Comey Seeks Dismissal of Charges Citing Selective Prosecution and Legal Irregularities

Comey Seeks Dismissal of Charges Citing Selective Prosecution and Legal Irregularities

Former FBI director James Comey recently mounted a defense against criminal charges. He alleges that he is the victim of selective prosecution. The indictment was unsealed on September 25th. It charges him with one count of making a false statement to the FBI and a second count of obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress. This litigation originates out of Comey’s testimony before congressional committees on September 30, 2020.

These are just a few of the reasons Comey’s legal team claims the indictment is legally impaired at its core. They argue that Senator Ted Cruz’s question at the congressional hearing wasn’t targeted at Andrew McCabe, another former senior FBI official. The last of them, Daniel Richman, who was named above, they think was not the target of Cruz’s inquiry. Even if they knew it, this distinction was hugely important for the defense’s argument. Specifically, they claim that the government has been misleading about the background of Comey’s answer.

The attorneys are adamant that evidence had been carefully weighed by seasoned career prosecutors. They determined there was insufficient evidence to file charges against Comey. They contend that this ruling supports his argument for selective prosecution. This is a sign that the suit has no merit and is just a politically motivated case.

In their motion to dismiss, Comey’s attorneys challenge the validity of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as U.S. attorney. In fact, President Trump appointed Halligan only after Erik Siebert was fired. Yet, Halligan had not undergone the necessary Senate confirmation process. U.S. attorneys typically require Senate confirmation to assume office. As a result, they can only serve temporarily on an interim basis unless a federal judicial authority grants them an extension of term.

As Halligan has not shown that it meets any of these exceptions, the legal team explains why. This means she must stop performing work in her current position. This leads to serious questions about the legality of the charges brought against Comey. That argument mostly focuses on the idea that incorrect appointment processes undermine the starting point of the prosecution’s case.

Comey’s legal team has argued that President Trump is very, very angry at him. They argue that this antagonism stems from Comey’s protected speech and testimony—now realized as a whistleblower—during his tenure as FBI director. They point to numerous public tirades by Trump as proof of this animus. Further down, they describe a Truth Social post that Trump made on September 20 as “smoking gun evidence.” Specifically, this post illustrates former president’s blatant hostility.

John Durham, the special counsel appointed to investigate allegations regarding the FBI’s handling of matters related to the 2016 election, reportedly found no evidence supporting charges against Comey, further complicating the prosecution’s case. The defense contends that these developments underscore Comey’s position as a target of selective prosecution rather than a legitimate defendant in a criminal case.

Like all criminal defendants, James Comey has pleaded not guilty to all charges and continues to assert that he has committed no wrongdoing. His legal team contends that the facts of his indictment and prosecution are emblematic of a larger trend in the way political motivations have crept into prosecutorial decision-making.

Tags