"It looks like at least one of what I’ve called ghost investigations has become flesh — at least momentarily," Wittes wrote. "The Justice Department has, for a few months now, been announcing investigations of a variety of things it has no realistic power to prosecute. My posture towards these investigations has been consistent: Wake me when the investigations actually start interviewing witnesses, putting people in front of grand juries, executing search warrants, or bringing charges."
Siebert's office actually did subpoena Columbia law professor Daniel Richman as part of an investigation into whether Comey lied about authorizing him to leak information to reporters, but the U.S. attorney ultimately decided no charges were warranted and he was quickly removed.
"Note just how little time it took Siebert to decline the case and be willing to lose his job over doing so," Wittes wrote. "It was only early July when Fox News first reported the existence of the ghost investigations of Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan. So it apparently took the Eastern District of Virginia barely two months to review all the records of the whole intelligence community assessment saga, to interview the relevant witnesses, and to determine that there was no case to bring."
Trump posted a directive over the weekend to Attorney General Pam Bondi demanding swift prosecutions against Comey, James and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and he tapped one of his former attorneys, White House aide Lindsey Halligan, to replace Siebert.
"If the Congress of the United States were not the self-enfeebling body that it is, I might take the time to note that this is a gross civil liberties abuse and certainly constitutes an impeachable offense," Wittes wrote. "But life is short, and I have no intention of using any more of my limited breaths on this Earth pleading for congressional attention to duty or oath."
"Instead, let’s turn to the question of why President Trump is in such a rush," he added. "Why exactly can we not delay any longer? Why exactly must justice be served 'now'?"
Wittes had previously examined what crimes prosecutors might be investigating against Comey and determined he could be under investigation for possibly lying in congressional testimony as late as September 2020, and he said that date – nine days from now, on Sept. 30 – might explain the rush.
"September 2020, huh? That’s five years ago this month," he wrote. "To be precise, Comey’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee took place on September 30, 2020. In other words, nine days from today, any ability to charge Comey for any alleged false statement he may have made at that hearing will lapse. Once October arrives, any possibility of prosecuting Comey disappears, barring resort to truly exotic theories under conspiracy law."
"Trump’s sense of urgency, in other words, is about the fact that time is tick tick ticking away rather quickly," he added.
The president needs to install a pliant prosecutor by the end of this month to take a case against Comey to a grand jury and find a way to get around whatever obstacle Siebert encountered in trying to build a case, but Wittes said that doesn't mean an indictment is a done deal.
"Events around the country have shown, grand juries will not, in fact, bring just any case a prosecutor asks them to," Wittes wrote. "A lot of ham sandwiches turn out to be walking the streets with impunity."
"A truly frivolous case brought against a high profile former official, just days after the leadership of the same office was removed for refusing to bring the very same case?" Wittes added. "A case rushed to indictment just days after a declination, quite obviously to slip under the statute of limitations wire? I think Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, somewhere in their corrupted little hearts, still know what a terrible idea this is."
