Behind the Comey Indictment: What the Law Says and What We Don’t Know

1. 85

   Sharlee01posted 12 hours ago

   James Comey Indictment: Legal Perspectives
   
   On September 25, 2025, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury on two felony charges of making false statements and obstruction related to his 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The indictment alleges that Comey denied authorizing anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source for the media, despite evidence suggesting otherwise. If convicted, Comey faces up to five years in prison
   
   Legal Analysis: Strengths and Weaknesses
   
   Strengths of the Prosecution:
   
   Grand Jury Indictment: The indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicating that there was sufficient evidence to charge Comey with the alleged offenses. Interestingly, the grand jury reportedly convened on September 24 and returned the charges the very next day. While unusual, this one-day session to see the evidence could suggest that prosecutors had prepared a strong case, and that there may be additional evidence not publicly disclosed.
   
   Specific Allegations: The charges are specific, citing Comey's statements under oath during his 2020 testimony, which the prosecution contends were false and obstructed the congressional investigation.
   
   Weaknesses and Challenges:
   
   Lack of Direct Evidence in Public: The indictment does not provide direct evidence that Comey authorized the leaks, relying instead on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of others.
   
   Potential for Legal Defenses: Comey’s legal team may argue that his statements were truthful, that he did not have the authority to authorize leaks, or that the charges are politically motivated.
   
   Previous Investigations: An earlier investigation by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General found that Comey violated FBI policies by retaining and sharing memos but did not find evidence of criminal conduct.
   
   Possibility of Undisclosed Evidence -- The Comey Case: Grand Jury Action and Potential Evidence We Haven’t Seen
   
   While the public indictment lacks certain details, it is very possible the prosecution possesses additional evidence that has not been disclosed. This could include classified documents, witness testimony, or other materials that strengthen the case against Comey. The rapid ONE-DAY grand jury session to review and return charges is seen as unusual, but one might surmise that the evidence presented was compelling enough for the grand jury to act quickly.
   
   The legal case against James Comey presents both strengths and weaknesses. While the grand jury’s swift decision to indict suggests some level of evidence, the lack of direct public proof and the potential for robust legal defenses may complicate the prosecution’s efforts. The possibility of undisclosed evidence could tip the scales, but until such information is made public, the ultimate outcome remains uncertain.
   
   Response from Comey: In a video posted to social media, Comey declared his innocence and vowed to fight the charges, stating, "I'm not afraid". His arraignment is scheduled for October 9, 2025.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Willowarborposted 7 hours agoin reply to this

      "While the grand jury’s swift decision to indict suggests some level of evidence,..."
      
      Why would that be the conclusion? A point that you left out is only 14 of 23 jurors thought there was enough to indict  (on two of the three counts) after hearing a one-sided presentation.   Not promising for unanimous verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt after vigorous defense at trial....
      
      Looks like it's off to a hilariously great start
      
      
      The case won’t likely even make it to a jury. The judge will grant a motion to acquit for lack of evidence.
      This was just a distraction from the Epstein files
      
      Whoever eventually goes in front of a judge with this BS is going to be completely excoriated and probably deserves sanctions.

      replyreport