institutional/network-mapping documentation of the chain of command in this prosecution, carries no individual accountability finding, and is capped at P2.

Democratic Malice Assessment

Designation: Not scored

Why not scored: The inclusion gate is resolved against an individual finding (see above): Anchor E is not met, so this profile carries no accountability finding for this subject. In addition, the four documented actions are advocacy as counsel for the United States in a pending case. In his own account, the charging decisions they carry out were “leadership decisions.” Scoring those decisions belongs in the profiles of the officials who made and signed them (trent-mccotter-profile, aakash-singh-profile), not in the profile of the attorney who argued them. Revisit this designation only on a court, OPR or inspector-general finding that addresses his own conduct, or evidence a “leadership decision” cited above was in fact his own.

Framework note: The Democratic Malice Assessment evaluates subversion of democratic mechanisms themselves, not policy disagreement. Holding conservative, populist, or nationalist policy positions — even extreme ones — within constitutional process is ideology, not malice.

Legal Disclaimer

Documented Actions

1. Argued to keep the Comey information under seal and sought an indictment the same day (October 9, 2026)

SourceTranscript of Sealed Motion Hearing, United States v. Comey, No. 26-cr-229 (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2026), as published by The New York Times (source 1).Evidence: At a sealed motion hearing on October 9, 2026, four days after the information was filed, Farahnak told Judge Trevor N. McFadden that he had about two hours before the grand jury that day, that presenting the case would need “much more time,” and that “I had wanted to indict it today … I was unable to do so.” He argued: “I think it would be better for the country and for the Defendant if we kept it under seal for now, return an indictment and then address those issues at that time.” Later in the hearing he told the court, “I have received permission to promise not to return an indictment for 30 days,” and asked for more than one day to write the government’s response (Oct. 9 transcript). The transcript was later made public (Quartz, citing The New York Times).

Pattern: Use of sealed proceedings and a placeholder charge to hold a limitations deadline open while seeking an indictment.

2. Told the court the Department had weighed treating The New York Times as a conspirator (October 9, 2026)

SourceOct. 9 transcript (source 1); Quartz, Nov. 8, 2026 (source 6).Evidence: Asked by the court to address the statute of limitations, Farahnak said he would “put the cards on the table.” He told the court that the alleged leak occurred on October 5, 2016, “between FBI employees and The New York Times,” and continued: “Whether or not The New York Times acted in concert and was a conspirator, which would greatly expand the statute of limitations, is an issue that we had to decide.” He said the prosecutors had chosen, “in our discretion,” to focus on October 5 as “the most obvious act.” He also said he had personally argued for a later overt act or a later limitations date, but that “based on leadership decisions … October 5th is the best overt act to go on” (Oct. 9 transcript). Quartz, summarizing The Times‘s November 8 report, wrote that the transcript “shows the department weighed the step” of naming the newspaper as a co-conspirator, and that the charges concern a 2016 Times article about a novel surveillance technique (Quartz). The underlying Times article was not retrieved in this session because of a paywall. Farahnak’s own words are taken from the transcript.

Pattern: Prosecution theory reaching toward a news organization as a co-conspirator in a leak case.

3. Authored the government’s statement of the charges (filing unsealed October 26, 2026)

SourceNBC News, Oct. 26, 2026 (source 3); AP, Oct. 30, 2026 (source 4); CNN, Oct. 30, 2026 (source 7).Evidence: NBC News reported that Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Dustin Farahnak wrote, in a filing unsealed October 26, 2026: “The United States’ investigation has uncovered evidence that former FBI Director, James B. Comey, sought to correct misinformation which had appeared in the press by way of Reuters the day before,” and “directed staff to speak to Mr. Savage about specific accuracy concerns related to the Reuters article, and thereby illegally transferred classified information.” The charges stem from an October 5, 2016 New York Times article by Charlie Savage about Yahoo’s assistance with government email surveillance (NBC News). Comey’s lawyers say the disclosure was investigated in 2017, and that John Durham wrote a classified 2018 memo recommending no charges (AP). CNN reported that two earlier DOJ investigations did not result in charges, and that prosecutors told the court they had received new information since Durham’s review (CNN). Comey’s counsel said he “steadfastly maintains his innocence” (CBS News).

Pattern: Revival of a previously investigated, uncharged leak allegation against a prominent critic of the President.

