James Comey

Subterms

    Latest story

    175 Shares66 Views

    How Trump is weaponizing the DoJ to ‘bully, prosecute, punish and silence’ his foes

    by

    Donald Trump’s intense pressure on the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to charge key foes with crimes based on dubious evidence and his ongoing investigations of other political enemies is hurting the rule of law in the US and violating departmental policies, which scholars and ex-prosecutors say may help scuttle some charges.They also voice dismay about charges filed against ex-FBI director James Comey and Letitia James, the New York attorney general, by Lindsey Halligan, the ex-White House lawyer and novice prosecutor, who Trump installed in a key US attorney post after forcing out a veteran prosecutor who deemed the cases weak.Comey, charged with lying to Congress about an FBI leak and obstruction of Congress, and James, charged with bank fraud and false statements to a financial unit, have pleaded not guilty and are garnering hefty support from ex-DoJ officials and legal experts challenging the paltry evidence against them.Over 100 ex-DoJ officials filed an amicus brief on 27 October mirroring part of Comey’s legal defense that his prosecution was a “vindictive” one, and should be dropped given longstanding departmental policies barring such legal tactics. Trump’s animus against Comey stems from the FBI’s inquiry of Russia’s role in helping Trump’s campaign in 2016 when Comey led the FBI.James Pearce, an ex-DoJ lawyer and a senior counsel at the Washington Litigation Group who helped organize the amicus, said: “It explains that the justice department’s policies seek to ensure fair and impartial prosecutions – which the constitution’s due process clause requires. Unfortunately, the public record suggests that the Comey prosecution neither adheres to those policies nor comports with the constitutional obligations underpinning them.”Other amicus briefs supporting Comey were filed in late October by groups including the Protect Democracy Project and Democracy Defenders Fund.View image in fullscreenFurther contesting the Comey and James charges, Democracy Defenders Fund sent a letter to the DoJ inspector general signed by ethics advisors to presidents Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama blasting Trump’s move to make Halligan an interim US attorney and file charges against them, and seeking an investigation of the prosecutions.“After Watergate, no precept was more central to the re-professionalization of the justice department than distancing the White House from decision making about individual prosecutions,” said Peter Shane, who teaches constitutional law at New York University“Trump’s conspicuous public involvement in triggering prosecutions against his enemies along with the seemingly paltry ‘evidence’ against Comey and James, in particular, is likely to mean that at least some of these cases will be dismissed before trial. There is also a serious legal question whether Halligan has been legitimately appointed to the USA position in Virginia.”Other legal experts say the justice department has been “weaponized” to further Trump’s revenge drive against Comey, James and other current and former officials who Trump blames for his legal problems including two impeachments and federal charges that he tried to subvert his 2020 election loss.“The overt and explicit ‘weaponization’ of the justice department, in defiance of the professional judgment of career prosecutors that the criminal prosecutions are unwarranted, is the worst type of corruption of the rule of law,” said Philip Lacovara, who was counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor.View image in fullscreen“The department’s principles of federal prosecution explicitly prohibit federal prosecutors from considering partisan and political factors in deciding whether to pursue criminal charges. But Trump has made these considerations a primary motive for bringing down the weight of the federal law enforcement apparatus on the heads of his political enemies.”Lacovara’s points were underscored by how the DoJ has seemed to move in lockstep with Trump’s suggestions that foes he’s publicly attacked on Truth Social and in other public and private ways should be prosecuted or investigated.Notably, Trump implored Pam Bondi, the attorney general, in late September on Truth Social to bring charges against Comey, James and Adam Schiff, a Democratic senator, not long before the DoJ indicted the first two.Just a day after Trump had forced out the Virginia prosecutor who declined to indict key Trump foes, Trump upped the pressure on Bondi“What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia???” Trump wrote. “They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,” stressing that “we can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.”In his missive addressed to “Pam”, Trump hyped the stakes for him: “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!A person familiar with the inquiry of Schiff, and reports suggest that pressures from some DoJ leaders have increased on the US attorney in Maryland who has been exploring charging Schiff with mortgage fraud, but has lacked sufficient evidence to do so. Schiff and his attorney have attacked the investigation as vindictive and politically driven.The weekend before Comey’s indictment, Schiff hit back at Trump’s Truth Social posts targeting him. “There’s no hiding the political retaliation and weaponization. It’s all out in the open.”Trump’s ire at Schiff stems from when Schiff was a member of the House and served as manager during Trump’s first impeachment.Similarly, Trump’s hatred of James, who the DoJ charged soon after Comey, was fueled by a successful civil fraud case that her office brought against Trump’s real estate empire in 2024 that initially had a hefty $500m penalty.The penalty was overturned last month, but Trump and his two eldest sons remain barred for a few years from holding leadership posts with the family real-estate behemoth.Another Trump foe, John Bolton, ex-national security adviser, who has been a vocal Trump critic, was charged last month by Maryland’s US attorney with mishandling classified information. Legal experts note the investigation of Bolton began during the Biden administration and may be stronger than the cases against other Trump enemies.Bolton has pleaded not guilty.View image in fullscreenWithin the DoJ, a key figure in pushing hard for charges against some of Trump’s avowed enemies has been Ed Martin, a combative lawyer with strong Maga credentials including promoting bogus claims of election fraud in 2020 and legal work he did for some of the January 6 rioters.Martin displayed his Maga bona fides the day before the Capitol attack, when he told a rally of fervent Trump backers: “Thank you for standing for our president. But remember, what they’re stealing is not just an election. It’s our future.”Martin was originally tapped by Trump to be US attorney for DC, but after serving in that role on an interim basis, Trump withdrew his nomination for Senate approval after a key Republican senator indicated he wouldn’t support him.Soon after moving to the DoJ in May, Martin was put in charge of a “weaponization working group”, to go after alleged weaponization by DoJ under Democratic presidents.Martin’s radical views about prosecuting or publicly shaming Trump foes were palpable when he told reporters while exiting the US attorney’s post that if people “can’t be charged, we will name them … and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed”.Bondi tapped Martin over the summer to investigate the Schiff allegations, and to that end he met with Bill Pulte, the federal housing finance agency director, who had sent a criminal referral in May for Schiff to the DoJ, according to NBC.Boosting his stature at the DoJ, Martin has also been given the titles special attorney for mortgage fraud, associate deputy attorney general and pardon attorney.Former prosecutors raise strong concerns about Martin’s various DoJ roles including spurring some indictments of Trump’s foes.“His chief value to the administration is to go after people Trump has identified as enemies by any means or tactics he can find, whether legally sound or not,” said Mike Gordon, a senior DoJ prosecutor on January 6 cases and one of about 20 prosecutors ousted by Trump’s DoJ.Other ex-prosecutors see Martin’s modus operandi as dangerous.“Ed Martin’s role as both the pardon attorney and head of the weaponization working group is concerning in light of a long list of public comments he has made,” said Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for eastern Michigan who now teaches law at the University of Michigan.“His letter writing campaign while he was serving as interim US attorney, demanding answers to questions from Democratic politicians, members of the media, and university leaders also suggests a political agenda that is antithetical to the independence of the justice department.”More broadly, Lacovara calls DoJ’s compliance with Trump’s demands to charge his enemies “a truly Orwellian shift in generations-long justice department tradition: Trump has managed to condemn investigations into his personal conduct by non-political professional prosecutors, while simultaneously and expressly commanding his political appointees in the justice department to prosecute his perceived political enemies.”Democrats in Congress too are irate over Trump’s use of DoJ for revenge against foes.“When Richard Nixon conducted retaliation against his political enemies, he did it in secret and tried to cover his tracks,” said Jamie Raskin, a Democratic representative of Maryland.“But Trump’s campaign of political persecution to bully, prosecute, punish and silence his political foes is taking place in broad daylight and on TV … I have faith, however, that judges and juries at the district level, unlike Bondi and Halligan, will uphold the rule of law.”Looking ahead, Michael Bromwich, ex-DoJ inspector general, said: “The flimsy cases being brought against people who Trump considers his enemies will fail, but the damage to the system of criminal justice and the Department of Justice will endure. That will be the legacy of the people who currently run the DoJ as a subagency of the White House.” More

