complicated

WASHINGTON — The indictment of former FBI Director James Comey is only two pages and alleges he falsely testified to Congress in 2020 about authorizing someone to be an anonymous source in news stories.

That brevity belies a convoluted and contentious backstory. The events at the heart of the disputed testimony are among the most heavily scrutinized in the bureau’s history, generating internal and congressional investigations that have produced thousands of pages of records and transcripts.

Those investigations were focused on how Comey and his agents conducted high-stakes inquiries into whether Russia had unlawfully colluded with Republican Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.

Here are some things to know about that period and how they fit into Comey’s indictment:

What are the allegations?

The indictment alleges that Comey made a false statement in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The single quote from the indictment appears to be from an interaction with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Prosecutors contend that Comey lied when he denied having authorized anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source to the media, alleging he had done so by telling someone identified as “Person 3” in the indictment to speak to reporters.

“It’s such a bare-bones indictment,” said Solomon Wisenberg, a former federal prosecutor and now a defense attorney in private practice. “We do not know what the evidence is going to be” at trial, he said.

What did Comey say to Congress?

Wisenberg said the testimony in question appears to have come when Cruz was pressing Comey over the role that his deputy director at the time, Andrew McCabe, played in authorizing a leak to the Wall Street Journal for a story examining how the FBI handled an investigation into Clinton’s use of the private email server.

Cruz’s question was complicated, but it boiled down to pitting Comey against McCabe. The senator noted that Comey told Congress in 2017 he had not authorized anyone to speak to reporters. But Cruz asserted that McCabe had “publicly and repeatedly said he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it.”

“Who’s telling the truth?” Cruz asked.

Comey answered: “I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”

At that time, Comey had been put on the spot by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). Comey was asked whether he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation.”

Comey answered, “No.”

The indictment says Comey falsely stated that he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports,” but Comey appears not to have used that phrasing during the 2020 hearing at issue, potentially complicating efforts to establish that he made a false statement.

What may have sparked the questions?

“Person 3” is not identified in the indictment, but appears to have been discussing an investigation related to Clinton, based on a clearer reference in a felony charge that grand jurors rejected. Comey figured in several inquiries into alleged leaks in the Clinton investigation, all of which generated extensive paper trails.

One involved McCabe and the Journal story. McCabe told the Justice Department’s inspector general that he had authorized a subordinate to talk to the Journal reporter and had told Comey about that interaction after the fact.

It’s unlikely the indictment is focused on that episode because McCabe never told investigators that Comey had authorized him to talk to the media, only that the FBI director was aware that McCabe had done so.

Two other leak investigations involved a friend of Comey’s who served for a time as a paid government advisor to the director. That advisor, Daniel Richman, has told investigators he spoke to the media to help shape perceptions of the embattled FBI chief.

Richman, a law professor at Columbia University, was interviewed by FBI agents in 2019 about leaks to the media that concerned the bureau’s investigation into Clinton. Richman said Comey had never authorized him to speak to the media about the Clinton investigation but he acknowledged Comey was aware that he sometimes engaged with reporters.

Comey has acknowledged using Richman as a conduit to the media in another matter. After Comey was fired by Trump in 2017, he gave Richman a memo that detailed his interactions with the president. Comey later testified to Congress that he had authorized Richman to disclose the contents of the memo to journalists with the hopes of spurring the appointment of a special counsel who might investigate Trump.

How did we get here?

Trump and Comey have been engaged in a long-running feud. Trump blames Comey for having started an investigation into Russia’s election meddling on behalf of Trump’s 2016 campaign that led to the appointment of special counsel Robert S. Mueller. Mueller spent the better part of two years investigating whether Trump’s campaign illegally colluded with the Kremlin.

In the end, Mueller uncovered no evidence that Trump or his associates criminally colluded with Russia, but found that they had welcomed Moscow’s assistance and that Trump had obstructed justice during the investigation. Those findings were largely adopted by bipartisan congressional reports on the matter.

Trump, who was convicted of felony fraud last year, has long vented about the “Russia hoax,” which shadowed and defined the early years of his first term. He has spent the ensuing years bashing Comey and saying he should be charged with treason.

