James Comey BLINDSIDES Trump With 3 SHOCKING MOVES IN COURT?!!!

Several former prosecutors and legal experts are reacting to the indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, even calling it exceptionally weak, telling Politico, quote, fundamental problems with the case itself, as well as the unusual events that preceded the indictment will make it difficult to bring Comey to trial, let alone secure a conviction. Joining us to break this all down, former United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, Shira Shindlin.

Also with us is James Sample, Hofstra University Professor of Law and a former attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice Democracy Program. So Judge, let's start with you. We wanna hear what you make of these charges

and how close to the line to the statute of limitations for it even running out to bring these charges against James Comey.

There was a race to get it done, and the president knew that when he said, we have no time to lose. We have to get this done. We've got to do it now. We've delayed too long. I mean, this this president urged this on. He directed his attorney general to get this

indictment now, whatever it takes.

Could that be used against him or can that be used by James Comey in his defense that this case was brought on?

Yeah, yeah, both of you. I mean, well, yeah, of course, of course it can. There's going to be motions, vindictive prosecution, selective prosecution, and they're going to use the president's own words. I'm sure you've played these words or know these words. But even on Friday morning, he said, whether you like the corrupt James Comey or not, I can't imagine too many people liking him. He lied. It's not a complex lie. It's a very simple but important one. There's no way he can explain his way out of it. That's what he said after the indictment. Before the indictment, he called him a slimeball, corrupt, the worst liar ever, and a whole bunch of other words. This is going to be a defense argument.

Well, and more than just those name calling incidents. He called for his attorney general to direct this prosecution. He fired the outgoing U.S. attorney or the U.S. attorney resigned. Who knows? It depends on who you listen to. And then he installed somebody with no experience specifically so as to get this done. Vindictive prosecution motions fail almost always.

Almost always. As the judge knows better than anyone. But you never have a smoking gun for a vindictive prosecution case like you've got here.

Yeah, that's what I wanted to ask. So James Comey has said, OK, I'll go to trial. I'll fight this. I'm innocent. What would you ask for if you were advising him?

What should what should be the first thing he should seek in discovery? James Comey. I think the first thing that's going to happen are these motions we're talking about of the president directing his attorney general to get this done. He said, we can't delay any longer. It's killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice and indicted me five times.

I missed the fifth. Indicted me five times over nothing. Justice must be served. He's given a gift to the defense, and that may end the case, but it would be very rare for a judge to dismiss this case.

It's so high.

Let me play for you what this actually stems from. This was from James Comey's testimony delivered to a Senate Judiciary Committee back in 2020. I want to get your thoughts on the other side of it.

Watch. Chairman Grassley asked you point-blank quote, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation? You responded under oath quote, never. Now as you know Mr. McCabe who works for you has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and

that you directly authorized it. Who's telling the truth?

I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.

So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak. And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth, is that correct?

Again, I'm not gonna characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today.

Is that at the end of the day, it is very possible, I think likely, that President Trump doesn't care if you get hauled in and convicted, that James Comey gets convicted of something. It is about the fear that is being instilled. It's about the chaos that it causes. It's about the wink and nod to the followers to go after the family members and the person

themselves. And there's no reason to believe it's going to stop, right? We actually should believe that we're at the beginning of this, and that we live in a country where the president of the United States is going to use the full power and weight of the federal government to go against people he has perceived have wronged him over the last decade. And that is just a new reality.

How are we supposed to—that is in direct conflict with us as a democracy.

All right. So, in their charges, the government is basically arguing that Comey did know about those anonymous leaks. Comey maintains his innocence. Will prosecutors have a hard time proving this? It seems the indictment is so sparse. Is that normal?

No, this is not what we call a speaking indictment. It is the thinnest indictment I've ever seen. But this is not what McCabe said. A 2018 Justice Department inspector general report quoted McCabe as saying he didn't recall discussing with Comey the disclosure in advance of authorizing it, but when he told him about it afterward, he said he didn't particularly react negatively. So even McCabe's testimony was that he didn't tell him in advance, so he didn't author react negatively. So even McCabe's testimony was that he didn't tell him

in advance, so he didn't authorize it. So I don't know what they're talking about.

