Former FBI Director James Comey is once again at the center of a political and legal firestorm — this time, as a defendant. Following his indictment earlier this month on charges of making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding, Comey has filed a motion asking a federal judge to dismiss the case entirely, claiming the prosecution is the result of a political vendetta by President Donald Trump.
The move, revealed Monday through court filings obtained by Politico, signals that Comey and his legal team plan to fight the charges by arguing that the case is not only baseless but illegally motivated by personal animus from the president he once investigated.
Comey’s Legal Argument: “A Political Hit Job”
Comey’s attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, described the charges as “an egregious abuse of power,” claiming that Trump’s public statements calling for Comey’s prosecution show a direct link between political hostility and the criminal indictment.
“President Trump posted a statement on social media that provides smoking-gun evidence that this prosecution would not have occurred but for the President’s animus toward Mr. Comey,” Fitzgerald wrote in the motion.
The filing references a September 20th post by Trump, in which the president demanded that “every corrupt official who weaponized government against the American people” be prosecuted — naming Comey among them. Fitzgerald argues that this post demonstrates political interference, asserting that Trump used his influence over the Department of Justice to “settle old scores.”
Comey’s legal team submitted two separate motions on Monday:
A motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution, claiming that Comey was targeted solely for political reasons.
A motion to dismiss for improper appointment of the prosecutor, arguing that the attorney leading the case — identified as Lindsey Halligan, a former Trump legal adviser — lacked lawful authority to pursue charges.
Fitzgerald’s filings portray the case as a “last-minute political stunt,” accusing Trump of handpicking a loyalist to pursue a critic under false pretenses.
“The eleventh-hour appointment of a political ally for the express purpose of prosecuting a longtime critic, accompanied by a social media post pushing the DOJ to indict — is decisive evidence that the government would not have prosecuted Mr. Comey but for his expression of ideas that President Trump disliked,” Fitzgerald wrote.
The Charges Against Comey
The indictment, handed down earlier this month, accuses Comey of lying under oath during his 2020 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding the FBI’s handling of the 2016 investigation into alleged links between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Prosecutors allege that Comey knowingly misled Congress when he testified that he “was not aware of any FISA-related irregularities” tied to the surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page — a claim later contradicted by internal FBI documents and inspector general findings.
The obstruction charge centers on allegations that Comey withheld internal communications and influenced subordinates to delay the release of materials requested by congressional investigators.
Comey has pleaded not guilty to all charges, insisting that his actions were lawful and that he never intentionally misled Congress.
A Familiar Defense
This isn’t the first time Comey has invoked political motivation in his defense. Since his firing in 2017, he has repeatedly claimed that Trump’s criticisms and investigations into his conduct stem from personal grievances, not legitimate oversight.
Legal experts, however, note that proving “vindictive prosecution” is an uphill battle.
“The courts have historically been reluctant to dismiss criminal cases based solely on claims of political motivation,” said former federal prosecutor Daniel Goldman, who once worked alongside Comey. “Even if there is a political context, the defense must show actual evidence of selective enforcement and bad faith — and that’s an extremely high bar.”
Goldman added that Comey’s reliance on Trump’s social media post as “proof” may not hold up in court.
“Presidents make public comments all the time,” he said. “Unless there’s a direct instruction or documented pressure on the Justice Department, that alone isn’t enough to prove unlawful influence.”
A Divided Reaction
Comey’s legal maneuver immediately reignited partisan debate in Washington. Republicans dismissed his motion as a stall tactic, while Democrats framed the case as yet another example of the Justice Department being used as a political weapon.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who has long been critical of Comey’s handling of the 2016 investigations, said the motion only highlights Comey’s unwillingness to take responsibility.
“He lied to Congress, plain and simple,” Grassley said. “Comey is trying to make this about politics when the facts are about honesty and accountability.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) argued that the case represents “a troubling precedent.”
“Regardless of how anyone feels about James Comey,” Blumenthal said, “it’s deeply concerning when a president appears to be directing criminal prosecutions against political rivals. That undermines faith in the rule of law.”
An Unusual Prosecutor Appointment
A major focus of Comey’s defense is the appointment of Lindsey Halligan, a former Trump campaign attorney, as the lead prosecutor. Typically, the Department of Justice handles such cases through career prosecutors or special counsels with bipartisan credibility.
Comey’s legal team claims that Halligan’s appointment “bypassed normal channels” and that she lacks the necessary authorization from the Attorney General’s office.
The Justice Department has not publicly responded to the allegations, but insiders insist that Halligan’s appointment was “lawful and appropriate,” citing her experience in federal investigations.
“Ms. Halligan was appointed in accordance with existing DOJ authority,” a senior department official told reporters. “The case proceeded through the standard approval process.”
Comey’s Controversial Legacy
James Comey’s time at the FBI remains one of the most polarizing chapters in recent American history. Once praised for his independence, Comey became a lightning rod during the 2016 election after publicly announcing that Hillary Clinton would not face charges over her private email server — then reopening the investigation just days before the election.
His later role in approving the FBI’s surveillance of Trump campaign associates, as well as his handling of the “Steele dossier,” drew fierce criticism from conservatives, who accused him of politicizing the bureau.
Comey, for his part, has maintained that he acted out of duty, not partisanship. His memoir, A Higher Loyalty, portrays him as a defender of institutional integrity — though critics see him as a self-serving bureaucrat trying to rewrite history.
What’s Next
The federal judge overseeing the case has set a preliminary hearing for next month, where arguments on Comey’s motions will be heard. If the motions are denied, the trial could begin early next year — setting the stage for another politically charged courtroom battle in an already divided Washington.
Legal analysts predict that even if Comey’s motions fail, his defense strategy will continue to frame the prosecution as an act of political retaliation.
“Comey’s best hope isn’t necessarily acquittal,” said legal scholar Barbara McQuade. “It’s convincing the public that this entire process is illegitimate — and that may be more about optics than law.”
For now, both sides are digging in. Trump allies insist that the former FBI director is finally facing justice for what they describe as years of misconduct. Comey’s defenders see the indictment as an escalation in the long-running feud between the former president and the intelligence community.
Either way, the outcome of United States v. Comey is poised to become one of the most consequential legal showdowns of the post–Trump era — a test not only of Comey’s credibility but of how far political retribution can reach inside America’s justice system.