    More stories

    • 250 Shares110 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We are on a dangerous path’: Oregon attorney general slams decision allowing Trump to send troops to Portland – live

      by

      The Oregon attorney general, Dan Rayfield, has issued a statement following the ruling from the ninth circuit court of appeals, which lifted the temporary restraining order blocking the deployment of the state’s national guard.He said that if the ruling is allowed to stand, it would give Donald Trump “unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification”.“We are on a dangerous path in America,” he added.The three-judge panel was split in their decision, with Clinton-appointee Susan Graber dissenting from her colleagues. Rayfield added:
      Oregon joins Judge Graber in urging the full Ninth Circuit to ‘act swiftly’ en banc ‘to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur.’ And, like her, we ‘ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little while longer’.
      In a court-ordered disclosure filed on Monday, the US interior department revealed that it plans “to abolish 2,050 positions”, including sweeping cuts to the Bureau of Land Management, and smaller numbers at the Fish and Wildlife Service, US Geological Survey and other agencies. Among the positions slated for elimination are Bureau of Reclamation workers who provide maintenance for the Hoover Dam.The declaration, with a detailed appendix of positions to be cut from Rachel Borra, the interior department’s chief human capital officer, was submitted to comply with an order issued by the US district court for the northern district of California in a lawsuit brought by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and four other national unions that represent federal workers at risk of losing their jobs.The planned layoffs are paused for now by a temporary restraining order that US District court judge Susan Illston expanded during an emergency hearing on Friday.As our colleague Anna Betts reports, construction crews started demolishing part of the East Wing of the White House to make way for Donald Trump’s planned ballroom on Monday.The Washington Post on obtained and published a photo of the demolition activity, showing construction in progress and parts of the exterior ripped down.A Daily Mail reporter shared video of the demolition on social media.Read the full story here:Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the House Democratic minority, just called on Republicans to negotiate an end to the government shutdown by citing Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Maga Republican from Georgia.“The Republican health care crisis, as Marjorie Taylor Greene has repeatedly indicated, is real,” Jeffries told reporters. “And it’s having devastating impacts that are becoming increasingly apparent to the American people. In Idaho, 100,000 Americans are at risk of losing their health care if the Affordable Care Act tax credits expire, because it will become unaffordable for them.”He went on to cite examples in other states where some people are “finding out that their health insurance premiums are about to increase by more than $2,000 per month.”A growing share of Americans believe religion is gaining influence and society – and view its expanding role positively, a new report by the PEW research center has found. It comes as the Trump administration has sought to fuse conservative Christian values and governance, especially in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. In just one year, the share of US adults who believe religion is gaining influence in American society has increased sharply. While still a minority view, 31% say religion is on the rise — up from just 18% a year earlier, in February 2024 – the highest figure recorded in 15 years.Meanwhile, the percentage who say religion is losing influence dropped from 80% to 68%.According to the PEW survey, these changing perceptions of religion suggest a broader shift in a country that was rapidly secularizing. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans (59%) now express a positive view of religion’s influence in public life, either because they see its rising power as a good thing, or view its decline as a bad thing. Only 20% express negative views, while the rest remain neutral or uncertain.Notably, the shift is not confined to one party or demographic. Both Republicans and Democrats, as well as nearly all major religious groups and age brackets, have become more likely to say religion is gaining ground — and more likely to feel their religious beliefs conflict with mainstream American culture. That sense of cultural conflict is now a majority view, with 58% of US adults reporting at least some tension between their beliefs and broader society.Finally, while views on religious truth vary, nearly half of Americans (48%) say many religions may be true — more than double the share (26%) who say only one religion is true.Pew’s findings suggest a significant cultural shift unfolding under an administration that has explicitly championed Christian conservatism as a governing ethos.It is perhaps significant that Susan Graber, the lone dissenting voice on the three-judge federal appeals court panel that just permitted Donald Trump to deploy federal troops to Portland, Oregon, in the only one of the three to be based in Portland.Graber, a former law school classmate of Bill and Hillary Clinton who was nominated to the federal bench by Clinton while serving on the Oregon supreme court, wrote a scathing dissent to the majority ruling, which lifts a lower-court order that had temporarily blocked Trump from sending in troops to what he falsely claims is a “war-ravaged” city.The other two judges on the panel, both nominated by Trump during his first term, are based in Arizona and Idaho.Graber said in an interview in 2012, that “it was kind of love at first sight with Portland” for her when she first moved to the city to work as a law clerk.In her dissent, she urged the full appeals court to reverse the decision by the panel, writing that there was “no legal or factual justification supported the order to federalize and deploy the Oregon National Guard”.She continued: “Given Portland protesters’ well-known penchant for wearing chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all when expressing their disagreement with the methods employed by ICE, observers may be tempted to view the majority’s ruling, which accepts the government’s characterization of Portland as a war zone, as merely absurd. But today’s decision is not merely absurd. It erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign States’ control over their States’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and to object to the government’s policies and actions.”The judge added: “The majority’s order abdicates our judicial responsibility, permitting the President to invoke emergency authority in a situation far divorced from an enumerated emergency.”Graber concluded:“We have come to expect a dose of political theater in the political branches, drama designed to rally the base or to rile or intimidate political opponents. We also may expect there a measure of bending – sometimes breaking – the truth. By design of the Founders, the judicial branch stands apart. We rule on facts, not on supposition or conjecture, and certainly not on fabrication or propaganda. I urge my colleagues on this court to act swiftly to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur. Above all, I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.”The Oregon attorney general, Dan Rayfield, has issued a statement following the ruling from the ninth circuit court of appeals, which lifted the temporary restraining order blocking the deployment of the state’s national guard.He said that if the ruling is allowed to stand, it would give Donald Trump “unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification”.“We are on a dangerous path in America,” he added.The three-judge panel was split in their decision, with Clinton-appointee Susan Graber dissenting from her colleagues. Rayfield added:
      Oregon joins Judge Graber in urging the full Ninth Circuit to ‘act swiftly’ en banc ‘to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur.’ And, like her, we ‘ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little while longer’.

