Comey To Claim ‘Vindictive Prosecution’ In Bid To Get Case Dropped
A major legal battle over what many on the right describe as the weaponization of the justice system is set to take center stage Wednesday, as former FBI Director James Comey attempts to shut down the criminal case against him. Comey will ask a federal judge to dismiss his indictment entirely, claiming he is the victim of a “selective and vindictive” prosecution by the Trump Justice Department, The Hill reported.
U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff will hear arguments on whether federal prosecutors improperly singled out Comey — the same Comey whose politically charged tenure and public hostility toward President Donald J. Trump made him a central figure in the Russia-collusion narrative that collapsed years ago.
Comey, fired by President Trump during his first term and a frequent critic ever since, says the charges tied to his 2020 congressional testimony were motivated by Trump’s personal disdain. The two-count indictment — filed just before the statute of limitations expired — accuses Comey of making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding.
“The circumstances of the charging decision in this case — a last-minute retaliatory charge after a torrent of personal invective by a President who expressly sought charges regardless of the facts — warrant dismissal with prejudice on both vindictive and selective prosecution grounds,” Comey’s attorneys argued in an October motion.
To bolster his claims, Comey presented a 60-page record of what he described as a long-running feud with Trump, including years of public statements and online exchanges.
The DOJ has urged Judge Nachmanoff to reject Comey’s request, cautioning that dismissing the case could undermine core executive responsibilities. Prosecutors argue that Comey’s allegations are stitched together from news clippings, online commentary, and conjecture to “weave a tale” of constitutional violations — one they say lacks meaningful evidence.
Under the law, both selective and vindictive prosecution defenses are notoriously difficult to prove. Selective prosecution requires showing that a defendant was treated differently from others in similar circumstances and that the government acted based on an improper motive such as race, religion, or protected speech. Vindictive prosecution requires demonstrating “genuine animus” — that prosecutors acted out of hostility rather than law enforcement necessity.
Comey insists this is one of the “rare” cases that meets both thresholds.
Complicating matters further are Comey’s claims about how the case was assembled. His attorneys say that President Trump publicly pressed Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue charges — even as the district’s top prosecutor, Erik Siebert, reportedly questioned the strength of the case. Siebert later resigned. Bondi then appointed Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial background, to take over.
Comey’s legal team also pointed to what they described as retaliatory treatment of his daughter, Maurene, who was removed from her prosecutorial role in the Southern District of New York — calling it “unequivocal objective evidence of personal animus.”
These issues overlap with a separate challenge heard last week by U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie. Both Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) argue that Halligan lacked the legal authority to file the indictments at all, rendering them invalid. Judge Currie, temporarily assigned from South Carolina to avoid local conflicts, signaled skepticism about whether Halligan is lawfully serving as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. She expects to rule before Thanksgiving, The Hill noted.
Comey’s push to dismiss the charges is just one part of a larger defense strategy designed to avoid a trial that could reopen uncomfortable questions about his conduct — from his controversial handling of the Clinton investigation to his role in promoting the discredited Russia narrative.