Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted on two criminal counts: one for making false statements to Congress, and another for obstructing a congressional proceeding. The charges stem from his September 30, 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in which he denied authorizing an FBI employee to serve as an anonymous source to the media—allegedly contrary to a “Person 3” authorization referenced in the indictment. Comey has pleaded not guilty.

Comey’s legal team has moved aggressively to dismiss the case, arguing that the prosecution is a “vindictive” and politically motivated effort driven by former President Donald Trump.  They further assert that the U.S. Attorney who signed the indictment — Lindsey Halligan, a former Trump personal lawyer — was improperly appointed, which they claim renders the entire indictment invalid. The defense argues the government’s case lacks clarity on what exact statement was false and whether Comey knowingly lied.

The backdrop to the case includes longstanding animus between Comey and Trump, with critics questioning whether the justice process is being used to target political opponents. Some senior DOJ career prosecutors reportedly concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to bring charges, only for the decision to change after Halligan’s appointment. Expert commentary also highlights the unusually vague indictment and strong defense arguments about constitutional protections and prosecutorial discretion.

As the case moves forward, it’s become a flashpoint in the broader debate over politics and the justice system. A trial is scheduled for January 5, 2026. Supporters of Comey view the prosecution as a threat to the independence of the justice system; opponents see it as accountability for a powerful official. The outcome may carry implications for how political influence and prosecutorial decisions intersect in the U.S. legal system.