COMEY

 

Comey seeks to have indictment tossed, arguing senator's questions were "confusing," "ambiguous"

By 

Melissa Quinn

Updated on: October 30, 2025 / 4:50 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — Former FBI Director James Comey is urging a federal court to dismiss the two federal charges brought against him over allegedly false testimony he gave to Congress in September 2020. He's arguing that the questions he answered, which were asked by GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, were "confusing" and "fundamentally ambiguous."

In a new filing with the court in Alexandria, Virginia, Comey's lawyers argued that his testimony in response to Cruz's questions was "literally true" and cannot support a conviction. The former FBI director's legal team suggested that the government is attempting to try Comey on "cherry-picked statements" given during a four-hour long Senate hearing without specifying which parts of his testimony it believes were false or misleading.

They argued that while the government has the authority to prosecute witnesses who mislead federal investigators by giving false answers to clear questions, "it does not authorize the government to create confusion by posing an imprecise question and then seek to exploit that confusion by placing an after-the-fact nefarious interpretation on the ensuing benign answer."

Comey's lawyers also asserted that "basic due process principles in criminal law require that the questioner frame his questions with clarity so that a witness does not have to guess."

A federal grand jury in Alexandria indicted Comey late last month on charges he lied to Congress and obstructed a congressional investigation. The alleged offenses stem from testimony Comey gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2020. He has pleaded not guilty to both counts.

The video player is currently playing an ad.

Comey has already filed one tranche of motions with the court that argue the indictment should be tossed out on the grounds that it is based on a vindictive and selective prosecution. He is also challenging the validity of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan's appointment to that role. 

Comey's lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, said in one of those filings that he would seek to dismiss at least the first count of the indictment — the allegation that Comey lied to Congress — because of Cruz's questioning.

In addition to his latest bid to have the charges dismissed, Comey's lawyers are asking for more details about the conduct underlying the two counts. They are claiming the indictment is "sparse" and has a "total absence of factual allegations."

The indictment against Comey references an exchange the former FBI director had with an unnamed senator, believed to be Cruz, during the Judiciary Committee hearing more than five years ago. During the questioning, Cruz asked Comey about testimony he gave in May 2017, in which the former FBI chief was questioned about whether he had ever been an anonymous source or authorized anyone to be an anonymous source about matters relating to investigations into President Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016.

Cruz then referenced comments from Andrew McCabe, who was Comey's deputy at the FBI, and claimed McCabe publicly said that Comey authorized him to leak information to the press.

"Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true; one or the other is false. Who's telling the truth?" Cruz asked Comey.

Comey said in response, "I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by what, the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017."

Cruz reiterated that Comey was testifying that he "never authorized to leak. And Mr. McCabe when if he says contrary is not telling the truth, is that correct?"

"Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today," Comey replied.

But prosecutors have claimed that Comey's testimony was false because he authorized Daniel Richman, a longtime friend of his, to serve as an anonymous source in news reports about the FBI investigation involving Clinton.

The government confirmed to Comey's lawyers that an unidentified individual referred to as "Person 3" in the indictment is Richman. A Columbia University law professor, Richman is a former federal prosecutor who also served as a "special government employee" at the FBI when Comey was director.

Richman has not been charged with any wrongdoing. His name also did not come up in the exchange that appears to have led to the charges against Comey.

In their bid to have the indictment dismissed, Comey's lawyers said that any false-statements charge that rests on an interpretation of a "fundamentally ambiguous question" must be dismissed.

"Fundamental to any false statement charge are both clear questions and false answers," they wrote. "Neither exists here."

Comey's lawyers argued that a "reasonable person" would've interpreted Cruz to be asking only about whether the former FBI chief had authorized McCabe to be an anonymous source, rather than broadly inquiring about Comey's interactions with anyone at the FBI.

"The indictment contains no allegations that Mr. Comey's answers were false: it never alleges that Mr. Comey made a false statement regarding Mr. McCabe," they wrote. "On the contrary, the indictment omits Senator Cruz's statements about Mr. McCabe, obscuring the context necessary to understand both the questions themselves and Mr. Comey's responses."

