Trump Demanded Charges Against Comey. Five Days Later, His Former Lawyer Obtained Them.

A Presidential Demand, Followed by an Indictment

On September 20, 2025, Donald Trump demanded in a public post that his attorney general act against James Comey.¹ In the same post he said he had fired the prosecutor who said there was no case, and named the lawyer he wanted instead.¹² Five days later that lawyer, Lindsey Halligan, obtained a two-count felony indictment of the former FBI director.³ He later formally nominated her.⁴ Judge Cameron McGowan Currie threw it out because Attorney General Pam Bondi had appointed Halligan unlawfully.³ The Justice Department appealed.⁴

The charge is presidential retaliation through federal prosecution. Trump put the demand in writing, tied it to the impeachments and indictments against himself, then celebrated Comey's indictment as punishment for crimes no trial had established.¹ Comey had to defend against two felony charges brought by a prosecutor who, Currie found, had no lawful authority to bring them.⁵⁶³

Trump had fired Comey as FBI director during his first term, while Comey oversaw the investigation into possible ties between Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia, Reuters reported.⁷

The September 20 post repeated complaints that Comey, Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James were guilty and that nothing was being done.¹

Post on Truth Social addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi, reproduced in Comey's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 59)¹

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??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.” Then we almost put in a Democrat supported U.S. Attorney, in Virginia, with a really bad Republican past. A Woke RINO, who was never going to do his job. That’s why two of the worst Dem Senators PUSHED him so hard. He even lied to the media and said he quit, and that we had no case. No, I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so. Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot. 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.

Trump gave his own reason for haste: delay was "killing our reputation and credibility."¹ His next sentence invoked the impeachments and criminal charges against himself.¹

Trump Claimed the Prosecutor's Firing

The prosecutor Trump said he fired was Erik Siebert, Trump's own nominee for U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, whom the district's federal judges had unanimously appointed to continue in the job.¹³ He left office on September 19, 2025, the day before Trump's post.³ News reports summarized in Currie's opinion said he had raised concerns with senior DOJ officials about the viability of charges against Comey and James.³ Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats said he had refused to charge the targets.⁸ Trump's post said Siebert had told the media there was no case, and claimed the firing: "No, I fired him."¹ DOJ also fired the office's First Assistant U.S. Attorney, according to Comey's motion.¹

The warnings did not stop when Siebert left.² ABC News reported, citing sources familiar with a declination memo, that career prosecutors told Halligan they had found insufficient evidence even for probable cause after a two-month investigation.² The outlet reported that they warned seeking charges would violate DOJ policy and raise serious ethical issues.²

On September 25, Trump gave reporters a different account: the decision to prosecute belonged to DOJ, and he did not choose to get involved, ABC News reported.² Five days earlier he had put his demand, and his selection of Halligan, in writing.¹² He later formally nominated her.⁴ ABC News reported that Trump placed Halligan in the role over senior DOJ leadership's objections, with the goal of securing charges against Comey, James and Schiff.²

Three Days in Office, Two Felony Counts

Trump selected Halligan, whom Bondi installed as interim U.S. attorney on September 22, 2025, less than 48 hours after Trump's demand.³² Currie described her as "a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience."³ She had also been Trump's personal lawyer, Reuters reported.⁷ On September 25, three days into the job, she presented the case to the grand jury alone and was the only prosecutor to sign the indictment.³ Trump later formally nominated her.⁴

The indictment charged two crimes in Comey's September 30, 2020, testimony to Congress about authorizing disclosures to the media: making a false statement and obstructing a congressional proceeding.⁵ Each statute carries an ordinary maximum of five years in prison.⁹¹⁰ The grand jury approved two counts of the original three-count draft and rejected the first.¹¹ Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick later questioned whether Halligan had presented the revised two-count indictment to the full grand jury.¹¹ Comey moved to dismiss on that ground; Currie left it undecided.³

Comey's lawyers also argued that the indictment misrepresented his testimony: Cruz's questions concerned Andrew McCabe, while the indictment treated the exchange as concerning Daniel Richman.¹

On November 17, Fitzpatrick ordered all grand-jury materials disclosed to Comey's defense so it could investigate possible misconduct in obtaining the indictment.¹¹ He described "a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps": the FBI had searched material from an older, closed investigation without a new warrant, and the only grand-jury witness had been given an overview of potentially privileged communications shortly before testifying.¹¹ He also found that the prosecutor had suggested jurors could rely on assurances of more evidence at trial, rather than only the evidence before them.¹¹ That gave the defense grounds to challenge her statements for constitutional error; Fitzpatrick did not decide whether misconduct required dismissal.¹¹ He noted two limits: he did not immediately see clearly privileged communications in the presentation, and the newer prosecutors could reasonably have assumed the FBI had properly limited what it kept from the older searches.¹¹

The Court Set the Indictment Aside

On November 24, 2025, Currie held that Halligan's appointment violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Constitution's Appointments Clause.³ The attorney general's 120-day power to fill that vacancy had run out in May.³ After that, the power to appoint an interim U.S. attorney belonged to the district's judges.³ Bondi could not restart the clock by appointing Halligan after Siebert left.³

Opinion & Order dismissing the indictment³

I conclude that all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside.