4. Defended the waiverless information as a way to “toll” the limitations period (October 30, 2026)

Evidence: At the October 30, 2026 hearing on Comey’s motion to dismiss, Farahnak acknowledged that the government had used a criminal information, which needs no grand jury, to “toll the statute of limitations” while it presented evidence to a grand jury. “We had a clock problem,” he said (The Hill). He told the court that ruling would be premature while the grand jury investigation was in progress. He also indicated that the evidence would concern conduct running into 2017, which would put a new indictment inside the 10-year limit (AP). CNN reported that DOJ attorneys said they were considering charging alleged conduct through April 2017 (CNN). Judge McFadden deferred his ruling. He noted that an indictment was “no sure thing” in Washington, where, he said, “ham sandwiches are harder to indict these days,” and warned that he would be “extremely frustrated if there’s some sort of dawn raid” to arrest Comey. Farahnak replied, “That’s not going to happen” (AP). Comey’s lawyers argued that the information was time-barred and legally inoperable because Comey had not waived indictment (AP). Former prosecutors and defense attorneys told CBS News they had not seen a criminal information filed this way in a felony case, and the Department called the practice “widely recognized” (CBS News). No court has ruled on whether the information is valid.

SourceThe Hill, Oct. 30, 2026 (source 5); AP, Oct. 30, 2026 (source 4); CNN, Oct. 30, 2026 (source 7); CBS News, Oct. 26, 2026 (source 8).Court record: United States v. Comey, D.D.C., No. 1:26-cr-00229 (Judge Trevor N. McFadden), filed October 5, 2026; pending. Verified on CourtListener this session: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/75021374/united-states-v-comey/

Pattern: Novel procedural device used to keep an expired-on-its-face charge alive.

Pattern Analysis

Cross-References

Farahnak is the courtroom face of a case designed and signed at the top of the Department. The decisions he describes in court are attributed, in his own words, to “leadership decisions”: the October 5 overt act, the information route and the permission for a 30-day no-indictment promise. That makes his testimony value about the chain of command greater than his independent accountability exposure.

Related profiles:

• trent-mccotter-profile (signatory on the Comey information)
• aakash-singh-profile (signatory; earlier EDVA Comey prosecution)
• lindsey-halligan-profile (first Comey prosecution, dismissed on appointment grounds)

Related skills:

• patriot-private-citizen-inclusion-gate (Anchor E determination — resolved 2026-11-10, not met)
• accountability-profile-verification

Severity Assessment

Immediate harm: Moderate — a pending prosecution of a former FBI director, plus a stated Department consideration of charging a news organization. Neither has been adjudicated. Democratic erosion: Moderate — documented as institutional, not individual. The decisions are attributed to Department leadership. Authoritarian marker: Prosecution of a prominent presidential critic; prosecutorial theory reaching a news organization as a co-conspirator. Both are attributable to the Department; this profile does not attribute them to him personally.

Accountability Status

Current status: Active — prosecutor of record in a pending case. No complaint, OPR referral, sanction or court finding concerning his conduct was found this session (re-confirmed by targeted search, Nov. 10, 2026).

Legal exposure:

• None documented. Any court finding on vindictive or selective prosecution, or on the validity of the information, would bear on the Department’s conduct. It would not necessarily bear on his conduct.

Congressional oversight:

• House and Senate Judiciary Committees (DOJ oversight; use of criminal informations against political critics; leak-prosecution policy toward the press).

Public accountability:

• The New York City Bar Association said on Nov. 2, 2026 that it was “deeply troubled” by the new charges (source 9).

Truth and Reconciliation Considerations

Investigation priorities

1. Who decided to proceed by waiverless information, and who rejected the later-overt-act theory Farahnak said he had argued for?
2. Who considered naming The New York Times as a conspirator, at what level, and was the Department’s news-media policy (28 C.F.R. § 50.10) applied?
3. How and by whom was an E.D. Tex. prosecutor assigned to a D.D.C. leak case, and why were D.C. office prosecutors not on the information?
4. What “new information” post-dating the Durham review did prosecutors cite, and how was it obtained?

Testimony value

As the line attorney who stated in court which choices were “leadership decisions,” he could identify who in the Department set the charging theory, approved the information route and weighed the Times question.

