Former FBI Director James Comey has launched legal efforts to have criminal charges against him dismissed, alleging that the prosecution is driven by former President Donald Trump’s personal vendetta and that the appointed prosecutor lacks legal authority.
On Monday, October 20, 2025, James Comey’s legal team filed two motions in federal court seeking the dismissal of charges brought by the Justice Department. Comey, who served as FBI director from 2013 to 2017, faces allegations of providing false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding related to his testimony. He has pleaded not guilty to both counts, which were filed in late September following an investigation into his conduct during Trump’s presidency.
The first motion argues that Comey is a victim of selective and vindictive prosecution, targeted because of his public criticism of Trump. His attorneys presented a detailed list of Trump’s social media posts and public statements that they claim demonstrate a pattern of retaliation. They described the case as an “egregious abuse of power” and asserted that the Constitution protects individuals from government reprisal for protected speech.
In the filing, Comey’s lawyers highlighted Trump’s long-standing animosity, noting that the former president has repeatedly called for Comey’s punishment. They cited instances where Trump accused Comey of lying and demanded legal action, arguing that this constitutes “smoking evidence” of an unfair prosecution. The motion seeks to have the charges thrown out on the grounds that they violate Comey’s First Amendment rights.
The second motion challenges the legitimacy of the prosecutor, interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, appointed by Trump after the previous interim attorney’s 120-day term expired. Comey’s team contends that Halligan’s appointment was unlawful because it bypassed the Senate confirmation process required after the initial interim period. They analogized this to a recent case where charges against Trump were dismissed due to an invalid appointment of special counsel Jack Smith.
Legal experts suggest that while motions based on vindictive prosecution are seldom successful, the unique circumstances of this case—including Trump’s very public involvement—could influence the court. Judges may be more inclined to scrutinize the prosecution’s motives given the political overtones and the precedent set in Trump’s Florida case.
If the motions are denied, the case will proceed to trial, potentially setting significant legal precedents regarding executive power and prosecutorial independence. Conversely, a dismissal could embolden critics of the Justice Department and raise questions about the integrity of high-profile prosecutions.
The judge, Michael Nachmanoff, a Biden appointee, will review the motions in the coming weeks. Comey’s defense also plans to file additional requests for discovery, seeking internal DOJ documents to support their claims of selective enforcement. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for how political figures are treated in the justice system.