Comey's legal team reiterated that he maintains that his 2017 testimony was truthful, but was also argued that his "statement that he stood by his prior testimony was truthful regardless of whether that prior testimony was itself truthful."

A Little Judicial Schadenfreude ALLISON GILL

 A Little Judicial Schadenfreude

One of my favorite things in court filings are little turns of the knife - especially when it has to do with Caesar himself. Allow me to explain.

Allison Gill Nov 1

If you know me at all, you know I take pleasure in obscure, justicey things. Whether it’s a bench slap from a judge against Trump in his role as either a defendant, a plaintiff, or as president - little things like bringing up his own arguments against him tend to bring me immense joy. After all, in these dark time, we have to microdose happiness.

There are many examples of this. Last week, we saw Jim Comey argue that he’s been selectively prosecuted as evidenced by the fact that others in similar circumstances had not been indicted. One example they used was Jeff Sessions and his famous plea to Congress that while he had “been a surrogate for the Trump campaign at a time or two,” he did not have “communications with the Russians.” I imagine that any mention of Russia causes Trump’s cankles to swell another inch like an inverse version of the Grinch’s heart growing three sizes.

Or when Comey used the example of Steve Mnuchin - who lied under oath about having used an autopen when he worked at a bank. Given Trump’s parochial jabs at Biden’s use of the autopen, that makes me a little bit giddy. Comey also listed Scott Pruitt’s lie to congress about his use of a personal email account. Given Trump’s relentless bashing of Hillary and his indictment of John Bolton for doing the exact same thing, those kinds of little nudges are fun to read.

Representative LaMonica McIver mentioned the fact that Trump pardoned January 6th rioters who beat cops in her motion to dismiss charges against her alleging she assaulted federal agents (which she did not.) I imagine Kat Abughazelah will make the same argument over charges that she somehow impeded officers. Or Milwaukee Judge Dugan citing Trump’s immunity case to illustrate that she, too, enjoys immunity (a motion she lost, but an issue that could come up later at trial beginning December 15th.)

Today’s little bit of legal schadenfreude comes from a new motion to dismiss the charges against Jim Comey, arguing that he can’t be charged for statements that are literally true. That precedent comes from a case called Bronston v United States.

Before we get into who Bronston was and what his case entailed, I want to mention the obsession that MAGA and the Broligarchy have with The Roman Empire. You’ll understand why in a minute.

Steve Bannon - for example - has the bust of Julius Caesar on his desk when he records his podcast. MAGA essayist and Trump supporter Michael Anton wrote an essay decrying diversity using the pen name Publius Decius Mus - after the ancient Roman Consul - defending Trump’s use of “America First.”

Elon Musk depicts himself as an AI generated gladiator, and posted on twitter “anyone feeling late stage empire vibes?” JD Vance says the US is in a late republican period like Rome was when it transitioned to an empire. Curtis Yarvin compares the US to the Roman Empire all the time.

They all contend that Rome fell because of immigrants, diversity, and wokeness - a failure to keep their blood pure, and a loss of masculinity and the warrior ethos. All of which necessitates the rise of a Caesar, or an authoritarian one-man rule.

That brings us back to Jim Comey, and his Bronston literal truth motion. Samuel Bronston was a movie producer in the 1950s and 1960s who filed for bankruptcy. In bankruptcy court, he was being asked about Swiss bank accounts to determine whether he was hiding money. Bronston did have a personal Swiss bank account for five years, but had closed it, and his movie production company had a Swiss account for about six months that had also been closed.

Bronston was asked “Do you have a Swiss bank account,” to which he replied “No.” That was true because at the time of the question, his Swiss account had been closed. He was then asked if he ever had a Swiss bank account, to which he replied “The company had one for about six months.” Also, literally true. The prosecutors never followed up to ask if Bronston ever had a personal Swiss bank account, but he was charged with and convicted of perjury nonetheless. The appeals court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court overturned it.

Justice Berger famously wrote in that opinion: “Precise questioning is imperative as a predicate for the offense of perjury,” ruling that the burden is on the questioner to be specific.