      A three-judge panel on the ninth circuit court of appeals has ruled that the Trump administration can deploy the national guard to Portland, Oregon. They lifted a lower court judge’s decision that blocked the president from federalizing and sending roughly 200 troops to the city to guard federal buildings, as largely small and peaceful protests took place in recent weeks outside an immigration facility in the city.

      Donald Trump welcomed Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese to the White House, signing a rare earth minerals deal as trade tensions with China escalate. The pair just signed a rare earths agreement which opens up Australia’s vast mineral resources. Albanese added that the deal was an “eight and a half billion dollar pipeline” to supply critical rare earths to the US. Meanwhile, Trump doubled down on his threat of imposing a 157% tariff on Chinese imports if both nations can’t reach a trade deal. This, after Beijing announced they were tightening exports of rare earth minerals. “We have a tremendous power, and that’s the power of tariff, and I think that China will come to the table and make a very fair deal,” the president added.

      Donald Trump said he didn’t think Ukraine would win back land that was captured by Russia during the war. “They could still win it,” Trump remarked during his meeting with Australian Prime Minster Anthony Albanese. “I don’t think they will. They could still win it. I never said they would win it. Anything can happen. You know, war is a very strange thing.” Trump’s seeming skepticism of a Ukrainian victory came several days after a meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during which he appeared more keen on negotiating a peace agreement than supplying the nation with Tomahawk cruise missiles.

      The president has said that Hamas is “going to behave” or will face severe repercussions. While taking questions from reporters today, Trump said that Hamas are “going to be nice, and if they’re not, we’re going to go and we’re going to eradicate them”. This comes after Israel launched waves of deadly airstrikes on Sunday and cut off all aid into Gaza “until further notice” after a reported attack by Hamas, in escalations that marked the most serious threat so far to the fragile ceasefire in the devastated territory.

