James Comey Pleads Not Guilty in Federal Case

October 8, 2025 - ALEXANDRIA, VA - Former FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty Wednesday morning to two federal charges stemming from his 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The arraignment, held in the Eastern District of Virginia, marks a dramatic escalation in a case widely viewed as politically motivated, with President Donald Trump publicly calling for Comey's prosecution.

Comey's attorney, veteran federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, entered the plea and requested a jury trial. The judge set a tentative trial date for January 5, 2026. The charges-making false statements to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding-center on Comey's denial that he authorized any FBI personnel to leak information to the press during investigations into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In a video posted to social media following the indictment, Comey stated, "My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I'm innocent. So, let's have a trial and keep the faith." He added, "My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way."

Charges and Context

The indictment was filed just days after President Trump publicly pressured Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue charges against Comey and other political opponents. Trump's post on TruthSocial read, "They're all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done... JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!" The charges against Comey were brought by Lindsey Halligan, a former personal attorney to Trump who was recently appointed as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Legal experts have raised concerns about the integrity of the case, noting that Halligan was the sole signatory on the indictment-a rare move in federal prosecutions. Two prosecutors from North Carolina were later added to the case after veteran prosecutors in Virginia reportedly declined to participate.

The allegations hinge on Comey's 2020 Senate testimony, where he reaffirmed earlier statements denying that he had authorized Columbia University professor Daniel Richman, an FBI advisor, to leak information to the media. Richman has since told investigators that Comey explicitly instructed him not to speak to reporters on multiple occasions, casting doubt on the prosecution's central claim.

A memo from federal prosecutors in Virginia, obtained by ABC News, described Richman's testimony as "problematic" and warned of "likely insurmountable problems" for the government's case. Despite these concerns, Halligan proceeded with the indictment, prompting criticism from legal analysts and former federal judges.

Political Undercurrents

Comey's legal team is expected to file motions to dismiss the case before trial, arguing that the charges represent a "vindictive" and "selective" prosecution. Fitzgerald has indicated plans to challenge Halligan's role in the case and to scrutinize the grand jury process, which reportedly rejected one of three proposed charges.

The case has reignited debate over the politicization of the Justice Department, with critics warning that the prosecution sets a dangerous precedent. A group of former federal judges issued a statement last week calling the case a "grave danger" to civil liberties, accusing the Trump administration of weaponizing federal law enforcement to target political adversaries.

Comey, a registered Republican appointed by President Barack Obama, became a central figure in the Trump-era political landscape. His decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation days before the 2016 election was praised by Trump at the time, but his later role in the Russia investigation led to his dismissal in 2017 and years of public criticism from the president.

Legal and Institutional Implications

If convicted, Comey could face up to five years in prison. However, legal experts suggest the case may never reach that point. The defense is likely to argue that the charges lack sufficient evidence and that the prosecution was driven by political motives rather than legal merit.

The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for the Justice Department, congressional oversight, and the boundaries of executive influence over federal prosecutions. It also raises questions about the role of career prosecutors and the independence of U.S. attorneys in politically sensitive cases.

As the trial date approaches, observers across the legal and political spectrum will be watching closely. For many, the case represents more than a legal dispute-it's a test of institutional resilience in an era of deep political division.