On September 27, 2025, the American political landscape was rocked by the news that former FBI Director James Comey had been indicted on one count of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice. The charges stem from allegations that Comey lied under oath to Congress about authorizing his then-deputy, Andrew McCabe, to leak confidential information regarding the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. As reported by Fox News, Comey has denied the charges and vowed to fight them in court.
The indictment, handed down by a grand jury in Virginia, is brief and cryptic, leaving many observers—including legal experts—questioning the strength of the evidence. According to Yascha Mounk’s analysis, published prior to September 27, the main evidence appears to come from McCabe himself, whose credibility is questionable due to an independent investigation that concluded he had “lacked candor, including under oath, on multiple occasions.”
The circumstances leading up to the indictment have only fueled the controversy. President Donald Trump, in a direct message on TruthSocial to Attorney General Pam Bondi, demanded action against Comey, writing, “Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? … We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! President DJT.”
This public pressure was followed by a series of firings within the Justice Department. Trump reportedly dismissed multiple prosecutors who were unwilling to pursue charges against Comey. Ultimately, a new prosecutor, described by Mounk as loyal to Trump and lacking federal law enforcement experience, was appointed. Within a week, she filed the criminal charges against one of Trump’s most prominent adversaries, despite concerns from her subordinates and her predecessor, who was fired after raising doubts about the sufficiency of the evidence.
The reaction from across the political and media spectrum has been swift and deeply divided. On September 26, Alex Marlow, host and Editor-in-Chief of Breitbart, discussed the indictment on his podcast, “The Alex Marlow Show.” Marlow argued that the only way to slow down what he called “lawfare” was to indict those who had practiced it, stating, “You have to hold the people who practiced it accountable.” Marlow’s comments reflect a growing sentiment among some conservatives that legal accountability should be pursued for figures they believe have weaponized the justice system for political ends.
Former DOJ prosecutor Jim Trusty, appearing on “Fox News Live,” weighed in on the indictment and the broader allegations of “lawfare.” Trusty discussed the implications of the charges and the perception that they represent a political tit-for-tat, a view echoed by many on the right.
Fox News host Greg Gutfeld delivered a particularly fiery response on “The Five.” Gutfeld dismissed concerns about revenge, declaring, “It’s not revenge if you have it coming!” He continued, “And the Dems love due process, so let’s due process the hell out of this guy! He may get away with it, but he’s got to go through the process.” Gutfeld also referenced other political figures who have faced prosecution, including Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Peter Navarro, and George Papadopoulos, suggesting that the precedent for so-called “lawfare” had already been set. Fellow host Jesse Watters added, “Yeah, they’re just mad Trump’s doing to them what they did to them. So, I don’t care what you call it. I’m with Greg — revenge, retribution, accountability — who cares? It’s happening and I’m enjoying it because these people need to be punished.”
Yet, not everyone sees the indictment as a straightforward case of justice. Yascha Mounk’s analysis underscores the dangers of politicizing the justice system, warning that the prosecution of political opponents—especially at the direct behest of the president—threatens foundational principles of American democracy. Mounk writes, “One of the most awesome powers of the modern state is its ability to imprison people who have violated the law. This is why the Founding Fathers were so obsessed with procedures and principles meant to protect citizens from arbitrary arrest.” He argues that Trump’s overt intervention in the case, including the replacement of prosecutors and the appointment of a loyalist, represents a “five-alarm fire” for the independence of the judiciary.
Mounk also points to structural problems within the American judicial system, such as the election of prosecutors and judges, which he says has made it difficult for citizens to trust that justice is impartial—especially in highly politicized cases. He draws a parallel with prosecutions against Trump himself, noting that partisan interests and legal novelty have marred cases on both sides of the political divide.
Despite the seriousness of the charges, some legal experts, including Andrew C. McCarthy of the National Review, expect that Comey’s case may be dismissed or that he would prevail at trial. The concern, however, is not just about the outcome for Comey, but about the chilling effect such prosecutions could have on political speech and participation. As Mounk warns, “If a former Director of the FBI can be prosecuted for his political disloyalty, there’s a real danger that ordinary citizens won’t be far behind.”
Comey himself remains a polarizing figure, having attracted the ire of both the left and right over the years. His decision to publicly announce the reopening of the Clinton email investigation days before the 2016 election angered Democrats, while his role in launching the Russia investigation earned him the enmity of Trump and his supporters. Mounk notes, “Comey is a complex figure. He loves to present himself as a public servant of unimpeachable civic virtue,” but in the current climate, even the appearance of hypocrisy can inspire intense mistrust.
As the case moves forward, the nation is left to grapple with questions about the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and the boundaries of political accountability. For now, the indictment of James Comey stands as a flashpoint in an era defined by deep political polarization and growing concerns about the health of American democracy.
Ultimately, while the immediate fate of James Comey will be decided in the courts, the broader implications of his indictment—and the process that led to it—will likely reverberate through American politics for years to come.
