James Comey Moves to Dismiss Charges Over Alleged Threat to President Trump
Former FBI Director James Comey has made legal moves to dismiss federal charges accusing him of threatening President Trump. He filed motions questioning the validity of the indictment, suggesting it is an outcome of long-standing disagreements with Trump and alleging misconduct by the government.
Arguments for Dismissal
Comey’s legal team argues that the charges are a result of vindictive and selective prosecution. They highlight the ongoing conflict between Comey and Trump, illustrated by a 76-page spreadsheet detailing their mutual derogatory remarks over nine years. Comey’s lawyers also seek to suppress evidence obtained from warrants on his accounts and demand disclosure of grand jury proceedings linked to his indictment.
The government has singled out Mr. Comey for prosecution because President Trump harbors animus toward Mr. Comey and his protected speech.
The Justice Department denies any political bias in prosecuting Comey. The motion further claims the Secret Service conducted warrantless electronic surveillance on Comey’s phone, posited as illegal action requested by a high-level DOJ official.
Alleged Surveillance and Evidence
Documents submitted by Comey’s counsel reveal discussions among Secret Service personnel about tracking Comey’s phone location, raising skepticism among some staff members. Additionally, requests were made to Verizon for location data under the pretext of an emergency. At the time, Comey was traveling from North Carolina to Virginia.
We did not believe that anyone’s life was in immediate danger and legally it was a bad idea to ping the phone.
The allegations surrounding this surveillance are part of an affidavit highlighted by Comey’s attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, based on substantial discovery provided by the government.
Requests for Franks Hearing
Comey’s legal team seeks a Franks hearing to ascertain if falsehoods were presented by the government in securing search warrants. Concerns include affidavits that allegedly omitted facts and misled magistrates, implying obstruction by Comey’s wife and lawyer, a former U.S. Attorney.
Interviews and evidence showed a biased witness claiming estrangement from Comey, initially interpreting the “86 47” post in restaurant slang until influenced by external media.
Gesture and Public Reaction
Comey posted a photo of seashells forming “86 47” on Instagram, leading to accusations of threatening Trump’s life. “Eighty-six” often means eject, aligning with Trump being the 47th president.
Comey denied threatening Trump and deleted the post, stating his opposition to violence. The Secret Service launched an investigation and interviewed Comey, culminating in charges unveiled by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
Legal Standards for Dismissal
To annul an indictment for selective prosecution, a defendant must demonstrate discriminatory prosecution unlike “similarly situated” individuals. For vindictive prosecution, proving animus or punishment for exercising legal rights is required, though courts often view such claims skeptically.
Vast merchandise bearing “86 47” or “86 46” (referring to President Biden) is sold online without government action, cited by Comey’s team as indicative of selective enforcement.
Political Underpinnings
Comey’s lawyers emphasize Trump’s history of retaliatory actions. Emails reveal the Secret Service sought updates during Comey’s interview while accompanying Trump, allegedly reflecting political expediency behind the charges.
Blanche rebutted claims of political prosecution, insisting local prosecutors drove the case. He reaffirmed that threats to the president warrant serious attention irrespective of the individual’s profile.