On Monday, former FBI Director James Comey requested a federal judge to dismiss the criminal charges against him, arguing that they stem from personal animosity towards him by President Trump, rather than legitimate concerns. He made this assertion in a complaint that spans 51 pages.
Comey emphasized that the Constitution protects individuals’ rights to express dissent against the government, and any retaliation is unconstitutional. His attorney, Jessica Carmichael, elaborated that President Trump allegedly instructed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pursue charges against Comey out of malice due to Comey’s vocal criticism of the president’s actions during his term.
Earlier this month, Comey pleaded not guilty to accusations of providing false statements and obstruction, which emerged from his 2020 testimony to Senator Ted Cruz regarding an FBI breach. A trial has been scheduled for January 5th.
Comey is not alone in facing such challenges; several of Trump’s opponents have recently been indicted by the Justice Department. For instance, New York Attorney General Letitia James is under scrutiny for bank fraud allegations, and John Bolton, the former national security adviser, faced indictment last week for mishandling classified materials. All parties maintain their innocence.
This motion from Comey was anticipated. From the outset, he indicated his intention to contest the indictment, arguing that the prosecutor, Lindsey Harrigan, who was appointed by Trump, might lack the legal authority to move forward. Harrigan stepped into the role after the previous U.S. attorney, who had expressed concerns about indicting Comey, resigned.
While Comey’s lawyers acknowledge that dismissing federal charges on these grounds is unusual, they argue that Trump’s direct demand for the indictment serves as evidence of bias and selectivity among prosecutors.
They noted that such dismissals are rare because the DOJ has generally operated with a commitment to high ethical standards, basing charge decisions solely on facts and law. They believe this case deviates significantly from that norm.
Last month, President Trump made a public request to Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging her to pursue charges against Comey and others, mentioning that “great things are happening” and stressing the urgency of the matter.
In addition, Comey has contested the legitimacy of Harrigan’s appointment, claiming the indictment—that originated from a former White House aide with no prosecution background—is void and that the charges should therefore be dismissed.
Comey’s legal team argued, “The United States cannot prosecute cases through officials who are unqualified,” as underscored in their 34-page motion.
U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, appointed by former President Joe Biden, indicated earlier this month that any challenge regarding Harrigan’s appointment will be resolved by a judge from outside the district, appointed by the district’s appellate court. Once designated, that judge will create their own timeline for proceedings.
The allegations of vindictive prosecution are set to be evaluated on November 19 in the Nachmanoff Courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia.
The Justice Department has opted not to comment at this time. The Hill has reached out to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia for further input.
Comey claims he is facing retaliatory prosecution, echoing arguments Trump made in attempts to counter two federal lawsuits against him. To have the charges dismissed, Comey will need to establish that others in similar situations were not charged, a challenging task.
While such motions typically face significant obstacles, some individuals indicted during the Trump administration have initially found success with this approach, as seen in the case of Kilmer Abrego García, who sought further discovery in a lawsuit after being mistakenly deported despite protections.
