In a recent turn of events, former FBI Director James Comey is seeking dismissal of his criminal case, alleging vindictive prosecution driven by President Trump’s hostility. Comey’s legal team has filed motions in federal court, arguing the indictment is flawed, particularly citing the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan. Furthermore, Comey’s lawyers claim Halligan’s actions should be nullified due to her improper installation, violating federal law. The charges, related to Comey’s 2020 Senate testimony, were filed just before the statute of limitations expired, adding further complexity to the situation.
Read More
The revelation of a message could create significant legal challenges for Trump and the DOJ, potentially providing grounds for James Comey and others to dismiss indictments. Comey’s attorney is reportedly exploring a dismissal based on “vindictive prosecution,” arguing the charges stem from animus rather than legitimate legal reasons. Even though motions for vindictive prosecution are uncommon, Comey’s case is strengthened by Trump’s public animosity. Further communications between Trump and DOJ officials could further demonstrate the prosecution’s vindictiveness.
Read More
A federal judge is considering whether to dismiss the criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant, due to potentially “vindictive” prosecution by the government. The judge cited statements from Trump administration officials, including a Deputy Attorney General, as possible “direct evidence” of retaliatory motives related to Abrego Garcia’s legal challenges to his wrongful deportation. These statements, coupled with the timing of the criminal indictment, suggest a potential link between the charges and Abrego Garcia’s exercise of his constitutional rights. More hearings are scheduled to determine whether the prosecution was indeed motivated by retaliation.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker