A US District Judge Faces an Insurmountable Task in Dismissing Charges Against James Comey.
The Department of Justice's pursuit of former FBI Director James Comey on charges of lying to Congress has sparked heated debate over the selective and vindictive nature of the prosecution. In a motion filed by Comey's lawyers, they argue that their client was singled out for prosecution due to his criticisms of President Donald Trump, which are constitutionally protected speech.
To prove selective prosecution, Comey must demonstrate that he was targeted solely for his speech, rather than on independent grounds. This hurdle appears insurmountable, as other individuals with similar offenses have been prosecuted without issue. Former Trump fixer Michael Cohen and former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger have faced similar charges, which raises questions about the Department of Justice's selective enforcement of laws.
On the other hand, vindictive prosecution is a more plausible argument, given Trump's repeated statements urging Comey's prosecution. The motion to dismiss relies heavily on these public declarations, demonstrating a clear animus against Comey. However, proving this aspect of the case will require overcoming the substantial burden that prosecutors have broad discretion in charging decisions.
The grand jury found probable cause for the charges, which could be used to argue that Trump had no personal stake in pursuing the indictment. Nevertheless, Comey's lawyers believe that Trump's involvement and his subsequent public statements establish a clear vindictive motive.
In the event that the court denies the motion to dismiss, Comey's lawyers are seeking discovery of the grand jury decision-making process and a hearing on their motion. Given Trump's history of making public declarations against Comey, it is likely that the judge will choose this course of action.
Ultimately, regardless of how the trial progresses, Comey's lawyers will undoubtedly appeal any unfavorable rulings to federal appeals courts, with potential Supreme Court review looming in the shadows.
The Department of Justice's pursuit of former FBI Director James Comey on charges of lying to Congress has sparked heated debate over the selective and vindictive nature of the prosecution. In a motion filed by Comey's lawyers, they argue that their client was singled out for prosecution due to his criticisms of President Donald Trump, which are constitutionally protected speech.
To prove selective prosecution, Comey must demonstrate that he was targeted solely for his speech, rather than on independent grounds. This hurdle appears insurmountable, as other individuals with similar offenses have been prosecuted without issue. Former Trump fixer Michael Cohen and former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger have faced similar charges, which raises questions about the Department of Justice's selective enforcement of laws.
On the other hand, vindictive prosecution is a more plausible argument, given Trump's repeated statements urging Comey's prosecution. The motion to dismiss relies heavily on these public declarations, demonstrating a clear animus against Comey. However, proving this aspect of the case will require overcoming the substantial burden that prosecutors have broad discretion in charging decisions.
The grand jury found probable cause for the charges, which could be used to argue that Trump had no personal stake in pursuing the indictment. Nevertheless, Comey's lawyers believe that Trump's involvement and his subsequent public statements establish a clear vindictive motive.
In the event that the court denies the motion to dismiss, Comey's lawyers are seeking discovery of the grand jury decision-making process and a hearing on their motion. Given Trump's history of making public declarations against Comey, it is likely that the judge will choose this course of action.
Ultimately, regardless of how the trial progresses, Comey's lawyers will undoubtedly appeal any unfavorable rulings to federal appeals courts, with potential Supreme Court review looming in the shadows.
, can you imagine having to prove that you weren't targeted because of who you are or what you believe in? 
Like, come on! James Comey has already taken a huge risk by coming forward and speaking out about all the shenanigans he witnessed at the FBI. I think it's totally reasonable that he's pushing back against these unfair charges 
. And can we talk about how crazy it is that Trump is trying to silence him? 
Like, isn't that what public officials are supposed to protect freedom of speech for? 
Anyway, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for James Comey and hoping that the court sees through all this drama 
. Maybe we can learn something about accountability and fairness from this whole thing 
.
. And let's be real, who else gets investigated for doing their job? It's like the Department of Justice is trying to create some kind of 'precedent' where you can get prosecuted for speaking out against someone in power.
. Like, if he really wants Comey taken down, he should have done it himself instead of using the justice system to do his dirty work. This whole thing is just a massive conflict of interest, and I'm like, totally convinced that the judge is going to see right through it 
.
. Like, Comey's lawyers are arguing that he was targeted because of his speech, which is a totally valid argument. But if the court rules against them, it'll be like, super bad news for anyone who speaks truth to power 
.
. Like, we all know that the Supreme Court has the final say on some of these issues, so you can bet Comey's lawyers will be fighting tooth and nail to get this case heard by them 
.
. One thing is for sure: it's going to be a wild ride!
Comey's lawyers got some valid points about selective prosecution tho 
. but at the same time, the grand jury found probable cause for these charges so that's gotta count for something 
.
it's like, we're all still waiting to see how this all plays out and who's gonna come out on top 
, and now we're seeing this play out in court. it's gonna be super interesting to see how this all unfolds 
. I mean, come on, a former FBI director who spoke out against the Prez? You'd think that's protected speech, right? But nope, now he's facing charges for basically doing his job 
. if they were really concerned about lies to congress, shouldn't they've targeted someone else first? 
like maybe someone who actually broke laws? 
. It's like, if the president wants to take down someone, what's stopping him? 
The fact that other people with similar offenses have gotten off scot-free is wild 
. But at the same time, Trump's history of making public declarations against Comey makes a strong case for vindictive prosecution 
!
. It's like, okay, you can criticize the guy, but do you have to prosecute him? 
It feels like they're trying to send a message or something.
, so if the judge does decide to let the case go, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump just makes a bunch of public declarations trying to get in the way 
. And then Comey's lawyers are gonna be all like "Uh, nope, we've got this on tape!" 
.
. The whole thing just seems so unfair, you know? Like, what even is the point of all this drama? 
. Comey should get the same treatment as anyone else in this situation - a fair trial with no bias.
and i'm all about Comey winning this battle 
and meanwhile, Trump's lawyers will just keep on spinning their narrative... 
it's all so frustrating! 
.