      The government shutdown entered its 20th day, with little end in sight. The House remains out of session, as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle blame the other party for the impasse on Capitol Hill. Earlier, White House economic adviser said that shutdown would “likely” end this week after the No Kings protests took place across the country. The Senate will vote, for the 11th time, on a House-passed funding bill to reopen the government at 5:30pm ET.
      A three-judge panel on the ninth circuit court of appeals has ruled that the Trump administration can deploy the national guard to Portland, Oregon.They lifted a lower court judge’s decision that blocked the president from federalizing and sending roughly 200 troops to the city to guard federal buildings, as largely small and peaceful protests took place in recent weeks outside an immigration facility in the city.Per that last post, it’s worth putting that in the context of Greene’s decision to buck the Republican party line in recent months.My colleagues David Smith and George Chidi, have been reporting on the Georgia’s congresswoman’s “streak of independence” on issues ranging from healthcare to Gaza to the Jeffrey Epstein files. They report that Greene has broken ranks with Republicans and won unlikely fans among Democrats, stirring speculation about her motives – and future ambitions.David and George write that the lawmaker, who was once “one of Donald Trump’s most loyal foot soldiers” has stopped short of directly criticising the president himself and has so far avoided incurring his wrath. “But her willingness to dissent is all the more remarkable under a president who notoriously prizes loyalty and punishes critics,” they note.You can read more of their reporting below.Marjorie Taylor Greene, a representative of Georgia, on Monday morning criticized Mike Johnson’s strategy to keep the House shuttered for weeks, calling on the lower chamber to return to session immediately.“The House should be in session working,” Greene wrote on X. “We should be finishing appropriations. Our committees should be working. We should be passing bills that make President Trump’s executive orders permanent. I have no respect for the decision to refuse to work.”The callout from Greene, who is aligned with the right flank of her party, is a noticeable crack in support for Johnson’s hardline approach from the GOP over an extended congressional recess. Since 19 September, when members last cast votes, the chamber has not been conducting legislative business, although members have staged press conferences.According to Politico, House speaker Mike Johnson spoke with the president earlier, and will be at the White House at 4pm as Donald Trump welcomes the Louisiana State University (LSU) baseball champions.Also present will be the athletes from LSU Shreveport, the city where Johnson was born and raised. Part of his congressional district also includes the city.in BogotáColombia has recalled its ambassador to Washington amid a furious war of words between the Colombian president, Gustavo Petro, and Donald Trump over deadly US strikes on boats in the Caribbean.The row took a sharp turn this weekend when Petro accused the US of “murdering” a Colombian fisher in an attack on a vessel in its territorial waters. Petro and his administration said the mid-September strike was a “direct threat to national sovereignty” and that the victim was a “lifelong fisherman” and a “humble human being”.In response, Trump, who has claimed such attacks are designed to stop drug-smuggling to the US, called Petro an “illegal drug dealer” and vowed to end aid payments to Colombia, one of the largest recipients of US counter-narcotics assistance. He also ordered Petro to “close up” drug cultivation sites, saying if not “the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely”. Speaking onboard Air Force One, Trump added that he would announce new tariffs on Colombian goods.Colombia’s interior minister, Armando Benedetti, said the remarks were a “threat of invasion or military action against Colombia”. Petro said that Colombia’s five-decade conflict stemmed from “cocaine consumption in the United States” and claimed American contributions had been “meagre and null in recent years”.Texas Republican congressman Chip Roy suggested using the “nuclear option” to end the shutdown that would avoid Senate filibuster requirements which mandate a 60-vote majority to reopen the US government, The Hill reports.“We need to be taking a look at the 60-vote threshold. We really do,” Roy said on Monday.Top Republican senators used this tactic to avoid needing Democrats’ support to confirm a host of Trump nominees in September. South Dakota Republican Senator John Thune, the Senate majority leader, said he would not do this to achieve a continuing resolution that would reopen the government, per the Hill.“At a minimum, why don’t we take a look at it for [continuing resolutions]?” Roy reportedly said. “Why don’t we just say, look, I mean, we have a 50-vote threshold for the budget, we have a 50-vote threshold for reconciliation, why shouldn’t we have a 50-vote threshold to be able to fund the government?”Republicans have supported this 60-vote benchmark when Democrats hold the majority. Thune has said that maintaining the filibuster is among his leading priorities, the Hill reported.“I think Republicans ought to take a long, hard look at the 60-vote threshold, because I think we’re just being beholden to a broken system right now,” Roy also said.Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed concern about eliminating this threshold.”I would be deeply concerned if the Democrats had a bare majority in the Senate right now, Marxist ideology taking over the Democrat party,” Johnson reportedly said earlier this month. “Do I want them to have no safegaurds and no stumbling blocks or hurdles at all in the way of turning us into a communist country? I don’t think that’s a great idea.”While the US Senate is poised to vote – for the 11th time – on a House-approved bill that would reopen the government this afternoon, Americans could face still more shutdown-related travel delays if funding efforts fail.US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on Monday that travelers might see more disruptions because air traffic controllers are not getting paid during the shutdown.Air traffic controllers are deemed “excepted” staffers, meaning they still work during shutdowns, but receive back pay when the government reopens and funding resumes, CBS News explains.“They got a partial paycheck a week ago Tuesday. Their next paycheck comes a week from Tuesday, and in that paycheck there will be no dollars. They don’t get paid,” Duffy said in a Fox and Friends interview.“I think what you might see is more disruptions in travel as more of them look to say, how do I bridge the gap between the check that’s not coming and putting food on my table?” CBS noted him saying. “And we have heard they are taking Uber jobs. They are doing DoorDash, they are figuring out ways to keep their families afloat … And, again, a lot of them are paycheck to paycheck.”Donald Trump on Monday doubled down on his threat of imposing a 157% tariff on Chinese imports if both nations can’t reach a trade deal.“We have a tremendous power, and that’s the power of tariff, and I think that China will come to the table and make a very fair deal, because if they don’t, they’re going to be paying us 157% in tariffs,” Trump told reporters during his sit-down with Australian Prime Minster Anthony Albanese.Trump, who claimed that “China has treated us with great respect” not afforded to prior administrations, said that if a deal weren’t brokered, “I’m putting on an additional 100%” on 1 November.Trump and China’s president, Xi Jinping, are expected to meet in several weeks to discuss trade.Trump’s reiteration of this tariff threat comes just several days after he admitted that a 157% tax is unfeasible.“It’s not sustainable, but that’s what the number is,” Trump said in an interview with Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo. “It’s probably not, you know, it could stand. But they forced me to do that.”Donald Trump said he didn’t think Ukraine would win back land that was captured by Russia during the war.“They could still win it,” Trump remarked during his meeting with Australian Prime Minster Anthony Albanese. “I don’t think they will. They could still win it. I never said they would win it. Anything can happen. You know, war is a very strange thing.”Trump’s seeming skepticism of a Ukrainian victory came several days after a meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during which he appeared more keen on negotiating a peace agreement than supplying the nation with Tomahawk cruise missiles.Trump told Ukraine and Russia to “stop the war immediately”.The comments mark yet another shift in Trump’s position on Ukraine’s chances in the years-long conflict. Trump said in September that he believed Ukraine could regain all territory seized by Russia.During Trump’s presidential campaign in 2024, and early this year, Trump said that Ukraine would have to give up territories seized by Russia to stop the war, The Associated Press notes.The president has said that Hamas is “going to behave” or will face severe repercussions.“They’re going to be nice, and if they’re not, we’re going to go and we’re going to eradicate them,” Trump added.This comes after Israel launched waves of deadly airstrikes on Sunday and cut off all aid into Gaza “until further notice” after a reported attack by Hamas, in escalations that marked the most serious threat so far to the fragile ceasefire in the devastated territory.“Hamas has been very violent, but they don’t have the backing of Iran any more. They don’t have the backing of really anybody any more. They have to be good, and if they’re not good, they’ll be eradicated,” Trump said in the Cabinet Room at the White House. More

    • 125 Shares144 Views

      in US Politics

      Comey asks judge to dismiss criminal charges claiming selective prosecution

      by

      Former FBI director James Comey formally asked a federal judge to dismiss criminal charges against him, arguing he was the victim of a selective prosecution and that the US attorney who filed the charges was unlawfully appointed.“The record as it currently exists shows a clear causal link between President Trump’s animus and the prosecution of Mr Comey,” Comey’s lawyers wrote in their request to dismiss the case, calling a 20 September Truth Social post in which he disparaged Comey and called for his prosecution “smoking gun evidence”. “President Trump’s repeated public statements and action leave no doubt as to the government’s genuine animus toward Mr Comey.” Comey’s lawyers attached an exhibit to their filing on Monday, which contains dozens of public statements from Trump criticizing Comey.Comey was indicted on 25 September with one count of making a false statement and one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding. The charges are related to Comey’s 30 September 2020 testimony before Congress, and are connected to Comey’s assertion he had never authorized anyone at the FBI to leak information. The precise details of the offense have not been made public and Comey has pleaded not guilty and forcefully denied any wrongdoing.The charges were filed against Comey, though career prosecutors in the justice department determined charges were not warranted. Trump forced out Erik Siebert, the US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, in September and installed Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide. The Comey charges were filed days later.“In the ordinary case, a prosecutor’s charging decision is presumptively lawful and rests within her broad discretion. This is no ordinary case,” Comey’s lawyers wrote. “Here, direct evidence establishes that the President harbors genuine animus toward Mr. Comey, including because of Mr. Comey’s protected speech, that he installed his personal attorney as a ‘stalking horse’ to carry out his bidding; and that she then prosecuted Mr. Comey—days before the statute of limitations expired, with a faulty indictment—to effectuate the President’s wishes.”Comey’s Monday filing says that the fact that career prosecutors did not believe there was enough evidence to bring a case bolsters his argument that he was selectively prosecuted. They also argue that the indictment mischaracterizes the question Comey was asked that prompted the answer prosecutors say was a lie and the basis of his criminal false statement.According to the indictment, Comey was asked by a US senator whether he “had not ‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports’ regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1”. (Comey’s lawyers wrote in their filing on Monday that Person 1 was Hillary Clinton.)The accusation relates to a question from Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. During the 2020 hearing, Cruz noted that in 2017 congressional testimony, Comey denied “ever authoriz[ing] someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton Administration”. Cruz went on to note that Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI, had said Comey authorized him to leak information to the Wall Street Journal.In response, Comey said he stood by his prior testimony. Comey’s lawyers argued on Monday the indictment was defective because Cruz’s question had been focused on McCabe, but the government informed them that the person Comey is alleged to have authorized to leak to the media is Daniel Richman, a friend of Comey’s and professor at Columbia University.“The indictment omits Senator Cruz’s words that explicitly narrow the focus of his questions to Mr. McCabe and misleadingly implies that the questioning related to Mr. Richman. In fact, Mr. Comey’s September 2020 exchange with Senator Cruz made no reference whatsoever to Mr. Richman, who ultimately appears in the indictment,” they wrote. They also note that Cruz asked about the “Clinton administration” and not “Hillary Clinton”.Career prosecutors interviewed Richman as part of their investigation into Comey and found him not helpful to making a case, according to the New York Times. John Durham, a special counsel appointed to investigate the FBI’s inquiry into Russian meddling, also told investigators he did not uncover evidence to support charges against Comey.Comey’s lawyers also argued on Monday that the case should be dismissed because Halligan was not lawfully appointed.“The United States cannot charge, maintain, and prosecute a case through an official who has no entitlement to exercise governmental authority,” they wrote.US attorneys must be confirmed by the Senate and can only serve for 120 days on an interim basis unless their appointment is extended by the judges overseeing their district. Siebert, Halligan’s predecessor, served for the 120-day limit and Halligan does not appear to have met other exceptions that would allow her to continue to serve.“The period does not start anew once the 120-day period expires or if a substitute interim U.S. Attorney is appointed before the 120-day period expires,” Comey’s attorneys wrote.Halligan has also overseen criminal fraud charges against New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, in connection to allegations she lied on mortgage documents. James has said she is not guilty. Legal experts have said that case does not appear to be strong. More

    • 225 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Comey due in court over Justice Department case accusing him of lying to Congress – US politics live

      by

      Pope Leo told US bishops visiting him at the Vatican on Wednesday that they should firmly address how immigrants are being treated by President Donald Trump’s hardline policies, attendees said, in the latest push by the pontiff on the issue.Leo, the first US pope, was handed dozens of letters from immigrants describing their fears of deportation under the Trump administration’s policies during the meeting, which included bishops and social workers from the US-Mexico border.“It means a lot to all of us to know of his personal desire that we continue to speak out,” El Paso Bishop Mark Seitz, who took part in the meeting, told Reuters.The Vatican did not immediately comment on the pope’s meeting.The case against former FBI director James Comey comes as attorney general Pam Bondi was questioned in the Senate yesterday over claims that the justice department is being weaponised to pursue Trump’s enemies.Throughout the five-hour hearing, Bondi declined to talk about many of the administration’s controversial decisions, despite persistent questioning from the Democrats. When pressed, she personally attacked several senators from the minority or invoked the ongoing government shutdown to depict them as negligent.“You voted to shut down the government, and you’re sitting here. Our law enforcement officers aren’t being paid,” Bondi replied when the committee’s top Democratic senator, Dick Durbin of Illinois, questioned the Trump administration’s rationale for sending the national guard into Chicago.“I wish you love Chicago as much as you hate President Trump,” she continued, adding: “If you’re not going to protect your citizens, President Trump will.”In his opening statement, Durbin described Bondi as doing lasting damage to the department tasked with enforcing federal law.“What has taken place since January 20, 2025, would make even President Nixon recoil,” he said.. “This is your legacy, Attorney General Bondi. In eight short months, you have fundamentally transformed the justice department and left an enormous stain in American history. It will take decades to recover.”Of particular concern to Democrats were the charges against Comey, which came after Trump publicly called on Bondi to indict his enemies and fired a veteran prosecutor who refused to bring the case.The attorney general avoided talking about the indictment, saying it was a “pending case”, but argued it was approved by “one of the most liberal grand juries in the country”.Good morning and welcome to our coverage of US politics with former FBI Director James Comey set to make his first court appearance in a Justice Department criminal case accusing him of having lied to Congress five years ago.The arraignment is expected to be brief, according to Associated Press, but the moment is nonetheless loaded with historical significance given that the case has amplified concerns that the Justice Department is being weaponized in pursuit of Donald Trump’s political enemies.Comey is expected to plead not guilty at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, and defense lawyers will almost certainly move to get the indictment dismissed before trial, possibly by arguing that the case amounts to a selective or vindictive prosecution.The two-count indictment alleges that Comey made a false statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on 30 September 2020, by denying he had authorized an associate to serve as an anonymous source to the news media, and that he obstructed a congressional proceeding.Comey has denied any wrongdoing and has said he was looking forward to a trial. The indictment does not identify the associate or say what information may have been discussed with the media.Though an indictment is typically just the start of a protracted court process, the Justice Department has trumpeted the development itself as something of a win.Trump administration officials are likely to point to any conviction as proof the case was well-justified, but an acquittal or even dismissal may also be held up as further support for their long-running contention that the criminal justice system is stacked against them.The judge randomly assigned to the case, Michael Nachmanoff, is a Biden administration appointee. Known for methodical preparation and a cool temperament, the judge and his background have already drawn the president’s attention, with Trump deriding him as a “Crooked Joe Biden appointed Judge.”You can read our report here and stay with us to see how it plays out:We’ll also be covering all the developments amid the national guard arriving in Chicago and the ongoing government shutdown.In the White House, Trump is due to receive an intelligence briefing at 11am EST and taking part in a round table on Antifa at 3pm.And in Egypt, a US delegation has joined the indirect talks taking place between Hamas and Israel on Trump’s Gaza plan with the latest news that hostage and prisoner lists have been exchanged.In other developments:

      Donald Trump met the Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, and jokingly pushed him to agree to “a merger” of their two countries. He also declined to rule out invoking the insurrection act to put troops on the streets of the US, which might have made the prospect of joining the union even less appealing.

      Trump suggested that he might not follow a law mandating that furloughed government workers will get backpay after the government shutdown ends.

      In a tense hearing before the Senate judiciary committee on Tuesday, the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, stood accused by Democrats of weaponizing the US Department of Justice, “fundamentally transforming” the department, and leaving “an enormous stain on American history” that it will take “decades to recover [from]”. Bondi criticized Democratic lawmakers in personal terms as she faced questions over the department’s enforcement efforts in Democratic-led cities.

      House speaker Mike Johnson said that his decision to stave off swearing in representative-elect Adelita Grijalva of Arizona has “nothing to do” with the fact that she would be the 218th signature on the bipartisan discharge petition – to compel a House vote on the full release of the Epstein files.

      Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, visited the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) facility in Portland, Oregon accompanied by conservative influencers. Portland police cleared the street outside ahead of Noem’s arrival, keeping a handful of protesters, one dressed as a chicken and another as a baby shark, at distance. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Ex-FBI director James Comey to appear in court on lying to Congress charge

      by

      The former FBI director James Comey is set to make his first appearance in court on Wednesday in connection with federal charges that he lied to Congress in 2020.Comey will be booked and fingerprinted, which is normal practice for defendants, at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, before being arraigned and formally read the charges against him by US district judge Michael Nachmanoff. Nachmanoff was appointed to the federal bench by Joe Biden in 2021.The FBI has reportedly been weighing whether to submit Comey to a “perp walk” in which they would parade him in front of media cameras. An FBI agent was reportedly relieved of duty for refusing to participate in such an effort.The brief indictment handed down by a federal grand jury on 25 September accused Comey of making a false statement and obstructing a congressional investigation in connection with his September 2020 testimony to Congress. While the details of the charge remain unclear, they appear to be related to his claim that he never authorized anyone in the FBI to be an anonymous source in news stories. “I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I’m innocent. So let’s have a trial. And keep the faith,” Comey said in a video statement the night the charges were filed.The case against Comey marks a significant step in Donald Trump’s effort to politicize the justice department and punish his political enemies. Even though the attorney general and top justice department officials are political appointees, the department has typically operated at arm’s length from the White House in order to preserve independent decision-making necessary to uphold the rule of law. Trump has upended that norm and has said more charges are coming.Trump fired Comey in 2017 and has fumed at the former FBI director for years for his role in investigating connections between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. Comey’s firing eventually prompted the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to take over the investigation. Mueller’s final report detailed numerous instances in which Trump attempted to influence the investigation.Trump forced out Erik Siebert, the top federal prosecutor in the eastern district of Virginia, after Siebert determined there wasn’t sufficient evidence to bring charges against Letitia James, New York’s attorney general. At Trump’s request, the justice department replaced him with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide who was part of Trump’s personal legal team and has no prosecutorial experience.Career prosecutors in the eastern district of Virginia reportedly presented Halligan with a memo outlining why charges against Comey were not warranted. In an unusual move, Halligan presented the case herself to a federal grand jury, which handed down the indictment just a few days after she started on the job.No career prosecutors from the eastern district of Virginia have entered an appearance in the case. Instead, two prosecutors from the eastern district of North Carolina, Nathaniel Lemons and Gabriel Diaz, will join Halligan in handling the case.Two other prosecutors in the eastern district of Virginia have been fired since the charges against Comey were filed. The prosecutors, Maya Song, a top Siebert deputy, and Michael Ben’Ary, a top national security prosecutor, both at one point had worked under Lisa Monaco, a top official in the justice department under the Biden administration.Trump has also put pressure on the office to file charges against James over specious allegations that the New York attorney general committed mortgage fraud.“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Trump told Bondi in a brazen 20 September post on Truth Social, asking her to bring charges against Comey, James, and California senator Adam Schiff. “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”Elizabeth Yusi, a top prosecutor in the office, plans to present the case to Halligan soon that there is no probable cause to file charges against James. Colleagues expect Yusi to be fired. More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      James Comey’s real ‘crime’? Daring to put the law before loyalty to Trump | Lawrence Douglas