McCabe is not suggesting that Ted Cruz is mischaracterizing.

I'm curious what you think of like Hale Halligan personally signing the indictment. Can you explain what the significance of that is? I think I can. Very abnormal. It is very abnormal. I think nobody else wanted to sign. We've seen that once before. Emil Bove of Third Circuit fame.

Right.

Now a judge.

He signed. He signed the withdrawal of the indictment of Adams because nobody else in the Southern District would sign and nobody in DOJ would sign. So that's what I think happened.

She had to do the signing. And there was two different indictments, I believe, or no? There was two different — I thought there was two different things that she had signed, or there was some confusion as to

which one was the —

That I don't know.

All right.

But what — can you just speak to sort of, like, how what we're seeing here is just — what does What does it mean to have so many of these odd kind of things where they have to sort of put in their people to make them happen?

Nothing about it is normal. I think of it as Halligan's Island, right? I mean, she's out there truly on her own. And if you think about it, it really is the inverse of the Eric Adams scenario, right? And what if you take those two scenarios and you put them together, you really have Les Tosses Moins. together. You really have l'Etat-Samoa. You really have I am the state. Right? He shuts

down the Eric Adams investigation through his intermediaries, who also happen to have just recently been his personal attorneys. Right? He shuts that down when the prosecutors and the line prosecutors, including the U.S. attorney for the Southern District, Danielle Sassoon at the time, believed there was merit. So we're shutting down meritorious prosecutions in the eyes of the actual prosecutors. And now you are forcing a prosecution

where the line prosecutors have determined there is no merit. This is not rule of law. This is rule of man.

What can we do to protect against retaliatory prosecutions going forward? Because is our legal system just going to devolve into a tit-for-tat where each administration

tries to up the ante? What Trump is doing is not something that anyone who's not an autocrat would do. I think this is not a two-side situation.

I'm not two-siding anything. I'm asking a question about what should be the retaliatory consequence if—or, sorry, I got distracted on my question. If this is ruled, if he's acquitted and this is a retaliatory prosecution and it's ruled on that, should the American Bar Association, should there be any consequences? What should be the consequences for officials who are lawyers and are pursuing cases like

this?

Are they protected because of their government service? So I was a former federal prosecutor and and let me tell you, there are standards for seeking an indictment before a grand jury, and they're higher than you think. The grand jury has to find probable cause that the crime has been committed, and the previous U.S. attorney, who was either fired or resigned, said, I couldn't even find probable cause.

But there's a higher standard. There's an ethical standard from the Department of Justice manual, which she never heard of, I'm sure, which says you should not put a case in the grand jury unless you believe you can prove it to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean, that's a really high standard.

There's no way she could have known whether that is something she could say honestly that she believed.

The last time Donald Trump was president, we had a number of lawyers who went against their ethical codes. I don't know how things worked out for Rudy Giuliani, for John Eastman, for Sidney Powell, for Jenna Ellis, for Jeffrey Clark. I mean, if you think about that now, Lindsey Halligan may not frankly care if she's even aware of this, about this code.

She may have other career aspirations that really involve being loyal to Donald Trump. That could be the career path much more than being a successful U.S. attorney will be over the long haul.

What you're watching unfold here is not justice. It's political theater dressed up as law. Trump is pushing indictments like weapons, not because the cases are strong, but because he wants headlines, mugshots, and fear. Think about it, even seasoned prosecutors are calling the Comey indictment the weakest they've ever seen. That should alarm you. This isn't about accountability, it's about pure intimidation. When a president installs

loyalists with no experience, fires prosecutors who won't play along, and forces through flimsy charges, that is not a working democracy. That's autocracy creeping in through the courts. And you, the American people, are the target of that erosion. Ask yourself, if Trump can direct prosecutions against his enemies today, what's stopping him from coming after anyone else tomorrow? The rule of law is being gutted in real time, and if you shrug it off now, you'll wake up The rule of law is being gutted in real time, and if you shrug it off now, you'll wake up

in a country where justice serves power, not truth.