“Let’s have a trial,” James Comey declared, dressing like a peacock in front of a camera as he first learned of his indictment by a Virginia grand jury on charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional hearing.
Cardinal Comey’s bravado was a staged drama to satisfy his eternal quest for sainthood. In reality, a lawsuit is not what he wants at all. That became abundantly clear in court Tuesday, moments after the disgraced former FBI director formally entered a “not guilty” plea.
His lawyers immediately informed the judge that they would try to avoid a trial entirely by filing motions to dismiss the case. They will allege selective and vindictive prosecution, grand jury abuse, and outrageous government behavior.
COMEY PLEADS NOT GUILTY IN COURT AFTER CHARGED ON ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS, OBSTRUCTION
Their goal is to bring President Donald Trump to justice to prevent Comey’s trial, which is currently scheduled to begin in early January. It is an undisguised legal maneuver to portray Trump as the pernicious villain and Comey as the innocent victim.
Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on June 8, 2017.
This twisted portrayal is worthy of a Shakespearean farce, considering the defendant’s long list of lawless schemes, unconscionable deceptions and blatant abuse of power that should have landed him behind bars years ago.
And spare me the moral outrage over the weaponization of the law. Comey invented it by brazenly launching the first legal crusade against Trump. His personal animosity was the driving force behind the perverse Russian hoax.
But Comey’s legal attempt to thwart his own trial should not be taken lightly. Why?
Comey’s team of lawyers will make their pitch to a friendly referee. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff was appointed to the federal bench by President Joe Biden, whose Department of Justice (DOJ) interfered with Comey and others by ignoring a plethora of corrupt acts now barred by the statute of limitations.
HOW JAMES COMEY’S CHARGES COULD GO SOUTH IN THE DOJ
In a politically charged case, the political views of the chairman are important.
Here, the defense will argue that the case should be dismissed because Trump pressured government lawyers to pursue a politically motivated prosecution against his nemesis, Comey. The president fired a reluctant U.S. attorney and installed his former personal attorney, Lindsey Halligan, who was indicted by a grand jury.
Trump’s fierce criticism of Comey was well deserved and is public. But it does not mean that such a person is legally protected from criminal prosecution.
In the spirit of fairness, let’s compare.
Biden continually denounced Trump as a “threat to democracy,” and Joe’s dirty fingerprints were all over special counsel Jack Smith’s dual indictments. As first reported by the New York Times in April 2022, Biden said he wanted Trump prosecuted. Immediately pressure was put on his attorney general, Merrick Garland, to get it done.
That was not an isolated incident. Readers of political history know that other former presidents played active roles in DOJ decision-making. Notably, President John F. Kennedy consulted closely with his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, on prosecutorial objectives and even targets, some of whom were considered his political enemies.
COMEY DENIES ACCUSATIONS, DECLARES ‘I’M NOT AFRAID’
Scholars have long debated whether presidents can instruct the DOJ or their U.S. attorneys what to do. However, under Article II of the Constitution, the president has ultimate authority over all branches of the executive branch, including the Department of Justice. Directing prosecutorial decisions is part of his inherent powers.
Not exercising that full authority out of respect for the independence of the prosecution is a choice and not a legal or constitutional requirement. If a U.S. attorney disagrees that probable cause exists for a charge, he or she can object on ethical grounds. But a president is then free to appoint a replacement who has a different opinion and has no objection to it.
Former FBI director James Comey is drawn in a courtroom sketch during his arraignment on Oct. 8, 2025, in Virginia. (Federal Court, artist Dana Verkouteren)
Back to Comey. In order to avoid the lawsuit he insists, his lawyers will file a variety of claims aimed squarely at Trump. The defense instructions will be extensive. For now, let’s look at the most obvious: selective prosecution.
Comey must convince Judge Nachmanoff that the case against him was motivated by an unjustifiable motive that discriminated against him. Moreover, Comey must use clear evidence to overcome the so-called “presumption of regularity,” which assumes prosecutors are performing their duties properly.
COMEY’S DECLARATION LEADS TO POLITICAL REACTIONS ACROSS THE NATION
Usually things go uphill because the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.
This is where the merits of the charge come into play. Are they justified? The indictment alleges Comey lied and obstructed Congress. OK. But how convincing is the evidence and how strong are the witnesses against him? Who are those witnesses? What exactly was the false statement and in what context was it given?
The unsatisfactory answer is… we don’t know. The indictment itself tells us very little.
It reveals only that Comey knowingly made a materially false statement to a U.S. Senator at a Judiciary Committee hearing that he, Comey, had not authorized someone else (“PERSON 3”) at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about an FBI investigation involving “PERSON 1.” The alleged lie had the effect of obstructing the committee’s investigation.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
At this early stage, the identities of Person 1 and Person 2 are a mystery, as are the recipients of the news reports. We can speculate, but we have no idea exactly what statement Comey made that might have been false, or what contradictory and incriminating evidence prosecutors have in their possession.
Patrice Failor (left), wife of former FBI Director James Comey, hugs her daughter Maurene Comey as they arrive at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s Bryan Courthouse on October 8, 2025 in Alexandria, Virginia. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Without that crucial information, no one can competently assess the strength or weakness of the case. This means that we cannot possibly determine whether the charges were motivated by an unjustified motive and therefore constitute selective prosecution. A grand jury found it justified because it found probable cause to believe Comey committed crimes.
On Tuesday, Comey’s lawyers told the judge they would ask for a “bill of details” to obtain more specific facts. These details will undoubtedly follow. Until then, those who confidently claim that there is no credible case against Comey are merely guessing.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
In the meantime, don’t believe the self-righteous and vain Comey when he insists, “let’s have a trial.” That’s a typical pretext for which he is notorious.
Comey will fight hard to avoid his own trial.
CLICK HERE TO GREGG JARRETT