In Comey’s case, Comey testified in 2020 that he stood by his 2017 testimony, and even if his 2017 testimony was bullshit, him saying he stands by it is literally true. Therefore, his lawyers argue that because Ted Cruz’ questions were ambiguous, and because Comey literally stands by his 2017 testimony, he can’t be charged with making a false statement. (Perjury and false statements fall under two different statutes, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Bronston literal truth defense includes false statement charges under Title 18 USC §1001.)

The part of all this that gave me a good laugh?

The movie that flopped and caused Bronston to file for bankruptcy was The Fall of the Roman Empire.

So here we are, with Trump ordering the prosecution of his political enemies - a very authoritarian thing to do - on the precipice of those charges possibly being brought down by a case about a guy who went bankrupt over a film about the fall of the Roman empire. It’s kind of poetic.

Sic semper tyrannis, motherfucker.

LAW DORK

 

Trump admin ordered to distribute SNAP benefits, using contingency fund A pair of rulings both found the effort to suspend SNAP payments is likely illegal, with one judge issuing a TRO on Friday. Also: Appeals court rejects court's Bovino check-in order. Chris Geidner Oct 31     A federal judge Friday ordered the Trump administration to pay SNAP benefits for November out of a congressionally approved contingency fund, blocking the administration’s efforts to suspending the key food payments that are essential to more than 40 million people across the country. Two federal judges ruled on Friday that the Trump administration’s effort to suspend the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments due to the ongoing government shutdown is likely illegal, with the second judge issuing a temporary restraining order from the bench blocking the effort. Under the order, the Trump administration must use the $6 billion contingency fund to continue SNAP payments in November. Under U.S. District Judge Jack McConnell’s TRO in a federal case brought in Rhode Island, per the minute entry entered following the hearing, “the Court order[ed] the USDA to distribute contingency funds; report to the Court by 12:00 PM on Monday, November 3, 2025, regarding the status of the distribution; and to honor the existing waivers.” The order from McConnell, an Obama appointee, followed a Friday hearing in the case, which was filed on Thursday by a coalition of nonprofit organizations, cities, and other groups and included a TRO request and accompanying brief. Although no opinion has been issued, the docket in the case reflects the hearing and order: The lawsuit, and TRO, address both the SNAP payments — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — and the less-covered early termination by the administration of waivers for able-bodied adults without dependents (referred to in the litigation as ABAWDs). In the TRO request, and because the case was brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, the plaintiffs asked for the administration’s directives suspending payments to blocked under the APA. That is the mention of 5 U.S.C. 705, and it permits a judge to “postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review.“ In this case, that means stopping the suspension of payments from going into effect. (Importantly, June’s Supreme Court ruling on “universal injunctions” specifically did not directly address such actions under the APA, leaving nationwide orders a possibility under the APA, at least for now.) At the same time, however, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, issued an opinion in a multistate challenge brought on October 28 in Massachusetts, which also included a TRO request and supporting brief. Talwani’s opinion provided a more in-depth explanation as to why she concluded the Trump administration’s effort is likely illegal. Describing the contingency fund, Talwani, also an Obama appointee, noted “the mandatory nature of SNAP benefits” under law: Talwani then rejected DOJ’s argument that “suspension” is permitted by noting that it is only permitted “when there are no funds“ — not when the contingency funds remain available: Unlike McConnell, however, Talwani gave the Trump administration until Monday to reverse course — keeping the TRO request under advisement while allowing the Trump administration to decided whether it would authorize November payments in light of the court’s opinion. Ultimately, however, Talwani’s timeline is — for now — superseded by McConnell’s timeline in Rhode Island, where distribution of benefits was ordered and where DOJ must report back by noon Monday on the “status of the distribution” of those benefits. Seventh Circuit rejects Bovino report-in order On Friday afternoon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a district court’s order from earlier in the week that U.S. Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino report in daily at the federal courthouse in Chicago because the appeals court concluded the lower court’s order “infringes on the separation of powers. The district court’s order that Bovino report in about “the use of force activities for each day“ had been issued in an ongoing lawsuit about such use of force and other treatment of protesters and journalists in connection with protests at the Broadview ICE facility outside Chicago. Importantly, the rest of the TRO in the case — including this week’s modifications, aside from the Bovino check-in requirement — remains in effect. The Seventh Circuit’s order was simply issued “by the court,” with no information provided about what judges decided the matter or who authored the three-paragraph order granting the “extraordinary” relief of a writ of mandamus against a federal district court judge. U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis had issued the modified TRO requiring Bovino’s check-ins on October 28 in response to allegations raised by the plaintiffs in the case about whether the Trump administration — including Bovino personally — was violating the TRO issued by Ellis in the case. The next day, the Justice Department went to the Seventh Circuit seeking the writ of mandamus — an order to a court or other public official — and an administrative stay relieving Bovino of the report-in obligation while the appeals court considered the request. That administrative stay was granted, and the plaintiffs were ordered to file a response — which they did on October 30. In Friday’s order, the appeals court stated: While this litigation presents very challenging circumstances, the district court’s order has two principal failings. First, it puts the court in the position of an inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator of the parties’ adversarial presentations. Second, it sets the court up as a supervisor of Chief Bovino’s activities, intruding into personnel management decisions of the Executive Branch. These two problems are related and lead us to conclude that the order infringes on the separation of powers. Review by appeal at the end of the case would not solve the problems created in the interim, which justifies review by a prerogative writ. Although different courts have different procedures for when orders are issued “for the court” or “by the court,” as opposed to by a named panel, I don’t think it’s too much to think that a court should at least have to say who is voting to issue such an extreme remedy as granting a writ of mandamus against a lower-court colleague.

