Former FBI Director James Comey is set to be arraigned on Wednesday morning in Alexandria, Va., just outside Washington.
The moment will bring enormous media attention — and fire the starting pistol on a legal battle that has huge stakes for President Trump as well as his longtime foe.
Critics of the president see the pursuit of Comey as little more than a show trial aimed at humiliating an enemy and dissuading other would-be dissenters from standing up to Trump.
The president, for his part, is openly gleeful at the possible downfall of a figure whom he obviously loathes.
That’s in part because of Trump’s belief that Comey was instrumental in stoking speculation about nefarious links between his 2016 campaign and Russia that placed a cloud over his first term. It’s also because the former FBI director has become an open and strident Trump critic.
When Comey was indicted last month, Trump celebrated what he called “Justice in America!” in a post on social media. The president contended that Comey was “one of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to” and that he was “now at the beginning of being held responsible for his crimes.”
Comey, meanwhile, proclaimed his innocence in an Instagram video in which he said, “My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump. … We will not live on our knees — and you shouldn’t either.”
This appeared to be an allusion to Maurene Comey, the former FBI director’s daughter, who was fired from her position as a federal prosecutor earlier this year. Maurene Comey is suing over her dismissal.
James Comey, in the video message, said that his “heart is broken for the Department of Justice” but welcomed the chance to clear his name at trial.
If Comey were to ultimately be acquitted, it would be a major black eye for Trump.
Not only would it irk the president, it would call into question the sequence of events that led to Comey’s prosecution — events that are already deeply contentious because of how they play into the broader thesis that Trump is using the justice system to pursue personal and political vendettas.
If, on the other hand, Comey were to be convicted, it would validate the critique proffered by Trump and his MAGA allies that the former FBI director was engaged in underhanded efforts to besmirch the president.
It would also put wind into the sails of Trump, current FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Pam Bondi and others who have argued that there is a “deep state” embedded at the bureau and other Washington agencies that needs to be weeded out.
Bondi was center stage on Tuesday during a stormy appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Democrats took aim at what they see as evidence that Trump is directing the work of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and is motivated by personal animus against figures like Comey.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) showed a photo of Bondi having dinner with Trump and others the evening prior to the announcement of Comey’s indictment. The attorney general avoided a direct answer on what she had talked about with Trump.
“I am not going to discuss any conversations I have or have not had with the president of the United States,” Bondi said.
The attorney general was similarly indirect when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) asked her about a mid-September Trump social media post in which he appeared to instruct her to seek Comey’s indictment. Klobuchar asked whether the post was a “directive” to the DOJ. Bondi parried, arguing in essence that Trump’s views were already well known.
The Trump post was central to opening up a whole new front of controversy in the case.
It was addressed to “Pam” and fulminated about Comey and other Trump foes. The president complained, “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.”
The extraordinary nature of a sitting president calling publicly on an attorney general to move against his enemies caused a new furor.
In his post, Trump also complained about Erik Siebert, who had served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia but stepped down, reportedly because he did not believe criminal charges were warranted against another Trump target, New York Attorney General Letitia James (D).
An ardent Trump ally, Lindsey Halligan, has taken over Siebert’s position. And although she won an indictment of Comey, the bare-bones nature of her case, laid out over a sparse one and a half pages, raises its own questions.
Comey is charged with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. The heart of the matter appears to be his answer in an exchange with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a 2020 Senate Judiciary hearing.
Cruz cited 2017 testimony in which Comey was asked whether he had “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports.” Comey, in 2017, replied “No.”
In 2020, to Cruz, he said “I stand by the testimony” he gave in 2017.
Cruz appears to believe this contradicts testimony given by Comey’s former deputy Andrew McCabe — though McCabe did not testify that Comey preauthorized any disclosure.
It’s possible the accusation may pertain to a different person entirely, a law professor and friend of Comey’s named Daniel Richman. But Richman had left his role as a “special government employee” with the FBI before he shared information with The New York Times about Comey’s interactions with Trump.
The complex web of accusations and denials will emerge soon enough at Comey’s trial. There, it can be properly and publicly scrutinized.
The risks for two men whose disputes have made headlines for eight years could hardly be starker.
The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.
Source: The Hill
Be First to Comment