Comey Indicted
Serious abuses of power alongside an almost cartoonish set of behaviors.
Here are some key elements of the story. It is a bizarre combination of serious abuses of power at the highest levels of our government alongside an almost cartoonish set of behaviors.
- A week ago today, the Trump-appointed US Attorney investigating, among other people, James Comey resigned. The NYT reported at the time: U.S. Attorney Investigating Two Trump Foes Departs Amid Pressure From President. Emphases mine.
The U.S. attorney investigating New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey said he had resigned on Friday, hours after President Trump called for his ouster.
Erik S. Siebert, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, had recently told senior Justice Department officials that investigators found insufficient evidence to bring charges against Ms. James and had also raised concerns about a potential case against Mr. Comey, according to officials familiar with the situation. Mr. Trump has long viewed Ms. James and Mr. Comey as adversaries and has repeatedly pledged retribution against law enforcement officials who pursued him.
[…]
And though Mr. Trump provided a rationale for Mr. Siebert’s ouster unrelated to the cases against Ms. James and Mr. Comey, the removal of a U.S. attorney who was investigating the president’s foes showed how deeply the administration has departed from the longstanding norm of avoiding political interference in prosecutions in favor of using the justice system to seek retribution.
In regard to how he got the position he just resigned from (via ABC News):
Siebert began serving as the interim U.S. attorney on Jan. 21 after the late Jessica Aber, who ran the office from 2021-25, resigned following President Trump’s inauguration. Both of Virginia’s Democratic senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, recommended Siebert to Trump in April, and Trump nominated him for the position in May.
- The next day, Trump posted what appeared to be a DM on Truth Social about a week ago, proclaiming several people he doesn’t like for various reasons to be “guilty as hell” (it was later taken down).
Here’s FNC’s write-up: Trump hounds Bondi to prosecute adversaries in now-deleted social media post: ‘They’re all guilty as hell’.
President Donald Trump put the heat on Attorney General Pam Bondi Saturday, demanding the prosecution of a list of adversaries in a social media post that he quickly deleted.
In a now-deleted Truth Social post, the president called for charges against former FBI Director James Comey, Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and New York Attorney General Letitia James—slamming Bondi for “all talk, no action.”
[…]
About an hour after the Truth Social post was sent and deleted, the president sent out a much more amiable post, commending Bondi for her “careful” work over the last eight months.
“Pam Bondi is doing a GREAT job as Attorney General of the United States,” Trump wrote in a second Truth Social post. “She is very careful, very smart, loves our Country, but needs a tough prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, like my recommendation, Lindsey Halligan, to get things moving. What we don’t need is a Democrat Endorsed ‘Republican.’”
It seems noteworthy that even the Trump-sympathetic FNC cannot ignore that Trump is clearly pressuring the AG to prosecute people he doesn’t like.
He later posted this:
So this leads to the following points.
- Third, the replacement for Siebert is, as per above, Lindsay Halligan, a former Florida insurance lawyer. The Trump-friendly NY Post describes her thusly in the first paragraph of its story, Who is Lindsey Halligan, the former Miss Colorado finalist and Trump lawyer expected to prosecute James Comey?
The new Virginia US attorney expected to pursue charges against former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James is a glamorous former Colorado beauty queen, who had worked only three federal cases before President Trump appointed her.
The former Florida insurance lawyer, who often looks runway-ready in designer suits with flawless hair, is one of the attorneys who represented Trump in civil litigation after his Mar-a-Lago resort was raided for classified documents in August 2022.
See also, from Lawfare: The Situation: Choose Your Own Adventure: Lindsey Halligan Edition.
- And, finally, Comey was indicted yesterday on charges of making a false statement and obstructing justice. A third count was rejected by the grand jury.
Again, here’s Ben Wittes writing at Lawfare:
The Situation on Wednesday contemplated what an indictment against James Comey might look like.
Today, we got one, and we still don’t really know the answer to that question.
There are so-called speaking indictments and then there are indictments that don’t even try to tell a story, merely allege in bare terms that conduct took place on a specific day of a nature that violated an identified law.
The Comey indictment speaks less than any charge you are ever likely to see against a prominent person in a high-profile criminal matter.
I recommend the piece in full.
So, a lot of this is farce. First, Trump appears to mistakenly post a DM to Truth Social (which raises the question of whether he communicates with the AG via social media DMs). Second, in a move that almost feels made up (and would have to be if this were any normal administration), a former beauty queen and insurance lawyer with barely any federal experience will lead the prosecution.
Also, a farcical element I did not mention above: the statute of limitations on the charge was about to expire (in mere days, if I understand correctly), and hence the rush job.
But the horror part is pretty damn bad. The president is clearly directing the Attorney General to pursue his political enemies and declaring them guilty before trial. Attorneys are resigning because there is insufficient evidence to proceed to trial, and so a loyalist is being installed.