DOJ's defense is that Halligan had authority to bring the case and that, even if her appointment failed, the indictment should survive.⁴ Its February 2026 appeal brief argues that every interim appointment gets a new 120-day term and that Bondi and the district judges could both appoint an interim prosecutor.⁴ It offers four fallbacks: Halligan could act as a government attorney whatever her title; acts performed under an apparently valid appointment should stand; Bondi's later approval cured the defect; or dismissal required actual harm to the accused from the appointment error.⁴ Currie rejected those defenses when she dismissed the indictment.³

The administration did win a narrower result: Currie dismissed without prejudice, meaning the dismissal itself did not bar a new prosecution, rather than permanently, as Comey had asked.³ But she found that the deadline to charge him had already passed: the five-year limit expired on September 30, and Bondi's October 31 approval came after it.³ DOJ invoked a six-month grace period for replacing a dismissed indictment; Currie answered that the indictment had not yet been dismissed when Bondi tried to approve it.³ On appeal, DOJ disputes that deadline analysis and says Bondi approved the indictment again on January 13, 2026, after the dismissal.⁴

Currie did not decide Comey's separate claim of vindictive and selective prosecution.³¹

The Indictment Failed, and DOJ Sought to Restore It

Trump celebrated the indictment the day it came, writing on September 25 that Comey "is now at the beginning of being held responsible for his crimes against our Nation."¹ The next day he publicly thanked Kash Patel and the FBI for their work on it.¹ The charges he demanded came five days after his post; they produced no conviction before Currie dismissed them.¹³

Comey had to defend against two felony counts, and after the dismissal he faced an appeal over whether they could be restored.⁵⁶⁴ The office that brought the case lost Siebert and its First Assistant.¹

DOJ filed notices of appeal on December 19, 2025, and Halligan left the department on January 21, 2026, according to its appeal brief.⁴ The Fourth Circuit heard arguments on September 15, 2026, Reuters reported; two of the three judges expressed skepticism that federal law authorized Halligan's appointment.⁷

The Strongest Defense Has Real Legal Force

The strongest defense is real presidential power: presidents oversee federal prosecution, can remove executive officers, and receive broad criminal immunity for official acts.¹²¹³ In Trump v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court held Trump absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for the charged discussions with DOJ officials, even though the indictment alleged sham investigations and improper purposes.¹² It also barred inquiry into motive when courts separate official from unofficial presidential acts.¹² Armstrong and Goodwin presume that prosecutors act properly and make claims of selective or vindictive prosecution hard to win.¹⁴¹⁵

Presidential immunity protects Trump against criminal prosecution for covered official acts; the prosecutorial presumptions make Comey's challenges to the charging decision harder to win.¹²¹⁴¹⁵ Impeachment asks a different question: whether the President abused the public power entrusted to him.¹⁶¹⁷ On that question, Trump's own words tie his demand to his grievances about the proceedings against himself.¹

Why This Is a Case for Impeachment

Article II, Section 4 permits removal for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."¹⁶ Hamilton explained impeachable offenses as "the abuse or violation of some public trust."¹⁷ In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee adopted an abuse-of-power article against Nixon that charged misuse of the FBI, Secret Service and other executive personnel against citizens' rights.¹⁸ The full House never voted on it because Nixon resigned.¹⁹

A dispute over executive power does not guarantee removal. In 1868 the House impeached Andrew Johnson on charges including his removal of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in defiance of a statute, and the Senate acquitted him: 35 senators voted to convict, one short of the required two-thirds.²⁰²¹

The administration also took separate actions against James Comey and his daughter, Maurene.²²²³ In May 2025, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem accused James Comey of calling for Trump's assassination through a seashell photograph, and the Secret Service questioned him.²²²⁴ Comey said he understood the shells as a political message, denied intending violence and removed the post, Fox News reported.²⁵ Trump endorsed the accusation in his May 16 interview with Bret Baier, while leaving further action to Bondi and his other officials.²⁶ DOJ brought a separate two-count threat indictment in April 2026; the arraignment moved to January 2027 at Comey's request, without government opposition, Carolina Journal reported.²⁷²⁸ In July 2025 DOJ fired his daughter, career prosecutor Maurene Comey, invoking Article II without stating a cause; she alleges retaliation for her family relationship or perceived politics.²³²⁹ On April 28, 2026, Judge Jesse Furman let her suit proceed in federal court, rejecting DOJ's proposed civil-service route; that ruling was about jurisdiction and did not decide her retaliation allegation.²⁹

Trump named Comey, claimed to have fired the prosecutor who said there was no case, selected Halligan and later formally nominated her, demanded speed, and celebrated the indictment she obtained.¹⁴³ ABC News reported that Trump placed Halligan in the role over senior DOJ leadership's objections, with the goal of securing charges against Comey, James and Schiff.² His own post tied that demand to the proceedings against himself.¹ That sequence supports the charge of retaliation: the President used federal prosecution to pursue a named adversary and claimed the result as punishment.¹³ A court has separately held the appointment unlawful and set the indictment aside.³ The cost: two felony counts Comey had to fight, and an office that lost Siebert and its First Assistant.⁵¹ This belongs in an impeachment case because prosecution is a public power held in trust, and Trump's words and actions show him using it to settle his own grievances.¹¹⁷