Just days before the indictment, Trump publicly urged his attorney general, Pam Bondi, to act against Comey and two other perceived Trump enemies: “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Trump posted on social media last week. “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW.”

Within hours of the indictment being returned, Trump turned again to social media to gloat: “JUSTICE IN AMERICA! One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey.”

Comey has remained resolute in his defense, while criticizing Trump on a host of matters. In a 2018 memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” Comey compared Trump to a mafia don and said he was unethical and “untethered to truth.”

Like Trump, Comey took to social media after his indictment.

“My family and I have known for years there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump,” he said. “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I’m innocent. So, let’s have a trial.”

Tau writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

The IAEA is yet to make a statement about the meeting, which will not include a visit to Iranian nuclear sites.

Iran’s talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be “technical” and “complicated”, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said, ahead of a visit by the United Nations nuclear watchdog for the first time since Tehran cut ties with it last month in the wake of the June conflict triggered by Israeli strikes.

Esmaeil Baghaei, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, told reporters on Monday that a meeting may be organised with Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi during the IAEA’s visit, “but it is a bit soon to predict what the talks will result since these are technical talks, complicated talks”.

The IAEA’s visit marks the first to Iran since President Masoud Pezeshkian ordered the country on July 3 to suspend its cooperation with the nuclear watchdog after an intensive 12-day war with Israel. The conflict also saw the United States launch massive strikes on Israel’s behalf against key Iranian nuclear sites.

Pezeshkian told Al Jazeera in an interview last month that his country is prepared for any future war Israel might wage against it, adding that he was not optimistic about the ceasefire between the countries. He confirmed that Tehran is committed to continuing its nuclear programme for peaceful purposes.

He added that Israel’s strikes, which assassinated leading military figures and nuclear scientists, damaged nuclear facilities and killed hundreds of civilians, had sought to “eliminate” Iran’s hierarchy, but “completely failed to do so”.

Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency on Monday that Massimo Aparo, the IAEA’s deputy director general and head of safeguards, had left Iran. Aparo met with an Iranian delegation, which included officials from the Foreign Ministry and the IAEA, to discuss “the method of interaction between the agency and Iran”.

Gharibabadi said they decided to continue consultations in the future, without providing further details.

The IAEA did not immediately issue a statement about Aparo’s visit, which will not include any planned access to Iranian nuclear sites.

Relations between the IAEA and Iran deteriorated after the watchdog’s board said on June 12 that Iran had breached its non-proliferation obligations, a day before Israel’s air strikes over Iran, which sparked the conflict.

Baghaei, meanwhile, criticised the IAEA’s lack of response to the Israeli strikes.

“Peaceful facilities of a country that was under 24-hour monitoring were the target of strikes, and the agency refrained from showing a wise and rational reaction and did not condemn it as it was required,” he said.

Araghchi had previously said that cooperation with the agency, which will now require approval by Iran’s highest security body, the Supreme National Security Council, would be about redefining how both sides cooperate. The decision will likely further limit inspectors’ ability to track Tehran’s programme that had been enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels.

Iran has had limited IAEA inspections in the past, in negotiations with the West, and it is unclear how soon talks between Tehran and Washington for a deal over its nuclear programme will resume, if at all.

US intelligence agencies and the IAEA assessed that Iran last had an organised nuclear weapons programme in 2003. Although Tehran had been enriching uranium up to 60 percent, this is still some way from the weapons-grade levels of 90 percent.

Not so long ago, parking at the curb in Southern California was relatively simple: It was either free to park, or you had to feed change into a meter. Boy, times have changed! Now, any given meter might require quarters, a credit card, an app, your license plate number or any combination of the above.

As the experience of paying for parking in Southern California grows more complex and confusing, I want to hear your stories about paying for public parking — the good, the bad and the ugly.

Maybe you’ve come to love parking apps like Park Smarter or ParkMobile that alert you when a parking session is about to expire and allow you to add more time remotely. Or maybe it’s taken so long to download a needed app and type in your credit card information that you missed an appointment or were late to a meeting.

I’d also love to hear about any strategies you’ve devised to make the experience of parking more streamlined. Do you keep rolls of quarters in your car or a folder of parking apps on your phone? Have you given up entirely and started taking the bus?

Share your story in the form below, and I might follow up with you to include your tale in a coming story.