Comey Says DOJ is Prosecuting Him On Trump’s Orders, Asks Judge to Throw Out Charges

Former FBI Director James Comey speaking in New York City in May 2025. (Photo: Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Former FBI Director James Comey Monday asked a federal judge to throw out the felony charges against him, asserting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) violated his rights by pursuing charges against him on President Donald Trump’s orders. 

“The government has singled out Mr. Comey for prosecution because of his protected speech and because of President Trump’s personal animus toward Mr. Comey,” his dismissal motion reads.

“The proper remedy for this unconstitutional prosecution is dismissal with prejudice,” it continues.

By pursuing charges based on Trump’s orders, the motion argued that the DOJ was selectively and vindictively prosecuting Comey in violation of his due process rights and First Amendment right to criticize the president.

Late last month, Comey was charged with two felonies: lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding.

The DOJ brought charges against Comey shortly after Trump in a social media post ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to go after his perceived political foes more aggressively. In the post, Trump mentioned Comey by name.

In the dismissal motion, Comey argued that the post amounted to the president “explicitly pressing” Bondi to charge him, New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) — all of whom Trump has vowed to get revenge on. 

James also was recently charged. Schiff has not been, to date.

Shortly after Trump made the post, he forced out the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and in his place installed Lindsey Halligan, one of Trump’s former personal defense attorneys who had no prosecutorial experience.

Halligan then personally brought an indictment against Comey before a grand jury two days after being sworn in as interim U.S. attorney and just days before the five-year statute of limitations on Comey’s purported offense was set to expire.

The Comey filing noted that after he was indicted, Trump in social media posts cheered and personally thanked the DOJ, Halligan and FBI Director Kash Patel.

“Ample objective evidence — much of which comes directly from government officials’ own public statements and admissions — establishes that the government’s animus toward Mr. Comey led directly to this vindictive and selective prosecution,” the dismissal motion reads.

The two-page indictment against Comey was sparse on details. It accused the former FBI chief of making false statements to a senator during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in September 2020. 

Because of the alleged false statement, it also accused Comey of obstructing a congressional investigation into the FBI’s Russia investigation. The document, however, did not specify what the alleged false statement was.

Trump has sought retribution against Comey over the bureau’s investigation into links between the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and Russia.

In order to prove selective and vindictive prosecution, Comey said he didn’t need to have evidence that Halligan herself held “genuine animus toward” him. 

“Rather, the claim turns on the animus harbored by the official who prompted the prosecution—here, the President—revealed in repeated expressions of malice, which he translated into action,” the dismissal reads.

“That is more than sufficient to establish a vindictive prosecution claim.”

Comey’s dismissal marks the third time a high-profile defendant accused the DOJ under Trump of selective and vindictive prosecution.

Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) made the same claim over a  three-count impeding officers charge against her.

 Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia also said the immigrant smuggling charge the DOJ is pursuing against him is vindictive punishment for legally challenging his illegal removal to El Salvador earlier this year.

A federal judge last month found that comments from senior DOJ officials, including Bondi, raised a “realistic likelihood” of vindictive prosecution and said Abrego Garcia was entitled to discovery to prove his claim.

This story has been updated with new details throughout.