Former FBI Director James Comey is in hot water again, and his lawyers are swinging hard to get him out of it.
The Hill reported that Comey has asked a judge to toss out charges of lying to Congress during his 2020 testimony, claiming his words were truthful and the questions thrown at him were murky at best, while also facing a charge of obstructing a congressional proceeding.
Let’s rewind to 2017, when Comey first testified before Congress and faced questions from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) about whether he’d ever been a source for leaks tied to the 2016 Trump campaign investigation.
That exchange, now beyond the statute of limitations, set the stage for later scrutiny. It’s a classic case of old words coming back to haunt.
Fast forward to 2020, when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) grilled Comey over whether he authorized his deputy, Andrew McCabe, to leak information to the media about that same investigation.
Cruz referenced past statements, some of which Comey’s team insists McCabe never even made. The plot thickens when Comey simply stood by his original testimony.
Comey’s legal squad isn’t mincing words, arguing that Cruz’s line of questioning was a mess of confusion. They’ve called it “fundamentally ambiguous,” suggesting no one could reasonably answer such a muddled inquiry without tripping up.
Well, if the questions are a puzzle, maybe the answers shouldn’t be held to a courtroom standard.
Adding fuel to the fire, the indictment against Comey is a skimpy two-page document, lacking the nitty-gritty details of the exchange with Cruz. How do you defend against a charge when the playbook is half-blank? It’s like being asked to fight a shadow in the dark.
Beyond the lying charge, Comey’s also slapped with obstructing a congressional proceeding, though his team claims they’re clueless about what exactly that’s based on. This lack of clarity, they argue, makes it impossible to mount a proper defense. Sounds like a legal fog thicker than a November morning.
Here’s where it gets even dicier: the indictment was filed just days before the statute of limitations ran out on the 2020 testimony. Talk about cutting it close—almost as if someone wanted to make sure this didn’t slip through the cracks. Timing like that raises eyebrows on any conservative’s radar.
Prosecutors later clarified in court that the mysterious “Person 1” and “Person 3” in the indictment refer to Daniel Richman, a close associate of Comey’s, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, respectively—not McCabe or Trump as some might have guessed. Cruz’s questions, though, zeroed in on McCabe alone. It’s a curious mismatch that only muddies the waters further.
Comey’s filing pulls no punches on the ambiguity, stating, “A reasonable person could have understood Senator Cruz’s questions to be entirely unrelated to Mr. Richman or anyone else at the FBI—and to have focused on Mr. McCabe alone."
If the questions were a narrow laser on McCabe, how can broader accusations stick? This smells like overreach to anyone skeptical of government heavy-handedness.
Then there’s the behind-the-scenes drama: the indictment came after a career prosecutor bailed from the Justice Department over concerns about the case.
Add to that, President Trump appointed one of his former personal attorneys to oversee things, and Lindsey Halligan, now heading the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Eastern District of Virginia, is the sole signer on the document—an oddity in itself. It’s hard not to wonder if politics is playing a louder tune than justice here.
For conservatives wary of deep-state antics, this case feels like a double-edged sword. On one hand, holding powerful figures like Comey accountable is a must; on the other, a sloppy prosecution with questionable timing risks undermining legitimate oversight. Fairness shouldn’t be a casualty of political theater.
Comey’s team argues the charges don’t meet the legal threshold for false statements, lacking both clear questions and provably wrong answers.
If the foundation is shaky, the whole house of cards should fall. That’s not woke nonsense—it’s basic due process, something every American should demand.