The dismissal motions filed by former FBI Director James Comey’s legal team aimed at getting the Department of Justice’s case against him tossed are “immaculate,” according to a former U.S. attorney.
On her “Civil Discourse” column on Substack, ex-federal prosecutor Joyce Vance noted she had reviewed the filings brought by former insurance lawyer turned-interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, and agreed with critics that it is “a vindictive and selective prosecution” which “violates the First Amendment, Due Process Clause, and equal protection principles.”
More to the point, she argues, was how well the case was defined by Comey’s legal team, making it easier for Judge Michael Nachmanoff to put an end to the prosecution that the lawyers contend was based on President Donald Trump’s “personal spite,” and little else
According to Vance, “Both motions are strong and it would be unsurprising, after briefing and oral argument, to see one or both of them granted and the prosecution dismissed, adding, ”There’s a subtle factor at work here too.”
“These motions aren’t just substantively meritorious, they are exceptionally well researched, organized, and written,” she elaborated.
“Sometimes, judges find themselves in the position of having to sift through the arguments one or the other of the parties to a lawsuit has made in order to do justice. In other words, judges, at least to some extent, try to do the right thing and reach the right conclusions in a case, not penalizing the client if the lawyer’s argument is poorly organized and the judge has to piece it together to determine who has the right of it.”
According to the former federal prosecutor, the case for a Comey dismissal could not be clearer.
“The analysis in the defense motions is immaculate,” she offered. “And while that might not seem like a matter worth noting, it speaks volumes about the quality of the legal representation Comey has. It also inspires confidence. The Judge will understand which lawyer can be relied upon when the parties are in his courtroom. These motions make the right arguments and cover all the points necessary to support them.”
“They are winners,” she claimed.
