Deep Dive: Trump’s Political Prosecutions Are Faltering, but Not Over

President Donald Trump’s first attempts at legal retribution aren’t going well. 

Just two months after the president publicly ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to target a slew of his perceived enemies — former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney Letitia James and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) — the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) efforts to go after them may be crumbling.

In fact, the DOJ’s prosecutions of James and Comey are so flawed that they might not even make it to trial. 

Standing in their way is not only the incompetence of Trump’s prosecutors. Also creating difficulties is the obviously vindictive nature of the charges — with Trump and members of his administration publicly expressing personal animus towards their targets.

It’s a situation virtually unprecedented in U.S. history.

“I can’t think of a remotely close parallel to a situation where the president of the United States basically demanded publicly that his Justice Department prosecute people who he dislikes for political reasons,” Samuel Buell, a Duke Law School professor and former federal prosecutor, told Democracy Docket.

But while Trump’s opening political prosecutions may be breaking down, his long-promised retribution campaign appears to be far from over.

Incompetent prosecution?

Trump has longstanding grudges against both Comey and James.

Comey led the FBI as it probed alleged links between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. In September, the DOJ accused him of making false statements to a senator under oath and obstructing a congressional probe into the Russia investigation.

In 2024, James won a multimillion-dollar judgment against the Trump Organization for financial fraud. In October, the DOJ indicted her on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution about a home she purchased in Norfolk, Virginia.  

Comey and James both pleaded not guilty to the charges and have filed several different motions for their dismissal — all of which have a fair shot at being granted. 

The leading dismissal motion, however, is their consolidated claims that Lindsey Halligan — who was handpicked to bring charges against them — was unlawfully appointed.

Halligan was an insurance lawyer before joining Trump’s legal team in 2022. She had never prosecuted a criminal case until the president tapped her to lead the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) as a temporary U.S. attorney.

Widely known as the “rocket docket” for its fast-moving cases, the EDVA is one of the most prestigious federal districts in the country for its track record of prosecuting high-profile national security, corruption and fraud cases.

Trump elevated Halligan less than 24 hours after he ousted her predecessor for raising concerns about the viability of bringing charges against Comey and James. Just three days after she was sworn in, Halligan sought charges against Comey.

Comey and James argued that, because Trump and Bondi circumvented vacancy laws to install her, Halligan was effectively acting as a private citizen with no authority to litigate on behalf of the U.S.

The judge overseeing that claim said he would rule before Thanksgiving. If he dismisses the cases with prejudice, it would bar the DOJ from bringing the same charges against Comey and James in the future.

Even if the judge does not rule to dismiss, there’s a realistic chance Comey and James’ other dismissal motions could be granted.

With no prosecutorial experience, Halligan made significant errors during her first-ever grand jury appearance in the Comey case.

A federal judge Monday said grand jury materials showed that Halligan made “fundamental misstatements of the law” by telling jurors that Comey would not have a Fifth Amendment right to not testify at trial and that they did not have to rely on the evidence before them to approve charges against him.

In a stunning admission, the DOJ told the court Thursday that the grand jury never reviewed or voted on the final indictment used to charge him — a virtually unprecedented revelation that could topple the entire case.

Because of Halligan’s apparent missteps before the grand jury, a judge said Comey could file an additional batch of dismissal motions.

“We have a lot of procedural rules and safeguards in our system that are designed to ensure that individuals aren’t convicted of crimes unless a careful process determined by law is properly followed,” Buell, the Duke Law professor, said. “And right out of the gate, it looks like that’s not happening here.”

Unconstitutional prosecution?

Comey and James also allege that the DOJ is unconstitutionally prosecuting them in retaliation for their speech and efforts to hold Trump accountable.

In separate motions to dismiss, they listed dozens of broadsides Trump hurled against them over the years, including statements shortly before and after they were indicted. They also highlighted Trump’s order to Bondi, which he reportedly accidentally published on his Truth Social platform. 

