On Wednesday, October 15, 2025, former FBI Director James Comey stood before a federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, and pleaded not guilty to charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional hearing. The brief arraignment, lasting less than half an hour, marked the start of a case that has already stirred heated debate across the nation—one that many see as a test of the Justice Department’s independence and the boundaries of political retribution.
According to the Associated Press, Comey’s legal team wasted no time outlining their defense strategy: they plan to argue that the prosecution is politically motivated and should be dismissed. The case, they say, is emblematic of the Trump administration’s efforts to target its adversaries, with concerns mounting that the Justice Department is being weaponized to punish political enemies.
Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, appearing on the network’s ‘Hannity’ program on October 10, offered a blunt assessment of the unfolding legal battle. Jarrett claimed that Comey’s legal team is trying to avoid Comey’s own trial by putting President Donald Trump “on trial.” In his words, “Comey’s strategy, make no mistake, is to put Donald Trump on trial to avoid his own trial. He doesn’t want to be put on trial, but typically that’s an uphill battle. Because under the law, you have to prove by clear evidence that the charges have an unjustified motive. If they’re justified, it’s not a defense.” Jarrett went further, calling Comey’s legal maneuvers “a con job” and saying, “The last thing he wants is a trial.”
Comey’s not guilty plea is the latest twist in a saga that began after reports surfaced of a potential grand jury indictment for allegedly lying to Congress in September 2020 as a legal deadline loomed. The Department of Justice announced that Comey had stated he “did not authorize someone at the FBI to be an anonymous source,” a claim the indictment alleges is false. The charges against Comey have been met with fierce denials from the former director, who took to Instagram shortly after his indictment. In a nearly one-minute video, Comey told his followers that he and his family have known “for years” the “costs” of “standing up to” Donald Trump, but couldn’t “imagine living any other way.” He vowed that they would not “live on our knees,” urging supporters to stay “engaged” and attentive as the trial approaches.
The case is now set to move quickly. U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, a Biden appointee, has scheduled the trial for January 5, 2026, and has made it clear that he wants proceedings to advance without delay. As reported by Deadline, Nachmanoff approved a timetable for the defense to file two rounds of motions challenging the indictment, with the first round due October 20 and the second round by October 30.
Comey’s defense team, led by seasoned attorneys Patrick Fitzgerald and Jessica Carmichael, is aiming to dismantle the prosecution before it ever reaches a jury. Fitzgerald flagged two primary issues for the first round of motions: claims of selective or vindictive prosecution, and a challenge to the appointment of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan. Selective prosecution requires proof that a defendant was singled out among similarly situated individuals for discriminatory reasons, while vindictive prosecution hinges on showing that genuine animus motivated the charges. Both are notoriously difficult to prove, but Fitzgerald made clear the defense’s position: “Our view is that this prosecution was brought at the direction of President Trump to silence a constant critic of him.”
The second prong of the defense’s initial attack focuses on Halligan’s appointment. Halligan, a former personal lawyer to Donald Trump, was installed as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after her predecessor reportedly resisted bringing the case against Comey. As Fitzgerald told the court, “We think that’s an unlawful appointment.” Halligan had no prior prosecutorial experience and presented the case herself to the grand jury, only joined by two federal prosecutors from North Carolina—Tyler Lemons and Gabriel Diaz—just before the arraignment. This unusual arrangement, the defense argues, further underscores the case’s political underpinnings.
The second round of motions may include arguments such as a “literal truth” defense, claims of grand jury abuse, and allegations of outrageous government conduct. The “literal truth” defense, referencing the Supreme Court’s 1973 Bronston v. United States decision, holds that a witness cannot be convicted of perjury for answers that are literally true but perhaps misleading. Fitzgerald alluded to this possibility, suggesting that Comey’s statements under oath may have been technically accurate, even if not entirely forthcoming.
Judge Nachmanoff, for his part, has signaled a determination to keep the case on schedule. He acknowledged potential complications, such as the handling of classified information and the need for a judge from another district to address challenges to Halligan’s appointment. Nevertheless, he assured both sides that these “wrinkles” would not delay the trial or the resolution of motions. The government’s response to the first round of motions is due November 3, with a hearing set for November 19. The second round’s hearing is scheduled for December 9.
As the legal battle heats up, the case has become a lightning rod for political controversy. According to the Associated Press, the prosecution of Comey has amplified concerns that the Justice Department is being used as an instrument of retribution, with the Trump administration determined to silence its critics. The involvement of a prosecutor with close ties to the president, and the timing of the indictment, have only fueled suspicions among observers across the political spectrum.
Yet, for all the legal wrangling and political drama, the outcome remains uncertain. Motions to dismiss on grounds of political motivation or improper appointment are rarely successful, but the defense’s aggressive posture ensures that these arguments will be aired in open court. Meanwhile, the government, led by Lemons and Diaz, will have to contend with discovery issues and the possible need to declassify sensitive information—no small feat in a high-profile case involving a former FBI director.
For Comey, the stakes could hardly be higher. The charges of making false statements and obstructing Congress carry serious penalties, and a conviction would mark a dramatic fall for a man who once led the nation’s top law enforcement agency. For the Justice Department, the case represents a test of its ability to pursue justice impartially, even as it faces accusations of political bias from both supporters and detractors of the Trump administration.
As the January trial date approaches, all eyes will remain fixed on Alexandria, where the legal and political future of James Comey—and perhaps the Justice Department itself—hangs in the balance.
