The Comey Indictment: An Analysis of a Politically Driven Prosecution
On September 25, 2025, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted on two federal charges: making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. The Trump camp is framing this as ‘no one being above the law,’ but a thorough examination of the legal foundation and prosecutorial process reveals a case that’s fundamentally flawed and blatantly politically motivated.
The Core Legal Problem: A Theory Built on False Premises
The basis of this claim hinges on one central point- that Comey lied when he denied authorizing FBI leaks to the media - but it appears to rest on a fuzzy understanding of the facts. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy argued that the government’s theory “seems to be premised on something that’s not true.”
The prosecution alleges that Comey falsely denied authorizing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to leak information to the Wall Street Journal. However, McCarthy points out that McCabe actually told Comey about the leak after it happened -it wasn’t the other way around where McCabe sought permission. This is legally crucial and gets to the heart of why this indictment is probably closer to political theater than anything else: “it’s true that Comey never authorized it in the sense of okaying it before it happened,” meaning the perjury allegation doesn’t have the bones to stand up in court.
Career Prosecutors Rejected the Case
Here’s where your eyebrows might raise a bit - there was direct resistance from within the Department of Justice itself. Career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia—tenured professionals who evaluate cases strictly based on legal merit instead of political considerations - sent a formal memo to the newly appointed U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan, documenting why they believed probable cause did not exist. A group of career prosecutors aligned to say an indictment against Comey wasn’t warranted.
You know what they say: surgeons want to cut, prosecutors want to prosecute - but not in this case. These professionals handle federal cases daily and have a strong command of evidentiary standards, yet they concluded there was insufficient evidence to proceed. Their assessment wasn’t overruled by better legal analysis - it was steamrolled by political pressure.
After Looking at Your Resume...
This case deviates from the norm on multiple levels. Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s former personal attorney, was installed as interim U.S. Attorney just days before bringing charges. Does that seem like odd timing and a little bit of political chess? The indictment bears only Halligan’s signature. She has no prior prosecutorial experience and is a former insurance lawyer. On top of that resume, she was a White House aide focused on removing “improper ideology” from Smithsonian museums. Do these qualifications raise any questions for you? Eastern District of VA prosecutors or an insurance lawyer - you be the judge.
The Timeline: A Case of Political Pressure
Take a look at the sequence below and tell me if you sense misconduct:
September 21: Trump publicly demands on Truth Social that Attorney General Bondi prosecute Comey and others, writing “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility”
September 22: U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert resigns under pressure after refusing to bring charges he deemed legally insufficient (MASSIVE RED FLAG)
September 23: Halligan is installed as interim replacement
September 25: Indictment filed, just days before the September 30 statute of limitations deadline
It reads like Trump found someone who would do his dirty work. Even if Siebert had to go, why wouldn’t you replace him with someone more qualified with the right legal background? It looks like they picked a sycophant who would get the job done. BTW, in case you missed it, Halligan is currently serving as the White House senior associate staff secretary and special assistant to President Trump.
The rushed timeline - filing just before the limitations period expired - provides even more evidence of a process driven by political deadlines rather than legal readiness.
Leading Defense Counsel
Patrick Fitzgerald is Comey’s defense attorney, and he brings exceptional credentials to the case. He’s a highly respected former federal prosecutor, best known for successfully prosecuting Illinois governors Rod Blagojevich and George Ryan, as well as leading the Scooter Libby investigation in the CIA leak case. Colleagues describe him as one of the most skilled federal prosecutors in the country, and his willingness to represent Comey signals confidence in the defense. He is the legal yin to Halligan’s yang, if you will.
Not So Partisan
Andrew McCarthy, the Fox News contributor and former Assistant U.S. Attorney, represents a particularly strong voice in opposition. We might look at this as a partisan issue, however, as a conservative legal analyst who has been critical of Comey’s handling of various investigations, McCarthy’s assessment carries real weight with audiences that might otherwise support Trump administration prosecutions. His conclusion that there is “no viable case” and that the indictment “should be thrown out” shows this opposition may be more bipartisan in nature.
Grand Jury Skepticism
Even the grand jury—which typically follows prosecutorial recommendations - displayed skepticism by rejecting one of the three proposed charges. Grand jury rejection of prosecutorial requests is rare and signals that even this typically deferential body found insufficient evidence on at least one count. On one hand, they did find sufficient evidence to charge on false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. On the other hand, many legal analysts view the evidence as ambiguous- something worth keeping an eye on.
