On a brisk Saturday night in September 2025, President Donald Trump did what he’s often accused of: saying the quiet part out loud. Taking to Truth Social, Trump publicly demanded that Attorney General Pam Bondi prosecute three of his most prominent adversaries—New York Attorney General Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey, and California Senator Adam Schiff. "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!!!" he posted, in a message that was evidently meant to be private but ended up broadcast to the world.
What could have been dismissed as a social media blunder quickly snowballed into a legal and political drama with far-reaching implications. Within three weeks, as Slate reported, two of the three individuals Trump named—James and Comey—had been indicted by the Justice Department. The public nature of Trump’s post has now become a focal point in what many see as a critical test of the American legal system’s ability to withstand political pressure and maintain its independence.
The fallout began in the U.S. attorney’s office in Virginia. Erik Siebert, who had been appointed by Trump just months prior, found himself out of a job after telling senior DOJ officials he didn’t think there was enough evidence to charge Comey. In his place, 36-year-old Lindsey Halligan—Trump’s former personal lawyer with no prosecutorial experience—was installed. Halligan wasted no time: on her first day, she appeared before a grand jury alone to seek charges against Comey, after the rest of the office’s lawyers refused to participate. Two weeks later, she returned to the grand jury to indict Letitia James.
The charges themselves have drawn skepticism from legal experts. Comey stands accused of lying to Congress, but the charging document fails to specify the exact falsehoods. According to Modern Newsstand, the indictment hinges on whether Comey authorized leaks to the press—a point muddied by conflicting testimonies from senior officials. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy was blunt in his assessment: "I don’t think there’s a case. McCabe said that he directed the leak, and he told Comey about it after the fact. So, it’s true that Comey never authorized it in the sense of OK’ing it before it happened. So, I don’t see how they can make that case."
Meanwhile, Letitia James faces charges of bank fraud and making false statements related to a home she bought in Norfolk, Virginia, for $137,000 in 2020. Federal prosecutors allege that James misrepresented the property as a second residence on her mortgage application, then rented it out in violation of the loan’s terms. However, as Slate notes, James allowed her grandniece and her family to live in the home rent-free, complicating the government’s narrative of intentional deception. James has steadfastly denied wrongdoing, stating that any misstep was "a simple error ... quickly rectified" and that she "didn’t deceive the lender."
On October 13, 2025, James made her first public appearance since her indictment at a rally for New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani in Washington Heights. Greeted by chants of "We love Tish," James delivered a defiant speech, warning of "powerful voices trying to silence truth and punish dissent" and vowing, "I will not capitulate." She rallied her supporters: "You come for me, you got to come through all of us! Every single one of us!" The Associated Press reported that James is expected to appear in federal court in Virginia on October 24, and if convicted, she would automatically be forced to relinquish her office under New York law.
The prosecutions of James and Comey have not only raised questions about the strength of the cases, but also about the motivations behind them. The unprecedented directness of Trump’s Truth Social post provides what many legal experts consider a rare instance of explicit evidence of animus and political motivation. As Slate explained, defendants seeking to dismiss charges for selective or vindictive prosecution typically face an uphill battle, as courts presume prosecutors act in good faith—a doctrine known as the "presumption of regularity." But Trump’s public demand for prosecutions, coupled with the abrupt replacement of Siebert and Halligan’s controversial appointment, could upend that presumption.
Comey’s attorneys have already announced plans to file a motion to dismiss the charges, citing Trump’s post as proof of vindictive and selective prosecution. This stands in stark contrast to the case of Hunter Biden, who unsuccessfully argued that his prosecution for illegal gun possession was politically motivated. As Slate noted, Biden’s defense was hampered by the lack of direct evidence of prosecutorial animus—something the James and Comey defense teams now have in spades.
The handling of these cases has also come under scrutiny. Halligan, lacking any prior prosecutorial experience, has faced criticism for alleged court filing errors in the Comey indictment. Critics argue these missteps could undermine the integrity of the case and public confidence in the process. Nevertheless, Trump has praised Halligan as "a tough, smart, and loyal attorney, who has worked with me for a long time." In response to concerns about politicization, a Department of Justice spokesperson asserted, "No one is above the law. This Department of Justice will continue to follow the facts and hold those who abuse positions of power accountable."
U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, overseeing Comey’s case, has signaled a refusal to allow needless delays. On October 13, he rejected a DOJ motion for a protective order that would have limited Comey’s access to discovery, writing that it "would unnecessarily hinder and delay Defendant’s ability to adequately prepare for trial." The judge has set a brisk litigation schedule, with Comey’s trial set for January 5, 2026, and indicated that he would have allowed an even earlier date if the defense had requested it. Halligan has since brought in two experienced DOJ lawyers from North Carolina to assist with the prosecution.
As these cases move forward, the legal and political stakes could hardly be higher. The outcomes may set crucial precedents for how the justice system handles allegations of politically motivated prosecutions. If the courts find that Trump’s public statements and actions crossed a line, it could establish new boundaries to prevent future abuses of prosecutorial power. If not, critics warn, it may embolden future presidents to pursue their adversaries with even less restraint.
For now, all eyes are on the federal courts in Virginia, where the fates of James and Comey—and perhaps the very norms of American democracy—hang in the balance.
