Former FBI Director James B. Comey filed motions on Monday seeking dismissal of federal criminal charges against him, arguing that the indictment represents a “vindictive prosecution” driven by President Donald Trump’s personal hostility and amounts to an “egregious abuse of power” by the federal government.

The filing, submitted to U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff in the Eastern District of Virginia, launches Comey’s formal defense against two felony charges stemming from his September 2020 congressional testimony.

Comey was indicted on September 25, 2025, just days after Trump publicly demanded that Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Justice Department move “now” to prosecute his longtime adversary. The two-count indictment charges Comey with making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding, both felonies carrying maximum penalties of five years in prison.​

The charges relate to testimony Comey provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 30, 2020, in which he denied authorizing FBI personnel to act as anonymous sources for media leaks during investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election and Hillary Clinton’s email practices. Prosecutors allege that Comey’s statements were false and that he knowingly obstructed the congressional inquiry.​

The indictment came after Trump replaced Erik Siebert, the Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who had expressed doubts about the strength of the case against Comey. Trump installed Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide and his personal defense attorney with no prosecutorial experience, who presented the case to a grand jury despite internal objections from career prosecutors.

In Monday’s filing, Comey’s legal team, led by Patrick Fitzgerald, a former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, presents a two-pronged attack on the indictment.​

The first motion argues that the prosecution violates constitutional protections against vindictive and selective prosecution. “Fundamental principles of due process and equal protection have long ensured that government officials cannot weaponize the judicial system to punish and incarcerate their perceived personal and political adversaries,” the defense argued. “But that is what has happened here”.​

Comey’s attorneys contend that Trump’s years-long public campaign against the former FBI director provides clear evidence of personal animus. The motion includes an appendix documenting Trump’s repeated public statements attacking Comey, calling him a “leaker,” “liar,” “dirty cop,” and “slimeball,” and explicitly demanding his prosecution.​​

“The evidence establishes that President Trump ordered the prosecution of Mr. Comey in retaliation for Mr. Comey’s criticisms and to punish Mr. Comey because of personal spite,” the defense stated. The filing notes that Trump posted on Truth Social shortly before the indictment: “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”.

Comey’s motion contains a comprehensive chronology of public statements by both Trump and Comey spanning from 2017 to 2025, demonstrating the sustained antagonism between the two men.

The second major argument challenges the legitimacy of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as acting U.S. Attorney. Comey’s lawyers argue that her installation violated “congressionally established and constitutionally mandated procedures for the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney”.​

“Since no properly appointed Executive Branch official sought and obtained the indictment, the indictment is therefore void,” the defense asserted.​

Halligan, who has no prosecutorial background and previously worked as an insurance attorney before joining Trump’s legal team, was installed just days before she presented the case to the grand jury on September 25. The defense argues that her appointment represents an improper attempt to bypass normal Justice Department procedures in order to secure charges against a Trump political opponent.

Court documents revealed that the grand jury refused to indict Comey on a third proposed charge of making false statements related to whether he had read a September 2016 report about the Clinton campaign.​

Judge Nachmanoff has set an aggressive schedule for resolving pretrial motions. Oral arguments on the vindictive prosecution claim and the challenge to Halligan’s appointment are scheduled for November 19, 2025. A second round of hearings, addressing claims of “outrageous government conduct” and grand jury abuse, is set for December 9.​

The trial itself is scheduled to begin on January 5, 2026, and is expected to last two to three days.

The case now moves forward on dual tracks: the legal battle over whether the indictment should be dismissed on constitutional grounds, and preparations for a potential trial in early 2026 if those motions fail.