Greg Jarrett: James Comey claims he wants to prosecute but lawyers are seeking to have the case dismissed instead

“Let’s have a trial,” James Comey declared, posing like a peacock for the camera, when he first learned he had been indicted by a grand jury in Virginia on charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional hearing.

Cardinal Commey’s Courage was a staged drama to satisfy his eternal quest for sainthood. In fact, a trial is not what he wants at all. That became abundantly clear in court on Tuesday, moments after the ousted former FBI director formally pleaded “not guilty.”

His lawyers immediately informed the judge that they would try to prevent the entire trial by filing motions to dismiss the case. They will allege selective and retaliatory prosecution, grand jury abuse, and egregious government conduct.

Comey pleads not guilty in court after being indicted on alleged false statements and obstruction

Their goal is to put the president Donald Trump On trial to avoid Comey’s trial, which is scheduled to begin in early January. It is an unconvincing legal maneuver to paint Trump as the malicious villain while portraying Comey as the innocent victim.

This twisted depiction deserves to be a Shakespearean farce, given the defendant’s long list of lawless schemes, unconscionable deceit, and flagrant abuses of authority that should have put him behind bars years ago.

It spared me the moral outrage of weaponizing the law. Comey invented it by shamelessly launching the first legal campaign against Trump. His personal hostility drove the deviants Russia hoax.

But Comey’s legal gambit to thwart his prosecution should not be taken lightly. Why?

Comey’s team of lawyers will present their presentation before a friendly arbitrator. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanov on the bench of the Federal Court by the President Joe Bidenwhose Justice Department intervened on behalf of Comey and others by ignoring a slew of corrupt acts now barred by the statute of limitations.

How could James Comey’s indictment reach the Department of Justice?

In a politically charged case, the political leanings of the presiding judge matter.

Here, the defense will argue that the case should be dismissed because Trump pressured government lawyers to file a politically motivated lawsuit against his opponent Comey. The president fired a reluctant U.S. attorney and appointed his former personal attorney, Lindsey Halligan, who obtained the indictment from a grand jury.

Trump’s harsh criticism of Comey was well-earned and a matter of history. But this does not mean, in legal terms, that such a person is protected from criminal prosecution.

In the spirit of fairness, let’s compare.

Biden has consistently denounced Trump as a “threat to democracy,” and Joe’s dirty fingerprints are all over the dual indictments filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith. As I mentioned for the first time before New York Times In April 2022, Biden announced that he wanted to impeach Trump. Soon pressure was exerted on the Attorney General, Merrick Garlandto get it done.

This was not an isolated incident. Readers of political history know that other former presidents took active roles in the Justice Department’s decision-making process. It is worth noting, President John F. Kennedy He consulted closely with his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, regarding the prosecution’s targets and even targets, some of whom were considered his political enemies.

Comey denies the accusations and declares, “I’m not afraid.”

Scholars have long debated whether presidents can instruct the Justice Department or their U.S. attorneys what to do. However, under Article II of constitutionThe President has absolute authority over all departments of the executive branch, including the Ministry of Justice. Directing prosecution decisions is part of his inherent powers.

Failure to exercise that public authority out of respect for prosecutorial independence is a choice, not a legal or constitutional requirement. If the U.S. Attorney does not agree that probable cause exists to charge, he or she may object on ethics grounds. But the president is then free to nominate an alternative who has a different opinion and does not hold any such objection.

Back to Komi. To avoid the trial he insists he wants, his lawyers will assert a variety of different allegations directed directly at Trump. The defense briefs will be huge. So, let us now examine the most obvious issue, which is selective prosecution.

Comey must convince Judge Nachmanoff that the case against him was motivated by an unjustified motive, thus discriminating against him. Moreover, Comey must overcome with clear evidence what is known as the “presumption of regularity,” which assumes that prosecutors are carrying out their duties properly.

Comey’s accusation sparks political backlash across the country

This is usually an uphill climb because the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.

This is where the merits of the charges come into play. Are they justified? The indictment alleges that Comey lied and obstructed matters Congress. Yes. But how strong is the evidence, and how strong are the witnesses against him? Who are these witnesses? What exactly is a false statement and in what context is it made?

The unsatisfactory answer is…we don’t know. The indictment itself tells us little.

It merely reveals that Comey intentionally made a materially false statement to a U.S. Senator during his presidency. Judicial Committee When I heard that he, Comey, had not authorized another person (“Person 3”) to… FBI Being an anonymous source in news reports related to the FBI investigation of “Person 1.” The alleged lie had the effect of obstructing the committee’s investigation.

Click here for more Fox News opinions

At this early stage, the identities of Person 1 and Person 2 are ambiguous, as are the recipients of the news reports. We can speculate, but we have no idea which exact statement Comey made was allegedly false or what contradictory and incriminating evidence prosecutors have.

In the absence of this important information, no one can efficiently assess the strength or weakness of the case. This means that we cannot determine whether the motive behind the indictment was unjustified and therefore constitutes selective prosecution. The grand jury felt it was justified because it found probable cause to believe that Comey committed crimes.

Comey’s lawyers told the judge on Tuesday that they would seek a “bill of details” to get more specific facts. There is no doubt that these details will be forthcoming. Until then, those who confidently assert that there are There is no reliable case Against Comey is just a guess.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In the meantime, don’t believe the arrogant and arrogant Comey when he insists, “Let’s have a trial.” This is the typical pretense that he is famous for.

Comey will fight tooth and nail to avoid prosecution.

Click here to read more from Greg Jarrett