Comey expects further legal scrutiny from Trump admin, criticizes ‘fools who would frighten us’
In a significant legal development, former FBI Director James Comey celebrated the dismissal of federal charges against him by Judge Cameron Currie, who deemed the indictment as stemming from “malevolence and incompetence.” The charges, which accused Comey of making false statements, were dismissed on the grounds that they were brought forth by an unqualified U.S. attorney, Lindsay Halligan, who was appointed during the Trump administration. Comey expressed gratitude for the ruling, emphasizing that the case was not only a personal matter but also a critical reflection of the politicization of the Department of Justice under Donald Trump. He called for a collective stand against the misuse of the DOJ for political vendettas, labeling Trump a “would-be tyrant.”
Judge Currie’s ruling also extended to the case against New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing Halligan’s invalid appointment as the basis for dismissal. Currie, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, was brought in from South Carolina due to a conflict of interest among local Virginia judges. The ruling highlights ongoing tensions within the Justice Department, particularly regarding the appointment of U.S. attorneys in states with Democratic leadership. Halligan’s appointment came shortly after Trump dismissed the previous interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, raising concerns about the legitimacy of her authority to pursue charges. This decision reflects a broader trend, as federal judges have previously disqualified similar appointees in other states, indicating a potential pattern of circumventing the Senate confirmation process for politically favorable candidates.
Comey’s legal battle is emblematic of the larger political struggle in America, where the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary are increasingly under scrutiny. The former FBI director’s remarks resonate with a growing concern among many Americans regarding the integrity of the legal system and the potential for its manipulation for partisan purposes. As the Trump administration signals intentions to continue pursuing Comey legally, the implications of this case extend beyond the individuals involved, raising crucial questions about the future of American democracy and the rule of law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY465EHW4XQ
Former FBI Director
James Comey
hailed the federal judge who dismissed the federal indictment against him on Monday, saying the case against him was based on “malevolence and incompetence.”
Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the false statements charges against Comey in a Monday ruling, finding that they were brought by an unqualified U.S. attorney. President
Donald Trump
‘s administration maintains that the attorney, Lindsay Halligan, was legally appointed and has indicated they plan to pursue further legal action.
“I’m grateful that the court ended the case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence, and a reflection of what the
Department of Justice
has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking,” Comey said, before thanking the lawyers who represented him in the case.
“This case mattered to me personally, obviously, but it matters most because a message has to be sent. That the president of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies. I don’t care what your politics are. You have to see that as fundamentally un-American and a threat to the rule of law that keeps all of us free,” he continued.
FEDERAL JUDGE CALLS COMEY INDICTMENT INTO QUESTION, ASKS IF HALLIGAN IS A ‘PUPPET’ FOR TRUMP
Comey went on to say that he expects the Trump administration to continue coming after him despite the legal setback. He called on Americans to “stand up” against the “fools who would frighten us,” suggesting Trump is a “would-be tyrant.”
Curries ruling also threw out the DOJ’s case against New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing the same reason.
“I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. [Lindsey] Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025,” Currie wrote.
JAMES COMEY SEEKS TO DISMISS HIS CRIMINAL CASE, CITING ‘VINDICTIVE’ PROSECUTION
Currie, a Clinton appointee based in
South Carolina
, was brought in from out of state to preside over proceedings about the question of Halligan’s authority because it presented a conflict for the Virginia judges. Comey’s and James’ challenges to Halligan’s appointment were consolidated because of their similarity.
Halligan acted alone in presenting charges to the grand juries shortly after Trump ousted the prior interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, and urged Attorney General
Pam Bondi
to replace him with Halligan, a former White House aide and insurance lawyer. Bondi complied, but Currie found the interim U.S. attorney term had already expired under Siebert and that the Virginia judges were now responsible for appointing a temporary U.S. attorney to serve until Trump could get one confirmed in the Senate.
Trump has been unable to persuade the Senate to confirm several U.S. attorneys in blue states, leading the president and Bondi to sidestep the upper chamber at times to install Trump’s preferred appointees, such as Halligan. Currie’s decision comes after federal judges also disqualified appointees in California, New Jersey and Nevada.
Fox News’ Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.
