Former FBI Director James Comey faces federal charges as the Department of Justice (DOJ) disputes his selective prosecution claims ahead of his January 2026 trial. In a recent filing, the DOJ argued that Comey’s motion to dismiss the indictment is unfounded, asserting that his allegations of political bias are not supported by the evidence. Prosecutors emphasized that while President Donald Trump’s public posts on his Truth Social platform expressed disdain for Comey and other political adversaries, these statements do not constitute direct evidence of discriminatory intent.
The DOJ, in its 48-page filing, denied that Trump’s September post, which called on U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute prominent figures like Comey, Sen. Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James, influenced the decision to charge Comey. Prosecutors contended that Trump’s comments reflected his personal views on the matter, and thus, cannot be used to infer a direct motive for selective prosecution. The legal team representing Comey, however, argued that the interim U.S. Attorney who signed the indictment was unlawfully appointed, which could render the entire case invalid.
Comey was indicted in late September on charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding. He has pleaded not guilty to these allegations and continues to deny any wrongdoing. The case has sparked intense political reactions nationwide, with many observers noting the broader implications of the DOJ’s handling of high-profile cases. The trial is scheduled to begin in January 202, and the outcome could set important legal precedents regarding the independence of the federal judiciary and the influence of political figures on prosecutorial decisions.
The legal battle over the indictment’s validity has raised questions about the legitimacy of the appointment of the interim U.S. Attorney. The DOJ maintains that Halligan’s appointment was lawful, citing federal statutes and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. However, Comey’s legal team argues that the process for her appointment was flawed and that her role in the indictment’s preparation was unconstitutional. As the trial approaches, the focus will likely shift to the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense’s ability to challenge the integrity of the legal proceedings. The outcome of this case may have far-reaching implications for the balance of power within the executive and judicial branches of the U.S. government.