Former FBI director James Comey has been charged with lying to the United States Congress in a case that deepens concerns that the Department of Justice is being weaponized in pursuit of public figures regarded as political enemies by President Donald Trump. The indictment was filed as the White House exerted pressure on the department compromising its prosecutorial independence. But indicting Mr. Comey is one thing. Getting a conviction is another.

1. Introduction

On September 25, 2025, a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria, Virginia, returned an indictment charging former FBI director James Comey in two counts arising out of his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 30, 2020. (here) The first count alleges that he falsely stated he had not authorized anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source regarding a specific FBI investigation. The second count alleges obstruction of a congressional proceeding. Writing for The New York Times the next day, reporter Ashley Ahn said prosecutors had been considering whether Mr. Comey should be charged with lying to Congress about the FBI’s investigation of Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and its possible ties to Russia. (here) Mr. Trump has railed against the Russia investigation for years and abruptly fired Mr. Comey in 2017.

2. Background

Mr. Comey was FBI director when Mr. Trump was inaugurated in January 2017. The bureau was entangled in American politics at the time with Mr. Comey facing criticism for his handling of the investigation into Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while he was also overseeing the Russia investigation. In a backstory piece for the Associated Press, Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer and Michael Kunzlman reported that, in the initial private interactions between Mr. Comey and Mr. Trump, Mr. Comey said the president asked him to pledge his loyalty to him and drop the investigation into his administration’s first national security advisor, Michael Flynn. Mr. Trump also asked Mr. Comey to publicly state that he was not under investigation as part of the broader Russia investigation which Mr. Comey declined to do. (here)

In an article published by The New York Times on September 26, 2025, titled Trump Says He’s Out for Justice, Not Revenge. His Words Suggest Otherwise. White House correspondent Tyler Pager said Mr. Trump has been furious with Mr. Comey for nearly a decade for heading the investigation into potential ties between his campaign and Russians attempting to influence the 2016 election. (here) “His anger about that investigation has become so central to Mr. Trump’s political identity that ‘the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax’ – Mr. Trump’s shorthand for the investigation – has become a rallying cry among his supporters,” Mr. Pager said.

In a separate piece also for the Associated Press, Mr. Tucker and Ms. Richer said the case against Mr. Comey has never been a “sure thing” and took “an unconventional path on the way to indictment”. (here) The indictment was secured by newly-minted U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide and former lawyer for Mr. Trump. “Despite a lack of prior experience as a federal prosecutor, Halligan was abruptly installed by Trump last weekend after the veteran attorney who held the job, Eric Siebert, was effectively pushed out under pressure.” Writing for The Guardian on September 26, 2025, Chris Stein described Ms. Halligan as “a Trump loyalist with little prosecutorial experience”. (here) The indictment is a buzzer beater filed just days before the five-year statute of limitations would have expired.

3. The Indictment

There are two kinds of indictments – indictments that tell a story and ones that don’t. Speaking indictments go beyond the minimum legal requirements of stating the “essential facts” of an alleged offence and include a narrative of the alleged conduct. They are usually informative about the substance and apparent strength of the state’s case but have been criticized for permitting the government to influence public perception of a prosecution and poison the potential jury pool. (here and here). The Comey indictment is not a speaking indictment and was described by Benjamin Wittes in a post to Lawfare as “speak[ing] less than any charge you are ever likely to see against a prominent person in a high-profile criminal matter.” (here) And, reporting for The New York Times, Fransesca Regalado said the indictment contains “so little detail that it was hard for legal experts to assess its merits.” (here)

The first charge alleges that Mr. Comey willfully made a “materially false” statement when he testified during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on September 30, 2020, that he “had not ‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports’ regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.” Describing the case as “grotesquely, abusively weak”, Mr. Wittes said the first charge is likely “a reference to Andrew McCabe’s disclosures to the Wall Street Journal concerning an investigation of the Clinton Foundation.” In her article for the Times, Ms. Regalado said “[l]awmakers and investigators have at different times focused on Andrew McCabe, who served as Mr. Comey’s deputy”.

The second charge alleges that Mr. Comey endeavoured to obstruct the inquiry before the Committee “by making false and misleading statements before that committee.” The charge is striking not for what it says but for what it doesn’t say. There is no description of what “false and misleading statements” Mr. Comey allegedly made. Mr. Wittes said the relevant point for now is that the failure of Ms. Halligan “to show her work” makes it impossible to assess the charge in any detail but “[y]ou can’t keep the facts out of a criminal case forever.” In a comment on social media, Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York who was fired by the Trump administration in 2017, said the charges against Mr. Comey would “likely end in spectacular failure for the government.”

4. Conclusion

Mr. Trump welcomed the indictment telling reporters, “It’s about justice, really. It’s not revenge.” But lawmakers and legal pundits see something more sinister. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the president is making good on his promise to turn the justice system into a weapon for punishing his critics. “This kind of interference is a dangerous abuse of power,” Mr. Warner said. “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.” It appears Mr. Comey will opt for a speedy trial rather than initiate a motion to dismiss because of prosecutorial misconduct that would prolong the case while the political pot boils. “I have great confidence in the federal justice system, and I’m innocent, so let’s have a trial,” he said.