Indictment of James Comey

Ava Cai

September 26, 2025

President Donald Trump has ordered an indictment of James Comey, a former FBI director. As supporters express their support in MAGA articles, this move by the US president is seen as more of a political move. 

Nevertheless, the indictment of the former FBI Director is a highly controversial case and has raised questions about proper procedure. Judge Lindsey Vaala noticed that two indictments were filed — one that had three charges and one with only two. Prosecutor Lindsey Halligan also admitted to having only signed the version with two charges and was unaware of the version with three charges. As federal individuals are usually carefully reviewed by professionals, the two conflicting documents suggested a disorganized and unusually rushed process.

Overall, the charges pressed against James Comey lacked much evidence. He was accused of making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding — something regarding his 2020 Senate testimony about the FBI’s investigations into the Trump campaign and Clinton’s email case. However, the indictment lacks specific, quoted evidence that specifies what exactly Comey lied about. The testimony also came from a question by Senator Ted Cruz, which was vague and opens doors to misinterpretation. 

Impartiality is a main concern raised in the case due to its strong political overtones. President Trump openly pressured the Justice Department to press charges against Comey, removed the U.S. attorney who did not support the charges, and assigned Halligan, a personal lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, to take over the case. Such actions lead legal experts to believe that the reason behind the case came from revenge rather than legal reasons. 

As the case reaches the trial stage, conviction is highly unlikely. First off, the grand jury has already rejected one of the charges. This is unusual because grand juries usually approve most of the prosecution's requests. In addition, the technical issues — such as poor audio and interruptions — during Comey’s remote testimony in 2020 may limit the amount of evidence that can be gathered on what he actually said. This combination of weak evidence along with political complications suggests that the prosecution side may struggle to succeed in court.