GREGG JARRETT: James Comey claims he wants trial but lawyers seek case dismissal instead

When James Comey first learned that a Virginia grand jury had indicted him on charges of perjury and obstruction of a congressional hearing, he showed off like a peacock on camera and said, “Let’s have a hearing.”

Cardinal Comey’s courage was a drama staged to satisfy his eternal quest for sainthood. In fact, it is not judgment at all that he wants. This was made clear in court on Tuesday, just minutes after the disgraced former FBI Director officially entered a plea of ​​”not guilty.”

Their lawyers immediately informed the judge that they would try to completely block the hearing by filing a petition to dismiss the case. They will be accused of selective and vindictive prosecution, grand jury abuse, and outrageous government conduct.

COMEY PLEADED NOT GUILTY IN COURT AFTER ALLEGATIONS OF MISREPRESENTATION AND OBSTACLE.

Their goal is to prosecute President Donald Trump to avoid Comey’s trial, which is scheduled to begin in early January. It is a clear legal maneuver to portray Trump as the evil villain while portraying Comey as the innocent victim.

This distorted portrayal is worthy of a Shakespearean comedy, given the defendant’s long list of lawless schemes, unscrupulous deceptions, and blatant abuses of power that should have landed him behind bars years ago.

And spare me the moral outrage at the weaponization of the law. Comey invented this by shamelessly launching his first legal battle against Trump. His personal hostility triggered the perverted Russia hoax.

But Comey’s legal gambit to sink his own case should not be underestimated. From where?

Comey’s team of lawyers will make their case in front of the friendly arbitrator. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff was appointed to the federal bench by President Joe Biden; Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened with Comey and others, ignoring numerous acts of corruption that are now prohibited by statute of limitations.

HOW DOES JAMES COMEY’S CLAIM GO SOUTH FOR THE DOJ?

In a politically charged case, the political leanings of the presiding judge are important.

Here, the defense will argue that the case should be dismissed because Trump pressured government lawyers to file a politically motivated lawsuit against his arch-enemy Comey. The president fired a reluctant U.S. Attorney and appointed his former personal attorney, Lindsey Halligan, who received the indictment from the grand jury.

Trump’s harsh criticism of Comey was fully deserved and is on the public record. However, from a legal perspective, this does not mean that such a person is protected from criminal prosecution.

For the sake of fairness, let’s compare.

Biden has repeatedly accused Trump of being a “threat to democracy,” and Joe’s dirty fingerprints were all over the double indictment brought by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith. As the New York Times first reported in April 2022, Biden announced that he wants Trump impeached. Immediately pressure was put on Attorney General Merrick Garland to get this done.

This was not an isolated incident. Readers of political history know that other past presidents took an active role in the Justice Department’s decision-making process. In particular, President John F. Kennedy held close discussions with his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, over prosecutorial aims and even targets, some of whom were considered his political enemies.

COMEY denied the accusations, EXPRESSED ‘I AM NOT AFRAID’

Scholars have long debated whether presidents can instruct the Justice Department or U.S. Attorneys on what to do. However, Article II of the Constitution According to the article, the president has ultimate authority over all units of the executive branch, including the Ministry of Justice. It is part of his inherent powers to direct prosecution decisions.

Not exercising this general assembly authority while respecting the independence of the prosecutor’s office is a choice, not a legal or constitutional requirement. If a U.S. Attorney disagrees that probable cause exists for an indictment, he or she may object on ethical grounds. However, in this case, the president is free to appoint someone who has a different opinion and has no such objection.

Former FBI Director James Comey is depicted in a courtroom sketch during his trial in Virginia on October 8, 2025. (Federal Court, sketch artist Dana Verkouteren)

Let’s get back to Comey. To avoid the trial he insists he wants, his lawyers will make a variety of different allegations aimed directly at Trump. Defense briefings will be voluminous. For now, let’s examine the most obvious, selective prosecution.

Comey must convince Judge Nachmanoff that the case against him was unfairly motivated and therefore discriminated against. Moreover, Comey needs to overcome with clear evidence what is known as the “presumption of regularity”, which assumes that prosecutors have fulfilled their duties properly.

COMEY ALLEGATION SAVED VIOLENT POLITICAL REACTIONS NATIONWIDE

This is often an uphill climb because the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.

This is where the substance of the accusations comes into play. Are they right? The indictment alleges that Comey lied and obstructed Congress. OK. So how compelling is the evidence and how strong are the witnesses against him? Who are these witnesses? What exactly was the misrepresentation and in what context was it made?

The unsatisfactory answer is: we don’t know. The indictment itself tells us very little.

It establishes only that Comey knowingly made a materially false statement to a U.S. senator during a Judiciary Committee hearing that he, Comey, did not authorize another person at the FBI (“PERSON 3”) to be the unnamed source on news reports regarding an FBI investigation involving “PERSON 1.” The alleged lie had the effect of obstructing the Committee’s investigation.

CLICK FOR OTHER OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS

At this early stage, the identities of person 1 and person 2, as well as the identities of the recipients of the news, are a secret. We can speculate, but we have no idea what Comey’s allegedly false definitive statement is or what contradictory and incriminating evidence prosecutors have in their possession.

Patrice Failor (left), wife of former FBI Director James Comey, embraces her daughter Maurene Comey as they arrive at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Bryan Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, on October 8, 2025. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Without this critical information, no one can competently assess the strength or weakness of the case. This means that we cannot possibly determine whether the indictment was motivated by an unfair motive and therefore constituted selective prosecution. The grand jury felt this was justified because it found probable cause to believe Comey had committed a crime.

On Tuesday, Comey’s lawyers told the judge they would ask for a “list of details” to obtain more specific facts. These details will undoubtedly emerge soon. Those who confidently assert that there is no credible case against Comey by then are merely speculating.

CLICK TO REACH THE FOX NEWS APPLICATION

By the way, don’t believe the smug and self-important Comey insisting “let’s have a hearing.” This is a typical claim for which he is famous.

Comey will fight like hell to avoid his own trial.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT