Comey Seeks Dismissal of 'Selective and Vindictive' Prosecution at Key Virginia Hearing

Former FBI Director James Comey appeared before a federal judge in Virginia as his attorneys urged the court to dismiss what they describe as a "selective and vindictive" prosecution brought by the current administration. The high-stakes hearing could determine whether the indictment proceeds.

Background

Comey was indicted in September on charges alleging he made false statements to Congress and obstructed a congressional proceeding; he has pleaded not guilty. The defense argues the prosecution was driven by former President Donald Trump’s public calls for charges and by an ongoing personal animus toward Comey after his 2017 firing.

Defense Arguments

In court filings, Comey’s lawyers contend the government violated constitutional protections by initiating prosecution in retaliation for his protected speech and because of personal animus. They supplied the court with numerous examples of disparaging public posts and comments by Trump — including appeals to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue prosecution — and have asked U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff to dismiss the indictment with prejudice.

"The Constitution forbids the government from prosecuting an individual based on his protected speech or based on a government official’s animus toward the individual," the defense wrote in filings, urging dismissal.

Defense supporters and some legal analysts say the available evidence could meet the unusually high standard required to prove a vindictive or selective prosecution. Patrick J. Cotter, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, characterized the motion as potentially one of the rare successful vindictive prosecution challenges given the apparent evidence of direction from the former president.

Government Response

The Department of Justice disputes these claims, arguing the charges are legitimate and implicate significant public interests. DOJ filings emphasize that alleged false statements to Congress by a former leader of the nation's primary federal law-enforcement agency raise serious societal concerns and contend dismissal is an "extraordinary" remedy that should be granted only if constitutionally required.

Related Motions and Procedural Notes

Comey — and separately New York Attorney General Letitia James, who faces a related indictment — filed motions to disqualify acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, arguing her appointment was unlawful. Halligan, a former personal lawyer to the former president, was appointed after her predecessor resigned amid pressure tied to the indictments.

Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick recently criticized the Justice Department’s approach in Comey’s case as appearing to be "indict first, investigate later," a line of critique the defense highlighted as relevant to the court’s assessment of prosecutorial motives.

What’s at Stake

The hearing will test difficult constitutional issues involving prosecutorial discretion, separation-of-powers principles, and the line between lawful enforcement and unlawful retaliation. Judge Nachmanoff’s ruling on the motion to dismiss — and any related disqualification claims — could decisively shape whether the case moves forward to trial.