Former FBI Director James Comey’s legal team has launched a strong counterattack against the federal government, asking a court to throw out the criminal case against him. His lawyers filed a detailed 51-page motion arguing that the prosecution is politically motivated and violates basic constitutional rights.
The motion came just weeks after Comey was indicted on charges of making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding related to his 2020 testimony. He has already entered a not guilty plea in a Virginia court.
Comey’s legal team says the government’s case is not based on evidence, but on personal hostility from top political leaders, particularly from the president, who they claim has spent years attacking Comey both in public and on social media.
The Motion to Dismiss: A Claim of Political Retaliation
In their filing, Comey’s attorneys say the charges were filed because of the president’s “personal animosity” toward the former FBI chief. They argue that prosecuting someone for being critical of the government is an attack on the First Amendment, which protects free speech.
The lawyers describe the case as “vindictive and selective prosecution”, meaning Comey was targeted for reasons other than justice. They claim that federal prosecutors ignored legal standards and instead acted on direct orders from the president.
According to the filing, “The proper remedy for this unconstitutional prosecution is dismissal with prejudice.” That means the case would be permanently closed and could not be refiled later.
Kamala Harris slams DOJ’s impartiality, calls Trump-era prosecutions politically motivated
The motion goes even further, saying that anything short of a full dismissal would not fix what they call “flagrant government misconduct.”
Legal experts say this is one of the most aggressive challenges ever mounted against a federal prosecution of a former senior official. The defense accuses the government of weaponizing the justice system for political revenge.
How the Case Began: From Social Media Posts to Federal Charges
The case traces back to events that unfolded just days before Comey’s indictment. The president reportedly posted on his social media platform, calling for his Attorney General to “go after political enemies” — a message that appeared to reference Comey directly.
In the motion, Comey’s lawyers highlight this post as proof that the prosecution was politically ordered. They write that the president’s public comments amounted to a “direct admission” that Comey was being singled out.
Within 48 hours of the post, the Attorney General appointed Lindsey Halligan — a close presidential ally and former personal lawyer — as acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The motion claims Halligan’s appointment was unlawful, arguing that she lacked prosecutorial experience and that her selection bypassed normal legal procedures.
Just four days later, Halligan presented the case to a federal grand jury, which handed down the two-count indictment.
The defense calls this timeline “highly irregular”, suggesting that the process was rushed to meet a political deadline before the statute of limitations expired.
After the indictment was announced, the president celebrated publicly online, thanking the Justice Department and Halligan by name for “bringing justice.”
Comey’s team says these celebrations prove that the case was never about law enforcement — but about settling personal scores.
Washington’s legal powerhouse suffers cyber breach amid wave of law firm attacks
The Indictment and the Legal Battle Ahead
Comey was charged with lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional hearing related to his September 2020 testimony. The charges accuse him of misleading lawmakers about internal discussions during his time as FBI director.
At his first court appearance earlier this month, Comey entered a not guilty plea and vowed to fight the case. His lawyers said at the time that they planned to challenge the charges as unconstitutional — a promise they fulfilled with this week’s motion.
The defense argues that the government’s actions broke multiple laws, including the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause, both of which are designed to prevent abuse of power.
They also point to a series of social media posts made by the president after the indictment, in which he mocked and insulted Comey and described him as a “dirty cop.”
According to the motion, these remarks show a pattern of hostility and confirm that the prosecution was meant to punish a critic, not enforce the law.
The defense also questioned why the case was handled by someone with no prior courtroom experience, noting that Halligan, 36, had never prosecuted a case before. Yet she was allowed to present evidence to a grand jury in one of the most politically sensitive cases in years.
Legal observers have said that the appointment of such an inexperienced figure to lead a major case could raise questions about the government’s motives.
A Clash Between Politics and Justice
The filing from Comey’s team paints a picture of a government driven by political pressure, not legal principle. They say the prosecution came after a campaign of personal attacks by the president, who repeatedly accused Comey of betraying him during his first term in office.
Eric Trump explodes on Newsmax — claims Biden tried to break up Donald and Melania’s marriage
The defense motion claims the entire investigation was an “abuse of federal power” designed to intimidate opponents and reward loyalty. They say the president’s direct involvement and public celebration of the indictment “tainted” the justice process beyond repair.
Comey’s team is asking the judge not only to dismiss the charges but also to hold a hearing on what they describe as “vindictive and selective prosecution.” That would allow them to question government officials and obtain documents showing how and why the case was built.
If the court agrees, it could force prosecutors to turn over internal communications and evidence that might reveal whether political figures influenced the decision to indict.
So far, government lawyers have not commented on the motion or provided a timeline for their response.
For now, Comey’s case highlights the deep tension between politics and the justice system, especially when criminal charges involve former government officials.
The 51-page motion ends with a powerful statement: “This prosecution is not about justice — it is about punishment for disobedience. Such actions threaten the very foundation of the rule of law.”
As the case continues, the legal fight is drawing national attention, not only for its implications for one man’s fate, but for what it may reveal about how far politics can reach into the courtroom.
