When James Comey prosecuted Martha Stewart in 2003 using what legal scholars called an "audacious legal theory," and when he made unprecedented public interventions in the Hillary Clinton email investigation in 2016, he claimed to be upholding institutional integrity. But a comprehensive examination of court records, Inspector General reports, and expert analysis reveals a troubling pattern: Comey's most aggressive and procedurally irregular actions have disproportionately targeted high-profile women, generating enormous reputational damage regardless of legal outcomes. From the novel securities fraud charge against Stewart—later dismissed by a judge—to the "extraordinary and insubordinate" press conferences and letters about Clinton that violated Justice Department norms, Comey's decisions in these cases drew sustained criticism from legal experts across the political spectrum. The Department of Justice Inspector General found that Comey's handling of the Clinton investigation included "inappropriate commentary about uncharged conduct" and represented departures from "well-established department policies" for which he offered no "persuasive basis." This investigation examines whether Comey's most controversial prosecutorial decisions reveal a pattern of disproportionate intensity, extraordinary publicity, and institutional norm violations that consistently affected prominent women—raising fundamental questions about equality before the law and the appropriate use of prosecutorial discretion.