James Comey indictment: Trump DOJ’s case has a gaping gap

[ad_1] On Thursday evening, the Justice Division indicted former FBI Director James Comey — accusing him of getting lied to Congress throughout sworn testimony.

For me, a journalist who covers declining democracies, this set off some fairly apparent alarm bells. President Donald Trump had already openly called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute Comey, one in all his most outstanding critics, however there she was hampered by what appeared like a complete lack of proof. Simply this morning, ABC Information reported that attorneys in Virginia’s Japanese District had investigated Comey for 2 months however found insufficient cause to support an indictment . That such an indictment was filed anyway feels loads like a vindictive effort by an authoritarian president to wield regulation towards his enemies.

However hey, I believed — possibly I used to be being unfair to Lindsey Halligan, the federal prosecutor for the Japanese District of Virginia. Possibly ABC was flawed, and there actually was damning proof that Comey dedicated a criminal offense.

So I learn the indictment. And wow, is it worse than I believed.

The Comey indictment is a humiliation to authoritarians

The indictment may be very quick — simply two pages. I’ve uploaded it under, and I’d suggest you learn all of it earlier than we proceed.

The primary depend alleges that Comey knowingly lied to the Senate in September 2020, when he stated that he had not “approved another person on the FBI to be an nameless supply in information studies” with reference to an investigation into an unnamed celebration described as Particular person 1 (who, given the context of the listening to, is mostly likely Trump ). The indictment claims that he actually did authorize somebody to be an nameless supply to the media about this individual, and thus lied to Congress.

And that’s it. There’s no rationalization of what Comey was speaking about through the listening to, why federal prosecutors believed him to be mendacity — nothing. Only a easy assertion that Comey lied.

The second depend of the indictment is much more imprecise. It alleges Comey “did corruptly endeavor to affect, impede and impede the due and correct train of the ability of inquiry beneath which an investigation was being had earlier than the Senate Judiciary Committee by making false and deceptive statements.”

That confusingly worded line says statements, plural — not simply the only quote in depend one. But there’s no rationalization of what these assertion s are. It's not possible to grasp what federal prosecutors are claiming Comey did flawed, or why they’re claiming it.

Chances are you'll assume that is regular for a high-profile federal indictment. I guarantee you it is not . A typical indictment incorporates clear and particular particulars designed to indicate that there's good cause to imagine the accused individual dedicated the crimes in query.

When you take a look at the indictment of Jeffrey Epstein , for instance, you get damningly detailed descriptions of how Epstein procured minors for intercourse. When you learn the indictment of former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), you see footage of the literal gold bars he took as bribes. And in case you learn one of the federal indictments of Trump , you will see that accounts of the conversations wherein Trump helped assemble a conspiracy to unlawfully overturn the 2020 election.

However in case you learn the Comey indictment, you’ll discover completely nothing of the sort. There may be zero cause to imagine that he dedicated any crimes aside from the federal government’s stated so.

Now, it’s nonetheless attainable federal prosecutors have one thing. Comey acknowledged, in 2017 testimony , that he gave memos about his dialog with Trump to a good friend, intending the good friend (a regulation professor named Daniel Richman) to in the end leak them. And federal prosecutors not too long ago subpoenaed Richman as a part of the perjury investigation. However would Comey have actually lied about one thing that he himself already admitted?

To make issues extra complicated, we don’t even know that the indictment is about Richman. My colleague Andrew Prokop suggests that the indictment is probably going a couple of separate dispute between Comey and his former deputy Andrew McCabe about leaks to the Wall Avenue Journal. This could be an issue for the prosecution as an investigation by the Workplace of the Inspector Common discovered “the overwhelming weight of that proof supported Comey’s model of the dialog.” So why deliver the case now?

This would possibly all be somewhat bit clearer if federal prosecutors had put particulars into their indictment, however they selected to not. There may be actually no solution to consider their allegations, as a result of the allegations haven't any substance.

Which brings me again to my unique level — fears of a political prosecution.

Trump has brazenly known as for political prosecutions and pressured the Justice Division to go after Comey particularly. The indictment was a golden alternative to create the impression that this was official, which is what sensible authoritarians do after they arrest their enemies — they usually utterly botched it. The authorized work is to this point under par that it appears as in the event that they’re actively making an attempt to vindicate claims that it is a trumped-up political case.

MSNBC’s Ken Dilanian, a deeply sourced Justice Division beat reporter, stated the temper within the division is grim.

“What I'm listening to from DOJ sources: The Comey indictment is among the many worst abuses in DOJ historical past,” Dilanian wrote . “It’s laborious to overstate how…massive a second that is.”

This implies that the widespread sense learn of the indictment — that it’s an authoritarian overreach by an authoritarian president — can also be the right one.