The Justice Department has filed court papers defending President Donald Trump’s social media posts calling for the prosecution of James Comey and the appointment of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan, arguing that the charges against the former FBI director are not politically motivated.
In detailed filings submitted on Monday, federal prosecutors pushed back against claims by Comey’s legal team that his indictment for false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding was driven by Trump’s personal vendetta. The department emphasized that Trump’s posts, which declared Comey ‘guilty as hell,’ reflect the president’s long-standing belief in Comey’s criminal liability rather than retaliation for criticism. Prosecutors stated that Comey’s evidence, including news reports and social media activity, fails to meet the high burden for proving vindictive prosecution, as it does not show the case was brought solely to punish him for exercising his First Amendment rights.
Comey’s defense hinges on the argument that he is being selectively prosecuted due to his public criticisms of Trump, pointing to a social media post where Trump demanded ‘JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!’ just days before the indictment. However, the Justice Department countered that such posts do not prove vindictive intent, noting that Trump had accused Comey of crimes like leaking information and lying under oath even before the former director began speaking out against the administration. They argued that it would require a ‘contrived reading’ to conclude Trump’s calls for prosecution were based on retaliation rather than a genuine belief in Comey’s guilt.
The filings also addressed the legitimacy of Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney who secured the indictments against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Comey and James have challenged Halligan’s appointment, arguing it violated legal time limits after the previous interim attorney served 120 days, but the Justice Department defended her role as lawful. They contended that federal law allows for new interim appointments if a vacancy arises and that the attorney general must reassess appointments every 120 days, not that they are automatically invalid after that period.
In a separate filing, the department defended subpoenas issued to Letitia James as part of an investigation into the Trump Organization and National Rifle Association, rejecting claims that they are overly broad or infringe on state rights. James has pleaded not guilty to mortgage fraud charges and is fighting the subpoenas, but prosecutors maintain they are valid and necessary for the grand jury investigation, noting that no individuals have been identified as targets.
The legal battles highlight ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and its critics, with Comey’s case seen as a test of prosecutorial independence. A hearing on Halligan’s authority is scheduled for next week, and if the judge rules against the Justice Department, it could jeopardize the cases against both Comey and James, as Halligan was the sole prosecutor to sign the indictments. This underscores the high stakes involved in these proceedings.
This development raises broader concerns about the erosion of norms in using the justice system for perceived personal vendettas. As courts weigh these arguments, the outcomes could set precedents for how presidential influence is handled in criminal proceedings, potentially impacting future cases involving political figures. The Justice Department’s aggressive defense signals its commitment to upholding the indictments despite mounting legal and political scrutiny.