That order and his repeated attacks, they argued, show that the DOJ’s prosecutions are based on Trump’s personal animus against them and not actual wrongdoing.

James has asked that the charges against her be tossed because of outrageous conduct by Special Attorney Ed Martin and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte — two senior officials working in tandem to target Trump’s foes.

Pulte, known in MAGA circles as “Little Trump,” has repeatedly used his post at the helm of the federal home loan regulator to spawn mortgage fraud probes into some of Trump’s top political enemies. 

After a bizarre stint as acting U.S. attorney for D.C., Martin was appointed as a special attorney expressly to investigate Pulte’s allegations. 

James alleges that Martin violated her due process rights by sending her a letter demanding that she resign as New York attorney general or face criminal charges, publicly talking about the investigation on Fox News and organizing a bizarre photo shoot for himself outside of her Brooklyn home.

She also said Pulte may have violated her rights, and potentially federal law, by illegally accessing her loan documents kept by Fannie Mae. She noted that ethics officials at the mortgage giant, fearing Pulte may have improperly accessed information, opened an investigation into how he obtained her documents. 

Pulte subsequently gutted Fannie Mae’s internal watchdog division through mass firings, potentially to head off the investigation, James stated.

The two men’s actions could also blow up the mortgage fraud probe into Schiff, another Trump foe. 

In 2020, Schiff — at the time a representative — led Trump’s first impeachment trial. He later was a central member of the House select committee that investigated Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol. 

Following Trump’s order to Bondi, the DOJ launched a criminal investigation into Schiff’s purchase of a home in Maryland based on a criminal referral from Pulte, who again cited mortgage documents of unclear origins.

The investigation was eventually referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland. But federal prosecutors may have shifted to probing Martin’s and Pulte’s handling of the inquiry, NBC News reported Thursday.

Worst to come?

While Trump’s initial stab at legal vengeance may be faltering, the DOJ is still investigating several other perceived enemies of the president. 

That means additional indictments could be on the horizon — and the goals may be broader than simple revenge on a select group of personal foes. The political implications could also be greater.

For example, Trump is targeting Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook in a bid to seize control of the U.S. central bank, a move that would have serious implications for the U.S. economy. Days after a federal court blocked his dismissal of Cook, the DOJ opened a probe into her — again based on a mortgage fraud criminal referral from Pulte.

In a 54-page letter to Bondi this week, Cook’s attorney Abbe Lowell — who also represents James — slammed Pulte’s accusations as politically motivated and “prepared with no or minimal research into the actual facts.”

Though Pulte has said mortgage fraud “must be stopped at all costs,” he has so far ignored reports indicating that his family members and multiple senior Trump officials may have committed the same infraction, Lowell alleged.

The DOJ has also indicted John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor and frequent critic, on charges of unlawfully transmitting and retaining national defense information. During a hearing Friday, federal prosecutors raised the possibility of “potential other charges.”

Most alarmingly, there are also signs the Trump DOJ may be planning a mass prosecution of the president’s perceived enemies.

During a podcast appearance last month, conservative attorney Mike Davis — a Trump and Bondi ally — insinuated that Jason Reding Quiñones, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, was building a vast conspiracy case against Trump’s adversaries.

Come January, Davis claimed, Reding Quiñones will open a special grand jury criminal investigation against “lawfare Democrats” who allegedly conspired to prevent Trump from exercising his constitutional and federal rights over the last decade.

Recent court documents indicate that a federal judge granted Reding Quiñones’ request for a grand jury to be empaneled in Fort Pierce, Florida, starting in January.

As part of the conspiracy probe, Reding Quiñones in early November issued over two dozen subpoenas against senior law enforcement and intelligence officials involved in the FBI’s Russia investigation, according to the New York Times.

Moreover, since Reding Quiñones has taken the helm, the Southern District of Florida has undergone a significant internal restructuring in preparation for the grand jury investigation, Bloomberg reported.

“Justice is definitely coming,” Davis claimed on the podcast. “So, lawyer up, motherf*****s.”