Selective Prosecution Vulnerabilities
Trump’s public demands for prosecution didn’t paint an unbiased picture here. His social media posts left the world with a paper trail documenting that this prosecution was stemming from a need to seek retribution rather than legal purposes- defense attorneys will see right through the vindictive nature, and that’s something that will be at the forefront.
Institutional Damage to the Justice Department
The Justice Department’s institutional integrity is in question now. Proceeding with a case that career prosecutors opposed, based solely on presidential demands, undermines the department’s independence and credibility. This is something that could easily be weaponized in the future.
If the case fails - through dismissal, acquittal, or prosecutorial misconduct findings - it could severely damage public confidence in federal law enforcement. It also sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations to use criminal prosecution as a tool of political retaliation. I would even argue that if one of the charges sticks, there’s still damage to the department’s reputation. This threatens one of our cornerstones - an independent governmental institution.
Conclusion: Politics Over Law
The Comey indictment represents a troubling departure from prosecutorial norms and legal standards. Multiple factors - career prosecutor opposition, expert legal skepticism, unusual prosecutorial structure, documented presidential pressure, and questionable legal theory - suggest a case driven by political objectives. I’m hard pressed to find any legal merit.
While the criminal justice system will ultimately determine Comey’s fate, the process itself has already damaged important institutional principles. Regardless of one’s views on Comey’s past actions, the manner in which this prosecution was initiated raises serious questions about the politicization of federal law enforcement. Don’t be clouded by his past - we cannot conflate past criticisms with what is happening now.
The case has all the makings of a “witch hunt” - a prosecution pursued not because the evidence is undeniable, but because unjustifiable vengeance demanded it. The rule of law is hanging in the balance. This must not become a pattern, or we lose one of the pillars of our nation.
References
Legal Expert Analysis:
Fox Business: “Legal expert sees no viable case against James Comey after Trump DOJ indictment” - Andrew McCarthy analysis
NPR/KEDM: “Law professor talks about indictment of former FBI Director James Comey” - Ryan Goodman analysis
Bloomberg Law: “Comey Turns to Blagojevich Prosecutor for Trump Criminal...” - Patrick Fitzgerald profile
Newsweek: “James Comey Indictment Could Backfire for Trump Prosecutors: Legal Analyst”
BBC News/Newsweek: Loyola Law School Professor Laurie Levenson on intent requirements
Career Prosecutor Opposition:
ABC News: “Prosecutors’ memo to new US attorney recommended against plans to charge Comey: Sources”
ABC News: “Newly appointed US attorney will attempt to charge James Comey despite prosecutors finding no probable cause: Sources”
NBC News: “Former FBI Director James Comey indicted following pressure from Trump”
New York Times: Reporting on career prosecutors’ determination of insufficient evidence
Yahoo News: “James Comey indictment: Why Trump’s new prosecutor just charged the former FBI director”
Political Pressure Timeline:
CNN Politics: “Inside the seven tumultuous days that led to the James Comey indictment”
New York Times: “Trump’s Handpicked Prosecutor Takes Over Comey and James Cases”
The Hill: “Ex-FBI Director James Comey indicted at Donald Trump’s behest: 5 things to know”
Time: “Ex-FBI Director James Comey Indicted: What to Know”
Forbes: “Who Is Lindsey Halligan? Trump Ex-Defense Attorney Wants To Indict James Comey—What To Know”
Congressional and Political Reactions:
The Guardian: “’Dangerous abuse of power’: lawmakers sound alarm over Comey indictment”
Politico: “Comey indictment stuns Washington”
Procedural Irregularities:
New York Times: “Brief Comey Indictment Prompts Questions and Criticism”
CNN Politics: “Why was James Comey indicted, what are the charges and what happens next in the case”
MSNBC: “How Trump’s demand to charge Comey could surface in his legal defense”
CBS News: “Former FBI Director James Comey indicted on 2 counts”
International Coverage:
BBC News: “Former FBI director James Comey indicted on two charges”
BBC News: “Trump pressed to prosecute Comey, but his own actions could undermine the case”
BBC News: “Comey indictment escalates Trump’s promise of political retribution”
Reuters: “FBI ex-chief Comey criminally charged as Trump targets critics, source says”
Official DOJ Statement:
U.S. Department of Justice: “Attorney General Bondi, Director Patel Statements Regarding Indictment of Former FBI Director James Comey”
Additional Analysis:
The Washington Post: “The James Comey indictment looks like an embarrassing dud”
Reuters: “Comey indictment escalates Trump’s campaign to chill opposition”
The Hill: “James Comey’s indictment triggers questions over who Trump could target next”