...
By Robert Alexander
Senior Crime & Court Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The federal grand jury indictment against former FBI Director James B. Comey Jr. could backfire on the Trump prosecutors pursuing it, warns a former U.S. Attorney.
Comey, who led the FBI from 2013 until President Donald Trump fired him in 2017, now faces two false-statements charges tied to his September 2020 Senate testimony about the FBI’s handling of the Russia inquiry. Comey says he is innocent.
Harry Litman, who was U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania from October 22, 1998 until April 2001, calls the stakes "career-ending for prosecutors if they don’t get this right," in a Substack Live interview.
Read More on U.S.
Newsweek contacted both Comey, via his attorney, and the Department of Justice for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Friday.
Why It Matters
The indictment of Comey is more than a personal legal battle—it’s a test of the Justice Department’s credibility and the limits of presidential influence over prosecutions.
Bringing perjury and obstruction charges against a high-profile political adversary demands clear, provable evidence; if the case fails, it could damage DOJ’s reputation for independence, discourage truthful congressional testimony.
...
What To Know
Filed in Alexandria, Virginia, on September 25, 2025, the case has drawn national attention as a rare prosecution of a former FBI chief over testimony to Congress. Litman added that "whoever’s signature is on the bottom of an indictment—if they somehow force one through—is going to be subject to really serious professional sanctions."
The indictment alleges that Comey "willfully and knowingly" (18 U.S.C. §1001) (1) denied authorizing anyone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous media source regarding an investigation and (2) falsely claimed he could not recall key intelligence briefings related to the 2016 election. Each count carries up to five years in prison.
Comey responded swiftly. "My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I’m innocent, so let’s have a trial," he said in a video statement on September 26. His attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, said they look forward to "vindicating him in the courtroom."
The High Legal Bar
The prosecution’s path will not be straightforward. To convict under 18 U.S.C. §1001(a) (2), prosecutors must prove the statements were false, that Comey knew they were false when made, and that they were material to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s inquiry. Proving intent—showing deliberate deception rather than mistake or faulty memory—has historically been difficult with senior officials and complex testimony.
Litman noted that any loss would likely invite claims of political misuse of the Justice Department.
That caution comes amid signs of internal dissent. Reporting summarized in Fortune indicates career prosecutors presented newly installed Eastern District U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan with a memo urging against charging Comey, arguing the evidence did not establish probable cause.
Proceeding despite those concerns may give the defense a foundation to argue the indictment was driven by political pressure rather than law.
Political Pressure and Perception
That pressure has been unusually visible. Trump repeatedly demanded public action against Comey and other rivals.
In a September Truth Social post directed at Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump wrote, "We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility … JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!"
He also criticized former U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert for saying "that we had no case."
Such presidential commentary is atypical in live criminal matters and could feed defense arguments about selective prosecution.
The Justice Department’s credibility often hinges not only on courtroom success but also on maintaining a perception of independence.
If the case collapses, it could deepen skepticism about whether criminal law is being applied impartially in politically charged disputes.
The prosecution also risks reopening the Russia narrative: Trump fired Comey in 2017 amid the "Russia Russia" inquiry, and while the Mueller Report documented sweeping Kremlin interference but did not establish a conspiracy with the Trump campaign (and declined to exonerate him on obstruction), pressing this case could potentially recenter those issues and reignite debate over Trump’s posture toward Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Who Is Lindsey Halligan
Central to the emerging narrative is Lindsey Halligan, the newly installed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, one of the most consequential federal prosecutorial offices in the country. Halligan, 36, spent most of her career in Florida insurance litigation before joining Trump’s legal team during the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation.
Court records indicate she has participated in only three federal cases prior to this appointment.
After serving as one of Trump’s personal attorneys, Halligan joined the White House staff in 2025 and was tapped to lead a cultural policy initiative before being nominated to replace Siebert, who was pushed out amid reports he resisted bringing cases against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Fortune reports Siebert was listed as an attorney on 675 federal cases during his career.
Halligan's lack of prosecutorial experience has drawn scrutiny from legal observers. The Eastern District of Virginia, known as the "rocket docket," handles national security and high-profile political cases at a rapid pace. Managing such a docket while overseeing politically sensitive charges against a former FBI director is challenging even for career prosecutors.
Broader Implications
Beyond one man’s legal jeopardy, the Comey prosecution tests institutional boundaries. It asks whether Congress can rely on truthful testimony from top officials and whether the Justice Department can enforce that obligation free of political interference.
It also measures whether prosecutors, when pressed by a president’s public demands, can still build a case that meets ordinary evidentiary standards.
If the indictment falters—through dismissal, acquittal, or even a pretrial finding of insufficient evidence—the political and professional fallout could be severe.
For the Justice Department, a loss could harden perceptions of politicization and make future perjury cases against senior officials even harder to bring.
Conversely, a successful prosecution could bolster congressional oversight and reinforce the idea that even the highest-ranking officials must tell the truth under oath.
What People Are Saying
Donald Trump, to reporters September 20, 2025: "If they’re not guilty, that’s fine. If they are guilty or if they should be judged, they should be charged. And we have to do it now," and on appointing Halligan praised her publicly as "tough, smart, and loyal."
Lindsey Halligan said: "Sports and pageants taught me confidence, discipline, and how to handle pressure—on the court, on the field, on the stage, in the courtroom and now in the White House."
What Happens Next
James Comey is scheduled to be arraigned in Alexandria federal court on October 9, 2025, where he’s expected to plead not guilty. His attorneys plan to file motions challenging the sufficiency of the charges and alleging political pressure, while prosecutors prepare to disclose transcripts and records of his 2020 testimony.
Any outcome—dismissal, acquittal, or conviction—would almost certainly be appealed and will shape perceptions of the Justice Department’s independence and the risks of politicizing high-profile prosecutions.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines