The Russian collusion probe has spawned four false statement prosecutions against low-level figures that have all fizzled out with not guilty verdicts or a slap on the wrist for the offender.

Federal prosecutors are now prepared to try it one more time with former FBI Director James Comey, who was indicted Thursday for lying to Congress.

Mr. Comey is being charged with one count of making a false statement and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding in connection with his testimony before a Senate committee in September 2020.

He is the highest-level official from the Trump-Russia collusion probe to face criminal charges. However, it could be a tough road to secure a conviction of Mr. Comey, who has maintained his innocence.

“I would not have brought the charges. It may be the case that Comey lied to Congress, but it will be hard to prove,” said John Yoo, a former Justice Department official under President George W. Bush who is now a law professor at the University of California, Berkley.

He said the case likely boils down to a who-do-you-believe scenario.

“It depends on whether the jury believes Comey or his subordinates, who appear to believe that Comey had authorized the leaking of confidential law enforcement information,” said Mr. Yoo.

Mr. Comey’s former deputy, Andrew McCabe, told lawmakers that he informed Mr. Comey of a leak to reporters and that Mr. Comey gave his approval, authorizing it after the fact. 

The grand jury that indicted Mr. Comey also heard testimony from Comey-friend and Columbia University professor Daniel Richmond.

Mr. Comey gave Mr. Richmond classified information about the FBI’s Russia collusion probe to pass along to The New York Times, which published stories pushing the narrative that Mr. Trump and the Russians worked together to help him win the 2016 election.

Still, it has proven a heavy lift to hold accountable the players in what President Trump calls the Russia collusion “hoax” that dogged his 2016 campaign and then overshadowed his first term in the White House.

Special counsel John Durham, who from 2020 to 2023 investigated the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe, relied on false statement charges to pursue three criminal cases. Juries in the District of Columbia and Virginia delivered not guilty verdicts, and a third defendant pleaded guilty.

• Michael Sussman, a former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer who peddled false information to the FBI about ties between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, was acquitted of making false statements.

• Igor Danchenko, a Russian analyst who was accused of making false statements to the FBI about the identity of where he obtained information, was also acquitted.

• Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer who pled guilty to altering a bureau email to make the actions of a key Trump campaign figure seem more suspicious, was sentenced to probation and community service.

A fourth case, brought not by Mr. Durham but by federal prosecutors in the District, resulted in some penalties. Former Senate Intelligence Committee security director James Wolfe received two months in prison after he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about leaking to a reporter details of surveillance targets in the Russian collusion probe.

“Not many false statement cases turn out to be winners, and maybe it’s just because lots of them are he said-he said situations where it comes down to credibility and a jury thinks maybe it isn’t worth sending somebody to jail in a he said-he said situation,” said Carl Tobias, a federal judiciary scholar at the University of Richmond School of Law.

False statement cases are also notoriously difficult because prosecutors have to prove the lie was intentional, deliberate, and material — meaning a defendant can skate if a jury believes they just slipped up instead of knowingly lying, even if the lie was significant. That requires a jury to get inside the defendant’s head and often rely on testimony that’s years old.

The Comey indictment, handed up by a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, asserts that he falsely claimed in his Senate testimony that he had not authorized someone else at the FBI to leak information about an investigation into “Person 1,” which is likely Hillary Clinton.

“The statement was false,” the indictment says, because Mr. Comey “had in fact authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.”

During Mr. Comey’s testimony, he told lawmakers under oath that he had not leaked information about the Russia collusion probe to a reporter and was unaware of the leak. That contradicted the testimony of Mr. McCabe.

At the Sept. 30, 2020, hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, pressed Mr. Comey on whether he ever authorized Mr. McCabe to discuss the investigation with a reporter. Mr. Comey stood by his answer and denied doing so.

In a video posted to social media moments after the indictment, Mr. Comey professed his innocence.

“My heart is broken for the Department of Justice. I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I am innocent, so let’s have a trial, and keep the faith,” Mr. Comey said.

The charges against Mr. Comey, whom Mr. Trump fired in 2016, came days after Mr. Trump demanded the Justice Department “move now” to prosecute his enemies, specifically calling out his former FBI director.

“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Mr. Trump wrote, adding that “justice must be served now!”

Prosecutors were also racing the clock to secure a grand jury indictment before the five-year statute of limitations for the charge ran out on Tuesday.

Days before the indictment, Mr. Trump forced out U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Erik Siebert, who reportedly expressed doubts about bringing a case against Mr. Comey. Mr. Trump had appointed Mr. Siebert earlier this year to lead the office.

Mr. Trump immediately installed Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide and his former defense attorney, to lead the office. In a series of social media posts, Mr. Trump said Ms. Halligan was appointed to “get things moving,” and attacked Mr. Siebert for refusing to bring “a great case.”

The president’s social media posts and the revolving door at the U.S. Attorney’s office could get the case tossed on the grounds of selective prosecution, Mr. Tobias said.

“I don’t know why Comey wouldn’t make motions to dismiss at the beginning to just say Trump has tainted it so bad, there’s no point going forward,” Mr. Tobias said. “The president is targeting specific people and saying to the prosecutor, ‘Find something this person did so we can prosecute them.’ I think judges are sensitive to that.”

However, Mr. Yoo says a president can order the Justice Department to investigate anyone because he is the only officer charged by the Constitution with enforcing federal law.

“Trump has the right to order the DOJ to bring charges. They might be rejected by a jury or even the courts, but he has the power to decide whom to investigate and prosecute and remove those who don’t carry out his orders,” he said. “If the prosecution fails, or represents a poor use of resources, that will be Trump’s responsibility, and the public can hold him accountable.”

On Friday, Mr. Trump said that he expects more political opponents to be prosecuted. He has also called for the prosecution of two other political enemies who mired him in impeachments, investigations and court cases: Sen. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

“It’s not a list, but I think there will be others,” Mr. Trump told reporters. “I mean, they’re corrupt. These were corrupt, radical left Democrats. No, there will be others. That’s my opinion,” he said.

• Susan Ferrechio contributed to this report.

• Jeff Mordock can be reached at jmordock@washingtontimes.com.