      by

      In 1931, an exceptionally talented young Berlin attorney named Hans Litten summoned Adolf Hitler to testify in a criminal case. Litten represented four victims of a brutal assault perpetrated by members of Hitler’s Sturmabteilung, or SA, on a dance hall frequented by leftist workers; by the time the assault ended, three people were dead. At trial, the defense sought to portray the SA as a disciplined political organization, under orders from Hitler to use force only as self-defense.In his three-hour cross-examination of the head of the Nazi party, Litten managed what precious few dared to attempt. Hitler had expected the young lawyer to be intimidated; instead, Litten aggressively and skillfully dissected him under oath, reducing the supposedly gifted orator to a stammering rage. In trapping Hitler in contradictions and exposing him as an inveterate liar, Litten also made clear the Nazis’ goal of destroying the Weimar Republic. Hitler left the witness stand rattled and humiliated, henceforth forbidding Litten’s name to be uttered in his presence.Hitler’s revenge came two years later, barely a month after he had been installed in power. In the wake of the Reichstag fire – an arson attack on the parliament building – and relying on a hastily drafted emergency decree for the “protection of people and state”, Hitler ordered the arrest and “protective custody” of numerous perceived political enemies, including Litten. Over the next five years, as he was shuttled from concentration camp to concentration camp, Litten was repeatedly beaten and tortured. In 1938, with no prospect of release, he took his own life. His crime: trying to protect the role of law and a constitutional democracy from a would-be authoritarian.The United States in 2025 is not Germany in 1933. That said, Litten’s experience has a disturbingly familiar ring. Last week, the US attorney’s office for the eastern district of Virginia (EDVA) announced that the former FBI director James Comey had been indicted for allegedly lying under oath to a congressional committee. The case against Comey is so flimsy that Erik Siebert, Trump’s hand-picked chief federal prosecutor for the post, balked at filing charges. Siebert’s fair assessment predictably earned him the ire of the president. “I want him out,” Trump fumed, and so Siebert resigned before he could be fired, vacating the position he had occupied for barely eight months.Trump hastily named a replacement: Lindsey Halligan, a member of Trump’s coterie of personal lawyers who now occupy some of the most pivotal positions within the Department of Justice. Never mind that Halligan has no prior prosecutorial experience and that the head of the EDVA oversees the prosecution of many of the nation’s most complicated and sensitive cases involving national security and financial crimes; Halligan’s great qualification was apparently her willingness to do what Siebert would not: indulge Trump’s hankering for revenge. Her indictment of Comey, handed down scant days before the five-year statute of limitations on the alleged crimes was to expire, only confirmed Siebert’s doubts. Law students invariably learn the old canard that any decent prosecutor can get a grand jury “to indict a ham sandwich” – but maybe not Halligan: the grand jury refused to indict on one of the three counts that the prosecutor submitted.Trump greeted the news of the two-count indictment by crowing on Truth Social: “JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” – which might be an apt, if inadvertently Orwellian, description of the present state of the rule of law in our nation. The case is certainly about score-settling, but it’s also far more disturbing than that. Let’s assume for the moment that Trump was unfairly targeted for investigation during his first term; it would still be unseemly for a sitting president to respond to one injustice with another. But the fact is that the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election – the source of Trump’s crusade against Comey – was not a politically motivated “witch-hunt” (Trump’s favorite go-to term of impugnment to discredit attempts to hold him to account). Instead, it revealed a “sweeping and systematic” campaign to interfere with the 2016 election.Comey’s true “crime” recalls Hans Litten’s. He dared to show fidelity to his office and to the law, and not to the Great Leader. This is not to say that Comey risks sharing the fate of the intrepid German lawyer. In publicly declaring Comey “guilty as hell” and in transparently interfering in the legal process, Trump has handed the judge a reason to simply dismiss the case as an exercise in vindictive prosecution. Should Comey go to trial, the case’s obvious weaknesses might well result in an acquittal. And even if Comey were to be convicted and sent to prison, the US does not, at present, operate a system of concentration camps where political opponents face systematic torture.But that is cold comfort. The fact remains that Comey is being persecuted, not prosecuted, for putting service to the nation above obedience to a man. As if following a script from the authoritarian playbook, Trump is making Comey pay for his act of constitutional fidelity. What should disturb all Americans is the ease with which Trump, aided by his craven and opportunistic legal lackeys, has turned the proudly independent justice department into a tool of authoritarian consolidation.

      Lawrence Douglas teaches at Amherst College. His newest book, The Criminal State: War, Atrocity, and the Dream of International Justice, will be published in the spring of 2026 More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Ex-Trump lawyer says president using Comey indictment to conceal being ‘criminal’

      by

      The indictment of former FBI director James Comey is part of a concerted effort by Donald Trump to “rewrite history” in his favor, a former senior White House lawyer claimed on Sunday as he warned of more retribution to come for the president’s political opponents.Ty Cobb, who defended Trump’s first administration during the Mueller investigation into his 2016 campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia, also told CBS that he doubted Comey would be convicted, if the case ever reached trial.Trump’s moves, he said on the Sunday morning show Face the Nation, were “wholly unconstitutional [and] authoritarian” and an attempt to hoodwink future generations.“Trump wants to rewrite history so that the next generation may not know that he incited a violent insurrection, refused to peacefully transfer the power of the presidency after losing an election, stole classified documents and showed them to friends and guests at Mar-a-Lago, and that he was a criminal,” Cobb said.“He’s a convicted felon. All, anybody involved in those events that offended him, they’re in real danger.”Cobb, a distant relative of the baseball legend with the same name, has become a vocal Trump critic since serving as his liaison to special counsel Robert Mueller, and said his role as lawyer for the administration, not as a personal attorney to the president, allowed him to call “balls and strikes” now.He laid out why he thought the indictment against Comey, for allegedly lying to Congress, was fatally flawed; and assailed Trump’s appointment of a White House aide with no prosecutorial experience to pursue the case, after he fired a federal prosecutor, Erik Siebert, when he declined to bring charges.“So, you have the rewriting history stuff. The US attorney that he appointed, his personal lawyer Lindsey Halligan, her role previously in the administration was, you know, trying to eliminate the theory that, you know, America had slaves, at the Smithsonian,” he said.“She was there to whitewash the Smithsonian and paint America as something that it isn’t. America needs to learn from the mistakes and lessons that we’ve had, and one of the biggest mistakes that America ever had was re-electing President Trump.”Cobb’s front-row seat to the machinations of Trump’s first term has made him an in-demand commentator on the workings of the second, and he told CBS he does not like what he sees.“Former attorney general [Robert] Jackson, the Nuremberg prosecutor, highlighted in 1940 that the most important thing at the justice department when he was attorney general was that people not target individuals, that they merely pursue crimes,” he said.“Griffin Bell years later said essentially the same thing [and] emphasized how politics and favor have no business at the justice department. It’s all about even-handedness.”Cobb said Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, has “wholly abandoned that and is now merely doing the president’s bidding when he says, ‘Prosecute my enemies, now’”.But the case against Comey, he said, was flimsy at best, and would almost certainly collapse.“The grand jury rejected one of the counts, the top count, actually, in the indictment, approved two, but by a very slim margin, 14 out of 23 in a process where there’s no defense attorney in the room, and the standard is merely probable cause,” he said.“The next courtroom that this will be assessed in, if it gets to trial, requires unanimity from 12 people, and there will be a vigorous defense. I don’t see any way in the world that Comey will be convicted. And I think there’s a good chance, because of the wholly unconstitutional, authoritarian way that this was done, that the case may get tossed out well before trial.”Separately, without mentioning Trump, his appointed FBI director Kash Patel contradicted a recent social media claim by the president that nearly 275 of the bureau’s agents were planted among the pro-Trump crowd that carried out the 2021 US Capitol attack.Patel reportedly issued a statement to Fox News Digital, according to the outlet, in which he said FBI agents at the scene of the attack were only sent to the scene after the mob attacked the Capitol in a desperate attempt to keep Trump in office despite his losing the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden.Issued Saturday night, the statement from Patel did make it a point to say that was not “the proper role of FBI agents”, among other things.In yet another bizarre social media episode for Trump, he posted – and then deleted – an artificial intelligence video in which his likeness was promoting magic medical beds that a far-right conspiracy claims can cure any ailment. The video depicted Trump touting a card guaranteeing access to new hospitals equipped with such beds. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says he expects charges for other adversaries after Comey indictment