Institutional reform

• Require public reporting when the Department files a waiverless information to toll a limitations period in a felony case.
• Require documented Attorney General sign-off, disclosed to the court, before any filing or sealed proceeding raises a news organization as a potential co-conspirator.

Cross-References

Skills: patriot-private-citizen-inclusion-gate, accountability-profile-verification

Related profiles: trent-mccotter-profile, aakash-singh-profile, lindsey-halligan-profile

Topics: Comey prosecution, Espionage Act, statute of limitations, criminal information, press freedom, New York Times

Research Leads

• Read the Nov. 8, 2026 New York Times report in full (paywalled; not retrieved). Check whether it adds anything about Farahnak beyond the transcript.
• Pull the Oct. 26 unsealed filing from the docket (RECAP) to confirm his signature block and title.
• Confirm his assignment: a SAUSA appointment in D.D.C., a detail to Main Justice, or both. [NEEDS VERIFICATION] — a web search this session for his assignment history found nothing beyond the Tyler, Texas AUSA posting already cited.
• ~~Watch for an indictment, the ruling on the motion to dismiss, and any vindictive-prosecution motion.~~ Re-checked Nov. 10, 2026 (CourtListener docket + web search): no indictment, no ruling on the motion to dismiss, and no vindictive/selective-prosecution motion filed in this case. A vindictive/selective-prosecution motion reported in the press belongs to the separate E.D.N.C. “86 47” prosecution — see the Good Faith Assessment above. Keep watching this case for any of the three.
• If an OPR/IG finding or court ruling ever names Farahnak’s own conduct (not the Department’s), reopen the inclusion gate per the note at the top.

Sources

1. Transcript of Sealed Motion Hearing, United States v. Comey, Crim. No. 26-00229 (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2026) (McFadden, J.), as published by The New York Times. https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/b3538471265c605a/69cd8adc-full.pdf
2. CourtListener docket, United States v. Comey, No. 1:26-cr-00229 (D.D.C.), filed Oct. 5, 2026. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/75021374/united-states-v-comey/
3. NBC News, “James Comey charged for a third time by the Trump administration,” Oct. 26, 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/former-fbi-james-comey-charged-third-time-trump-national-security-rcna342963
4. Associated Press, via KXAN, “Judge puts off decision in Comey case as prosecutors pursue new indictment against ex-FBI head,” Oct. 30, 2026. https://www.kxan.com/news/political-news/ap-lawyers-for-ex-fbi-director-james-comey-will-ask-a-judge-to-block-justice-department-prosecution
5. The Hill, “James Comey lawyers fight for dismissal of third criminal prosecution,” Oct. 30, 2026. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6184780-comey-criminal-case-dismissal-hearing
6. Quartz, “Justice Dept. weighed naming Times co-conspirator in Comey leak case,” Nov. 8, 2026 (summarizing The New York Times, “Justice Dept. Mulled Naming The Times as Conspirator in …,” Nov. 8, 2026, not retrieved). https://qz.com/justice-department-weighed-times-co-conspirator-comey-leak-110826
7. CNN, “Justice Department tells judge it may bring more charges against James Comey,” Oct. 30, 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/30/politics/comey-motion-hearing-leak-charges
8. CBS News, “DOJ takes steps to charge James Comey again,” Oct. 26, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-takes-steps-to-charge-james-comey
9. New York City Bar Association, “On the Third Set of Charges Against James Comey,” Nov. 2, 2026. https://www.nycbar.org/press-releases/on-the-third-set-of-charges-against-james-comey
10. State Bar of Texas, Find a Lawyer: Dustin Farahnak. https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=%2FCustomsource%2FMemberDirectory%2FMemberDirectoryDetail.cfm&ContactID=361155
11. Good Morning America (ABC News), “Grand jury indicts former FBI director James Comey over controversial Instagram post,” Apr. 28, 2026 — cited to confirm the separate E.D.N.C. “86 47” prosecution and its own vindictive/selective-prosecution motion are a different case from Farahnak’s. https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/news/story/grand-jury-indicts-former-fbi-director-james-comey-132425678

Last Updated: 2026-11-10 Profile Status: Draft — inclusion gate resolved 2026-11-10 (Anchor E not met). Retained as institutional/network-mapping documentation only; no individual accountability finding. Next Review: On indictment, a ruling on the motion to dismiss, or any OPR/IG/court finding naming Farahnak’s own conduct