 

Josh Shapiro Just Beat Trump in Court — and Saved SNAP for Millions of Families

Democratic Wins Media Oct 31

In a victory for decency and democracy, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro just won a major lawsuit against Donald Trump’s administration, forcing it to release federal SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) funds that had been unlawfully frozen. The ruling is more than a legal win — it’s a moral victory for millions of struggling Americans whom Trump tried to use as pawns in his ongoing war against compassion.

This case wasn’t just about paperwork or procedure. It was about whether the federal government could deliberately starve people — literally — to score political points. Trump’s team had halted SNAP disbursements to states under the guise of “budget review,” even as grocery prices soared and families across the nation faced impossible choices between rent, medication, and food. Shapiro’s lawsuit called it what it was: a cruel and unconstitutional abuse of power.

When Shapiro filed the case, he made it clear that Pennsylvania — and every state dependent on federal food aid — would not sit quietly while the president weaponized hunger. He accused Trump’s Department of Agriculture of violating both statutory obligations and basic human decency. And this week, the courts agreed.

The decision compels the Trump administration to immediately release the withheld funds — billions that will now flow to families, children, seniors, and veterans who rely on SNAP to put food on the table. It’s a victory rooted in the fundamental American belief that no one should go hungry in the wealthiest nation on earth.

But it’s also a stark reminder of how far Trump’s administration has gone to punish ordinary Americans for political leverage. Trump and his advisers — the same ones who gutted school lunch programs and pushed work requirements during a pandemic — thought that by holding back SNAP funds, they could force Democratic governors to bend to their will. Shapiro refused.

He didn’t just fight for Pennsylvania; he fought for the nation. His legal team built a case that exposed the administration’s intent to weaponize the federal purse against states that refused to echo Trump’s talking points. The message from Shapiro’s courtroom win is clear: government exists to serve people, not to terrorize them with hunger.

It’s hard to overstate the human impact of this decision. For millions of families, SNAP isn’t a “handout” — it’s survival. It’s the safety net that keeps children nourished, seniors healthy, and working families stable. Every delayed payment meant empty pantries and skipped meals. Every bureaucratic hold-up was another act of cruelty from an administration that sees empathy as weakness.

Josh Shapiro has shown what leadership looks like — courage grounded in compassion, principle over partisanship. He saw Trump’s actions for what they were: an attempt to turn the suffering of hungry Americans into political theater. And he refused to let that stand.

In doing so, Shapiro reminded the country that fighting for the people isn’t about slogans — it’s about results. Millions of Americans will now eat tonight because one governor had the guts to take on a president who thought hunger could be used as a weapon.

Justice — and decency — won this round.

-The Democratic Wins Media team