      by

      Donald Trump said on Friday that he expected more people whom he considers his political enemies to face criminal charges, a day after the justice department indicted former FBI director James Comey and faced a torrent of criticism for enacting the president’s campaign of retribution.“It’s not a list, but I think there’ll be others,” Trump said as he departed the White House to travel to the Ryder Cup golf tournament. “I mean, they’re corrupt. They were corrupt radical left Democrats.”Trump’s blunt remarks underscored the perilous moment for his political adversaries, given that the justice department pressed ahead with criminal charges against Comey, even though it was widely seen – inside and outside the administration – to be a weak case.The indictment against Comey, filed in federal district court on Thursday in Alexandria, Virginia, alleged that he misled lawmakers in September 2020 when he stood by his previous testimony to Congress claiming he had never authorized anyone at the FBI to leak to reporters.Prosecutors alleged that statement was not true and that Comey had authorized his friend and Columbia law school professor Dan Richman to leak to reporters about an investigation into Hilary Clinton, when Richman worked for a short time as a special government employee at the FBI.But the underlying evidence against Comey, which remains unclear from the two-page indictment, was considered to be insufficient for a conviction. The issues were laid out in a memo and Erik Siebert, the then interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, declined to bring charges.Trump fired Siebert within days and replaced him with Lindsey Halligan, most recently a White House aide with no prosecutorial experience. Halligan was briefed on the problems with the case but pressed forward with charges anyway, presenting the case herself to the grand jury.The grand jury returned an indictment on two counts but declined to approve a third. Even then, only 14 out of 23 grand jurors voted to bring the false statement charge, barely more than the 12-person threshold, court documents show.The fraught nature of the Comey indictment raised fresh fears that Trump’s political appointees at justice department headquarters in Washington and at its field offices elsewhere will feel emboldened to pursue criminal cases against the president’s other adversaries.Among other people, Trump has fixated in recent weeks on criminal investigations against the New York attorney general Letitia James and Democratic senator Adam Schiff over mortgage fraud allegations. James brought a civil fraud case against Trump last year and Schiff led the first impeachment trial.Last weekend, before Comey’s indictment, Trump called on his attorney general Pam Bondi to pursue Comey, James and Schiff. “They impeached me twice and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!” Trump posted on Truth Social.The administration also launched a criminal investigation into former CIA director John Brennan, who Trump despises for his role in the US intelligence community’s assessment in 2016 about Russian malign influence operations aimed at helping the Trump campaign.Last month, the FBI also searched the home and office of John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser turned critic, over allegations he mishandled classified documents. The FBI recovered documents with classification markings but Bolton’s lawyer claimed they had been declassified. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Dangerous abuse of power’: lawmakers sound alarm over Comey indictment

      by

      For Donald Trump, the indictment of former FBI director and longtime foe James Comey was,“justice in America”. Legal observers and lawmakers see something far more troubling.A former Republican appointed to lead the bureau by Barack Obama and kept on by Trump until he fired him in 2017, Comey was indicted Thursday on charges related to allegedly lying to Congress five years ago during a hearing on the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.The charges were filed in the eastern district of Virginia only after Erik Siebert was forced out as US attorney for reportedly finding no grounds to indict Comey. The justice department replaced him with a Trump loyalist with little prosecutorial experience, Lindsey Halligan, and shortly after, a grand jury indicted Comey on one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding.The indictment is the latest sign that the president is making good on his promise “to turn our justice system into a weapon for punishing and silencing his critics”, said Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee.“This kind of interference is a dangerous abuse of power. Our system depends on prosecutors making decisions based on evidence and the law, not on the personal grudges of a politician determined to settle scores,” Warner said.Adam Schiff, the Democratic senator and a former federal prosecutor who played a lead role in Trump’s first impeachment, said on X he had “never witnessed such a blatant abuse of the” justice department, calling it “little more than an arm of the president’s retribution campaign”.In a letter to Pam Bondi, the attorney general, Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee described Siebert’s firing and Comey’s indictment as “the latest steps in President Trump’s efforts to reshape the nation’s leading law enforcement agency into a weapon focused on punishing his enemies”.Top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries said it was “crazy to me” that Trump was pursuing a “malicious prosecution” against Comey, given that the FBI chief’s public revival of an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email use days before the 2016 election is seen as playing a role in Trump’s victory.“These charges are going to be dismissed. James Comey will win in court. But what it reflects is a broader attack on the rule of law that should frighten every single American, whether you’re a Democrat, an independent or a Republican,” he said at the Capitol.Mike Zamore, national director of policy and government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union, said Trump “has yet again proven his disdain for the principles that have actually made America great”.“By undermining the rule of law at each and every turn, threatening individuals who speak out against him, and arresting, investigating, and prosecuting elected officials of the opposition party and others who displease him, the president and his administration have corrupted our system of justice to turn his campaign of retribution into reality,” he said, adding that Trump’s public push to indict Comey amounts to “a grotesque abuse of presidential power”.Eric Swalwell, the Democratic congressman and member of the House judiciary committee, told CNN: “I promise you, when Democrats are in the majority, we are going to look at all of this, and there will be accountability, and bar licenses will be at stake in your local jurisdiction if you are corruptly indicting people where you cannot prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt on.”Norm Eisen, executive chair of pro-democracy group Democracy Defenders Fund, warned the indictment puts “the safety of every American and our national security itself in danger. This indictment has all the hallmarks of a vindictive and meritless prosecution, worthy only of the totalitarian states the United States used to oppose”.“This matters far beyond James Comey. It’s about every citizen’s right to live free from persecution by their own leaders. Criticizing our leaders is a fundamental right, regardless of how much our leaders don’t like it,” he said.Trump has spent the hours since Comey’s indictment was announced insulting him on Truth Social, calling him “One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to” on Thursday night and “A DIRTY COP” on Friday morning.His allies have taken up his argument, if not his tone.“Comey demonstrated complete arrogance and unwillingness to comply with the law,” said Ted Cruz, the Republican senator whose exchange with the former FBI director at a 2020 hearing is the subject of the allegations.Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate judiciary committee, said: “If the facts and the evidence support the finding that Comey lied to Congress and obstructed our work, he ought to be held accountable.”“Say it with me, Democrats: nobody is above the law,” said Mike Davis, a prominent Trump legal defender, echoing a phrase often used by Democrats when Trump and his allies were facing prosecutions before his election victory last year.“We are just getting started today with this indictment,” Davis said. “It’s going to get much worse for the Democrats.” More