On Sunday, September 28, 2025, legal analyst Dan Abrams appeared on ABC’s This Week and made a bold prediction about the future of the high-profile case against former FBI Director James Comey. According to Abrams, who also serves as the founder of Mediaite and chief legal analyst for ABC News, the odds are overwhelmingly in Comey’s favor: “I think that there’s a 95%-plus chance that there won’t be a conviction. That it’ll either get dismissed by a judge, there’ll be a hung jury, there’ll being an acquittal.”
The case, which has gripped Washington and reignited fierce debate over the politicization of justice, centers on two felony counts brought against Comey. The charges, while serious on paper, have raised eyebrows across the political spectrum—particularly given the history behind the investigation and the apparent skepticism even within the Trump administration itself.
To understand why this prosecution has become such a lightning rod, it’s necessary to revisit the events that led up to it. The main allegation is that Comey authorized a leak regarding the Hillary Clinton investigation, a claim that has been the subject of intense scrutiny for years. In fact, as Abrams pointed out, “The first Trump administration investigated this, and no one decided to move forward with any charges in connection with this.”
Back in 2018, the Department of Justice Inspector General’s office conducted a thorough investigation of the very issues now at the heart of Comey’s indictment. The resulting report examined whether Comey’s actions—specifically, his handling of sensitive information and alleged leaks—warranted criminal charges. After combing through the evidence, the Trump Justice Department ultimately opted not to bring a case against Comey at that time.
This fact, Abrams argued, is not just a footnote but a central reason why the current prosecution appears so unusual. “That has been investigated already … the Inspector General of the Department of Justice investigated this issue,” he said on ABC. The implication is clear: if the prosecutors who first examined the evidence chose not to act, what’s changed now?
The story gets even more complex when considering the role of Andrew McCabe, Comey’s former deputy and another key figure in the saga. As Abrams explained, “When you talk about Andrew McCabe, for example, the Department of Justice inspector general looked into that, listened to what McCabe said, listened to what Comey said, and said we find Comey’s account more credible than McCabe’s.”
In 2019, McCabe himself was nearly indicted for allegedly lying about the same conversation at issue in the Comey case. But, as Abrams reminded viewers, the grand jury refused to indict McCabe, and the matter was dropped. “They couldn’t get a grand jury to indict, and now they’re going to indict James Comey for that? So I don’t think that’s what this is about. I think, in the end, this is about another conversation,” Abrams remarked, hinting that the prosecution may hinge on a different aspect of Comey’s conduct—one that has not been previously aired in public.
What makes the situation so extraordinary, according to Abrams, is the apparent lack of confidence in the case from within the very administration that brought it. “I’m going to go out on a limb here and say, I don’t even think that many in the Trump administration believe they’re going to get a conviction,” he said. This is a highly unusual posture for prosecutors, who, as Abrams noted, typically only move forward with charges when they believe the evidence is strong enough to secure a win in court.
The possible outcomes, as Abrams sees them, are all favorable to Comey: dismissal by a judge, a hung jury, or outright acquittal. But if the odds of conviction are so low, why bring the charges in the first place? That’s the million-dollar question—and one that has sparked speculation about the true motives behind the prosecution.
Some observers see the case as a continuation of the long-running feud between President Trump and his critics within the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Others suspect it may be an attempt to send a message to current and former officials about the risks of crossing the White House. Still, as Abrams emphasized, the case stands out for its apparent lack of prosecutorial confidence: “That’s what makes this so unusual. Because typically, a prosecutor’s office will not bring a case unless they think they can win it.”
For Comey, the stakes could hardly be higher. While the former FBI Director has long been a lightning rod for controversy—praised by some for his independence, castigated by others for his handling of politically charged investigations—he now faces the prospect of a criminal trial, with all the attendant risks to his reputation and future.
Yet, if Abrams is right, the legal jeopardy may be more theoretical than real. The fact that the Justice Department’s own inspector general found Comey’s account more credible than McCabe’s, combined with the earlier decision not to prosecute after a full investigation, suggests that the evidence may simply not be strong enough to support a conviction.
It’s also worth noting that the American legal system is built on the presumption of innocence, and prosecutors bear the heavy burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In high-profile cases, where public scrutiny is intense and political stakes are sky-high, that burden can become even more daunting.
As the case moves forward, all eyes will be on the courtroom—and on the Trump administration’s next moves. Will the charges stick, or will this prosecution become another chapter in the long saga of political battles and legal showdowns that have defined the Trump era?
For now, one thing seems clear: according to Dan Abrams and the analysis aired on ABC’s This Week, James Comey’s odds of conviction are vanishingly slim. Whether the case ends in dismissal, a hung jury, or acquittal, the prosecution itself stands as a testament to the unusual, sometimes confounding, intersection of law, politics, and personal rivalries in Washington today.
With the legal and political drama set to continue, the nation watches as the fate of a former FBI director—and the credibility of the justice system—hang in the balance.