James Comey’s Indictment: A Timeline That Doesn’t Add Up
The recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey out of the Eastern District of Virginia has already been described by DOJ insiders as “one of the worst abuses in DOJ history.” To see why, you don’t have to squint. The problem isn’t buried in obscure legal doctrine. The problem is the timeline — and the political interference that warped the process from the beginning.
When you line up what Comey said, when he said it, what Andrew McCabe testified to, when the Wall Street Journal article was published, and when Donald Trump forced out career prosecutors to shoehorn in his personal lawyer, the indictment unravels. It becomes less about law and more about raw power being used to settle scores.
The Statute of Limitations and Trump’s Deadline
The legal hook for the indictment was about to expire.
- September 29–30, 2020 — James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee via Zoom during COVID restrictions. He repeated testimony he had given back in May 2017: that he had never authorized anyone at the FBI to leak to the press.
- September 30, 2025 — A five-year statute of limitations applied to a charge of making false statements. That deadline was just days away.
Trump and his allies knew this. That is why the indictment was rushed through in late September 2025. The case was not born of evidence; it was born of a calendar.
The McCabe Conversation
The supposed contradiction hinges on a single conversation.
- October 30, 2016 — The Wall Street Journal ran an article based on FBI leaks.
- October 31, 2016 — According to Andrew McCabe’s own testimony to the DOJ Inspector General in November 2017, he told Comey after the fact that he, McCabe, had authorized FBI officials to speak to the Journal. Comey did not react negatively, but neither did he give advance authorization.
That difference is not semantic. Authorization requires advance approval. Awareness after publication is not the same thing. Which means that Comey’s sworn testimony in 2017, and again in 2020, was accurate.
The Indictment
Fast forward to September 2025.
- Trump pushed out Eric Seabert, the Republican U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, because Seabert concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Comey.
- Trump replaced him with Lindsay Halligan, his personal attorney who had never tried a case in her life. Days into her appointment, Halligan appeared in the grand jury room to press the case.
The result:
- The grand jury returned indictments on two counts (false statements and obstruction) but rejected a third.
- Both charges rest entirely on the claim that Comey authorized McCabe’s leak.
No new evidence. No witnesses contradicting McCabe’s Inspector General testimony. Just a rushed, hollow indictment delivered under the shadow of Trump’s demand.
Political Context: Retribution as Policy
Trump was not subtle about his intent. He publicly demanded prosecutions of James Comey, Rep. Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Comey went first only because of the looming statute deadline.
This was not the Department of Justice acting independently. It was the DOJ bent to the will of a president who openly announced whom he wanted indicted. Prosecutorial discretion was not exercised; it was bulldozed.
Why the Case Collapses
The government’s case collapses under its own dates:
- McCabe himself told investigators on November 29, 2017 that he only informed Comey of the leak after the Wall Street Journal article was published on October 30, 2016.
- That makes Comey’s testimony in May 2017 and again in September 2020 consistent with the record.
The indictment depends on pretending that “after the fact” equals “authorized in advance.” That logical contortion is not law. It’s weaponized fiction.
Abuse of Power in Plain Sight
This indictment is not merely weak. It is a textbook case of political abuse of prosecutorial power:
- Targeting enemies — Trump named Comey, Schiff, and Letitia James as his chosen targets for prosecution. Comey’s case just happened to be the one that could be squeezed under a statute of limitations deadline.
- Firing career prosecutors — Eric Seabert, a Republican prosecutor, resisted bringing the case because of insufficient evidence. Trump forced him out.
- Installing loyalists — Lindsay Halligan, Trump’s personal lawyer with zero prosecutorial experience, was placed in charge of the office days before the indictment and personally sat in the grand jury room.
- Public boasting — Trump issued statements celebrating the indictment, directly handing Comey’s defense the core of a vindictive prosecution argument.
What makes this abuse so corrosive is not just the harm to Comey himself. It’s the signal sent to every prosecutor and judge in America: follow the evidence and risk your career, or bend the law to serve the president’s personal vendettas.
The Larger Stakes
The Comey indictment is about more than one man. It’s about the rule of law versus the rule of Trump. If presidents can install personal lawyers to manufacture cases against critics, then no one in government, law enforcement, or even journalism is safe from retaliation.
The framers of the Constitution designed checks and balances to prevent exactly this kind of abuse. But checks and balances only function if the institutions involved refuse to become political weapons. When prosecutors act as political hitmen, the entire system is degraded.
Conclusion
The indictment of James Comey is not just flimsy — it’s rotten at the core. The dates don’t line up. The testimony doesn’t support the charges. The process itself was hijacked by a president seeking retribution.
This is what abuse of power looks like in the open: firing prosecutors who won’t play along, replacing them with loyalists, and rushing indictments to beat a deadline, all while boasting about it online.
If this case is not thrown out, the precedent it sets is dire. Political enemies will not just be discredited; they will be prosecuted on demand. The abuse of power won’t just stain the DOJ — it will stain the country.
