What was supposed to be a dramatic legal takedown of former FBI Director James Comey is quickly unraveling — thanks to both procedural missteps and President Donald Trump’s own public outbursts. Experts across the political spectrum are raising serious questions about the legitimacy of the prosecution and warning that Trump’s relentless talk may be sinking the case before it even reaches a courtroom.
Even Ed Whelan, a far-right legal commentator known for defending Republican nominees, isn’t buying the way Trump’s team appointed the prosecutor leading the Comey case. Writing for the National Review, Whelan called the appointment of Lindsey Halligan — Trump’s pick for U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia — “not valid.”
The issue is technical but crucial. According to Whelan, federal law sets clear limits on how long the Attorney General can appoint an interim U.S. Attorney. The initial 120-day term granted to Erik Siebert, who was fired after refusing to bring charges against Comey, had already expired. After that, the law says the district court, not the Attorney General or the president, must appoint someone to fill the vacancy.
“Section 546 is best read to mean that the Attorney General cannot make a second interim appointment under section 546 after the first interim appointment has expired,” Whelan explained. “Instead, the authority to make an interim appointment then lies with the district court.”
The appointment of Halligan — who has little to no prosecutorial experience — appears to have sidestepped this legal requirement. Whelan even referenced a 1986 Office of Legal Counsel opinion written by then-deputy assistant attorney general Samuel Alito (now a Supreme Court justice) that supports this interpretation. That means Halligan’s position could be illegal, undermining the entire indictment against Comey.
Trump ‘Won’t Shut Up’
If the procedural mess wasn’t enough, Trump’s own words are providing Comey’s defense with powerful ammunition. By openly vowing revenge on his political enemies and publicly pressuring the Justice Department to go after Comey, Trump risks turning this prosecution into a textbook example of vindictive and selective prosecution.
“It’s a better case for Comey, because the president won’t shut up, and that’s admissible,” said retired federal Judge John Jones. “So he’s got a fighting chance, I think, on vindictive prosecution.”
Trump has also named other political figures — like New York Attorney General Letitia James, Sen. Adam Schiff, and John Bolton — as targets for prosecution. Legal experts say these public threats only bolster claims that the cases are politically motivated.
“It’s clearly vindictive,” said former federal Judge Shira Scheindlin. “It’s clearly his enemies list. He’s made it so obvious that he’s targeting them, regardless of the evidence, that I do think a judge would be far more receptive to probably both concepts, selective prosecution and vindictive.”
Red Flags: Firing U.S. Attorney Who Wouldn’t Play Along
Adding to the concerns, Trump fired Erik Siebert, the interim U.S. Attorney who refused to bring charges against Comey, and replaced him with Halligan — a loyalist with no significant prosecutorial background.
“They’re picking their guy and then trying to find something they can charge him with, versus investigating these facts on the law and deciding whether charges are appropriate,” said former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason. “The whole flip-flop thing and picking a new U.S. attorney who will do what the former U.S. attorney won’t, I mean, that sets off all kinds of red flags.”
Between the questionable appointment of the lead prosecutor and Trump’s unfiltered public attacks, the Comey indictment looks less like a serious legal effort and more like a political sideshow.
Experts warn this combination could spell disaster for the prosecution. “You see the animus,” Judge Jones said. “What else do you need? It’s a great test case to kind of examine the contours of a true vindictive prosecution claim — you know, ‘I got indicted because the president United States doesn’t like me and wanted me to be indicted.’”