This is all a clear abuse of power by the president and more evidence to pile onto the notion that Bondi is not independent in the least, but is the lackey we all expected her to be when she got the job.
Now we wait to see if the district court, at least, behaves as it should. As Wittes notes in the piece linked above, discovery in this case should be something to behold.
By the way, if the DOJ is interested in pursuing charges against people who might have lied to the Senate, I have a submission for their consideration.
See also:
- The Election Law Blog: “‘Let’s have a trial’: Comey proclaims innocence as Trump revels in grand jury indictment he demanded”.
- Lisa Needham at Public Notice: The tragicomical indictment of James Comey.
- David Frum in The Atlantic: The Comey Indictment Is Not Just Payback.
- The Intellectualist: Trump’s DOJ Prepares Comey Indictment, Orders Soros Foundation Probe Plans.
The weaponization of government is not only about indictments but about signals and precedents. When prosecutors are instructed to prepare cases at a president’s demand, the balance of power shifts. What was once unthinkable — a president openly directing law enforcement against political enemies — becomes normalized, and institutions meant to safeguard democracy are weakened.
Indeed.
********************@
It sounds like the indictment itself was obtained with “incorrect” information. If that information was knowingly false, I think there might be a bigger problem for the lawyers involved in trying to obtain a perjury conviction.
I wish Comey well in his defense and hope he uses every resource available to make the Administration pay for this. That should include pursuing legal sanctions and a personal counter-suit if the case is tossed out.
Part of the problem I think we’ve had in the last 8 months is that there are no perceived personal consequences to lawlessness in fealty to a corrupt president. We need individuals to understand that they’re weighing possible personal and financial ruin against doing something illegal. These are, by and large, people who wouldn’t call themselves criminal, even though they’re engaging in patently illegal acts.
I am having a hard time deciding if finding none of the staggering corruption of this administration surprising is bad because I’m becoming inured to it, or good because it shows that my mental model of the world is accurate enough to find it quite predictable. Maybe both? Regardless, it is good to keep highlighting the corruption
Originally, when I had read about the indictments, I had thought they had indicted him on “lying [aka false statement] to the FBI” which would have been truly ironic. It’s an incredibly common charge.
The fact that they are going after false statements to Congress is wild. Further, in 2019, the first Trump Justice Department was of the opinion that it was McCabe who had made the false statement.
Either way, the President’s xeets are not going to be helpful to the government case. It will be interesting to see what they charge Bolton with.
It’s worth noting that Trump is currently targeting individuals whom neither party particularly likes (and for good reason). We have yet to see if this is a test of the waters or not.
Also, if false testimony before Congress is going to be something that is actively prosecuted going forward, I… umm… see bad days ahead for most of the leaders of the current Trump administration — notably Patel, RFK Jr., and Hegseth.
My MAGA friends on Facebook are all seething. Suddenly, they are not concerned about politisization of our government. They’re all waiting for charges to drop on Biden, Obama, Brennan, and the Clintons. Trump knows its all BS – he knows what motivates his base. What are the Democrats doing to motivate their base? Maybe the dems think Trumps strategy will collapse on itself, or maybe dems are already de-sensitize to what is happening.
@HelloWorld:
I share your frustration, but what are Democrats supposed to do?
@HelloWorld: the administration is already providing lots and lots of motivation for significant numbers and dems and independents.
Even republicans are flinching.
If only the vehemence of an accusation were probatory evidence…
@HelloWorld: Speaking as a Democrat, I very definitely do not want to see Democratic party leaders selling lies and theater to wind me up. It will have the opposite effect. I can be fooled, and when I find out I have been fooled, I am generally extremely angry about it.
If we give up on facts, we give up on everything.
I have something of an intuition about what’s happening right now. Trump and Congressional Democrats are thrashing around a lot right now, jumping from trans-bashing, to “defund the Democrats” to “prosecute James Comey” to an absolutely crazy speech to the UN.
Last week was Charlie Kirk, then it was the ballroom. And the “Hall of Fame” in the White House.
Remember how the NG was going to go to Chicago and didn’t?
It all feels a bit desperate to me. None of their policies, as enacted, has majority support. Not even immmigration. Nor trans medical care. A majority of Americans think the government should stay out of it. (That was a surprise, but welcome.)
They have nothing but winding up the base. Some of the base love to be wound up, and volunteer for it, but it’s got to wear on them after a while. Some of the base are just grifters, who will make hay while the sun shines.
But I could be wrong. This could definitely be wishful thinking. What do y’all think?
This is the equivalent of a SLAPP suit being paid for by US taxpayers. Trump gets to make Comey et al pay a lot in lawyers fees and he doesnt need to spend a dime.
Steve
Apparently a core issue to the Complaint and Indictment is a legal definition of “approved” and “authorized”.
Comey may well have “approved” of McCabe’s leak to WSJ,( e,g, raised no objection when informed after the fact), however it does not mean that he “authorized” McCabe to leak.
This is pertinent to Comey’s responses to both Cruz and Grassley* on Sept 30 2020.
Is there any evidence that Comey told (aka authorized) McCabe to initiate the leak?
* Grassley specifically asked did you “EVER authorize” leak from investigation on Clinton Foundation OR Trump-Russia.
@Michael Reynolds: I seem to remember a republican minority launching a ton of investigative committees about the politicization of the federal government. The IRS thing, the Eric Holder gun thing, etc. The difference is if the dems did hearings, it would not be hyperbole and innuendo, it would be factual.
While I can’t speak to the “etc.” part, but the Fast and Furious (Holder/Gun Walking) investigation was launched in 2010 under a Republican Majority, and the “Politicization of the Government” hearings were launched in 2023 under a Republican Majority. You may just be misremembering.
I could be mistaken, but I believe that while minority committee members have tools at their disposal to seek evidence and do some investigatory work, the big things like issuing subpoenas or holding hearings are done at the behest of the committee chair, which is almost universally a member of the majority, in this case a Republican.
@Neil Hudelson:
You are correct. Here’s a solid reference to the limited powers minority parties have in Congress:
https://www.justsecurity.org/109454/congress-minority-toolbox/
To that point, they cannot enpanel hearings or compel anyone to testify. They can hold panels with voluntary participants. From Just Security:
Which, for the record, they have been doing. Here’s one example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fexUWo2NP2k
I hope Hillary Rodham Clinton treats herself to a nice, juicy steak for dinner tonight, and a nice bottomless mimosa brunch this weekend.
@Matt Bernius:
Comey’s attorneys must be salivating. As to the statements Comey made on his conversations with Andrew McCabe, an Inspector General review concluded years ago that it’s likely McCabe who, uh, misremembered the details, not Comey. This alone provides grounds for acquittal, absent some confession or heretofore unknown recording.
Also, Epstein-bestie pedo Trump and his unqualified Reichsministers are too narcissistic and incompetent to keep shut up. They’ve left a yearslong trail of behaviors (i.e., firings of noncompliant officials) and public statements screaming malicious and selective prosecution; even today, Trumpflation is still bashing Comey and flapping his neofascist gums.
A first-year law student could convincingly argue these proceedings are unconstitutionally unfair, handing any judge not named Aileen Cannon ample rationale to toss this case.
@Neil Hudelson: Both examples I cited started as demands for an investigation from a minority party. Then when the republicans took over, Darrell Issa did his thing. Lets not forget – even recent history – minority Republicans accused the FBI and DOJ of political bias, particularly in their handling of investigations into former President Trump. They pushed for inquiries into alleged suppression of information before the 2020 election and surveillance of parents at school board meetings. These efforts culminated in the formation of a select subcommittee once Republicans gained control.
WHY DON”T DEMOCRATS FIGHT????
@HelloWorld:
Seriously, did you just strain your back moving those goal posts.
Democrats in both the Senate and the House have been doing exactly that. Including holding panels as I noted above.
That you don’t seem to know about those efforts feels more like a “you” issue than a Democrats issue.
Granted they don’t have the same media platforms that Republicans have, but they are doing exactly what you are asking for.
Ironically, I say this as someone deeply frustrated with the Democratic party for other reasons (I don’t think they are doing enough substantive work). But this particular dog doesn’t hunt and it’s essentially a fact-free reason to be frustrated with them.
@Matt Bernius:
One of my favorite Substack follows is Ariella Elm — a queer, Jewish young lady who grew sick of gloom, complaining, doomerism and decided to get in the fray as a citizen journalist. She quickly racked up thousands of subscribers, which I love.
She publishes two semi-daily updates, documenting the work done by Democratic politicians and affiliated groups:
– Three Wins Today
– Daily Dems Doing the Work, Making Noise and Fighting Back
We The People are not potted plants nor agency-free infants who cannot think or act without directives from on high.
Plenty of folks elected and unelected are working to save democracy, plenty of orgs need of footsoldiers — to contact voters, cajole politicians, and more.
I suppose whining online and yelling “DO SOMETHING!” at nobody in particular is cathartic. But those who are actually serious about getting things done are not lacking for opportunity and avenues to actually make an impact.
It’s worth noting that Halligan reportedly appeared by herself before the grand jury. It might mean nothing, or it might mean nobody in her office is willing to be associated with the indictment. If the latter, expect some staff changes at the Eastern District of Virginia office very soon.
@DK: I hope the confident assertions are correct that the case against Comey has no merit. However I would not put it past the likes of Ed Martin, Andrew Bailey and Halligan to outright forge incriminating evidence to try to get a conviction, with another “Look what we found in burn bags at the back of a cupboard” stunt.
@HelloWorld:
Which is a looong way from hearings.
Hearing of the type you are describing require a majority.