In this episode of “Pot, Meet Kettle”…
Former FBI Director James Comey, whose visceral hatred of President Donald Trump remains palpable, now has the unmitigated gall to ask a federal judge to dismiss the Justice Department’s case against him because of, as his legal team claims, “vindictiveness” and Trump’s “personal animus” against him.
Comey was indicted on September 25 on charges of making a false statement and obstruction of Congress. Specifically, the charges are for allegedly lying to Congress during a 2020 Senate hearing focused on the FBI’s investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia.
Pretty rich, huh? Comey’s personal animus against Trump is legendary. During his legal pursuit of the president, the disgraced former FBI head took lawfare to a whole new level.
GO DEEPER: Legal Analyst Reveals Which Charge Could Be Most Damaging for Comey, and Why
Comey’s motion to dismiss claims he committed no crimes and is being targeted because of his criticism of Trump. And, yes — the gall of it all is off the charts. Nevertheless, Comey’s lawyers wrote in the motion:
The government has singled out Mr. Comey for prosecution because of his protected speech and because of President Trump’s personal animus toward Mr. Comey. Such a vindictive and selective prosecution violates the First Amendment, Due Process Clause, and equal protection principles. The proper remedy for this unconstitutional prosecution is dismissal with prejudice.
Here’s more, via, ironically, Lawfare:
According to the motion, Comey’s lawyers asserted that, “ample objective evidence–much of which comes directly from government officials’ own public statements and admissions–establishes that the government’s animus toward Mr. Comey led directly to this vindictive and selective prosecution.”
Throughout the 51 page motion, Comey’s lawyers detail the often adversarial relationship between Comey and the president, citing various Trump’s public statements pushing for the Department of Justice to prosecute the former FBI director. The motion also specifically highlights President Trump’s recent social media post directed at Attorney General Pam Bondi stating that he fired interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert for not prosecuting Comey. Trump’s post also directed Bondi to appoint Lindsey Halligan to the position.
Comey filed this motion alongside an additional motion asking Judge Nachmanoff to dismiss the indictment due to the allegedly unlawful appointment of Halligan to be U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of Virginia.
Two points:
First, yes, Trump sometimes lets his mouth get out over his presidential skis. Understand, I’m not criticizing the president here. On the contrary, Trump’s off-script commentary and pontification are part of what makes Trump, Trump — which his avid supporters couldn’t love more. But to be fair, this president is sometimes his own worst enemy in this respect.
Second, vindictive prosecution claims are governed by constitutional due process principles and derived from Supreme Court decisions such as North Carolina v. Pearce (1969) and Blackledge v. Perry (1974), both of which established that government actors may not retaliate against a defendant for exercising lawful rights, as such retaliation would undermine the exercise of constitutional protections.
However, the notion of James Comey, of all people, accusing Trump — or anyone else — of vindictiveness and personal animus, and also claiming that’s why he was indicted, is off the irony charts. This guy has hated Trump for years — and he will undoubtedly continue to hate Trump for the rest of his life.
Here’s more, via The New York Times:
Traditionally, motions for vindictive prosecution are exceedingly hard to win. They require defendants to prove that prosecutors have displayed animus toward them while they were seeking to exercise their rights, and that the charges would never have been brought except for that animus.
[…]
In a separate motion, Mr. Comey’s lawyers said that Ms. Halligan, who had served as both a White House aide and as one of Mr. Trump’s personal defense lawyers, was improperly appointed to her post as U.S. attorney and so the case she filed should be dismissed in its entirety.
The lawyers reminded Judge Nachmanoff that Ms. Halligan, in a highly unorthodox move, presented evidence to the grand jury in the case by herself and was the sole prosecutor to have signed the indictment that was eventually returned.
While I’m neither a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, it seems to me that Comey and his legal defense team are fully aware that their motion to dismiss faces a high legal bar. Translation: It doesn’t take legendary SCOTUS Chief Justices John Marshall or Earl Warren to surmise that the former FBI director is principally trying to stay out of prison by any means possible — concocted or otherwise.
MORE COMEY FUN: Justice Department Seeks to Oust James Comey’s Defense Attorney
Trump Explains Why He Thinks ‘Dirty Cop’ James Comey Is Up a Creek Without a Paddle
It should also be noted that Halligan was also the only prosecutor to sign the indictment against New York State Attorney General Letitia James, who, earlier this month, was charged with bank fraud and making false statements.
A trial date for the complicated case is currently set for January 5.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
