The recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey on charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation has sent shockwaves through the American legal and political landscape.
But as the dust settles, a close examination of the case, especially through the lens of legal scholar Ryan Goodman’s incisive analysis, reveals a prosecution built on shaky ground, riddled with factual misrepresentations, legal ambiguities, and unmistakable signs of political motivation.
The Department of Justice’s case against Comey, far from being a triumph of accountability, stands exposed as a deeply flawed and arguably bogus effort to punish a prominent critic of President Trump.
The Charges: Thin Legal Ice
The indictment, filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, accuses Comey of making a false statement during congressional testimony and obstructing an investigation by giving allegedly misleading answers about whether he authorized an FBI official to serve as an anonymous source for news reports about an FBI investigation.
According to prosecutors, Comey’s testimony was knowingly false and constituted both a false statement and an act of obstruction.
But the legal standards for these charges are exacting. To convict on a false statement, the government must prove not only that Comey’s statement was factually incorrect, but that it was knowingly and willfully false and materially significant to the congressional inquiry.
For obstruction, prosecutors must show that Comey acted corruptly with the intent to impede the proceeding and that his conduct had a natural and probable effect of interfering with the investigation.
The evidence marshaled by the Department of Justice is, at best, ambiguous and, at worst, nonexistent.
Ryan Goodman’s Dissection: The Heart of the Matter
Ryan Goodman is the Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, founding co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, and former Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense.
He is a nationally recognized scholar in national security and public law, with work cited by the U.S. Supreme Court. That background helps explain why his close reading of the record carries real weight. [1]
1. Misrepresentation of Testimony
At the core of the DOJ’s case is the claim, originating in Senator Ted Cruz’s criminal referral, that Comey “directly authorized” a leak to the press. Goodman exposes this as a gross distortion.
The Inspector General’s report, which Cruz himself cites, does not support the assertion that Comey authorized the leak. Instead, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s statements were far more nuanced.
McCabe said he informed Comey of the leak after the fact, and that Comey did not object. Nowhere did McCabe claim that Comey gave prior authorization.
2. Consistency, Not Contradiction
Goodman further notes that Comey’s testimony has been consistent over time. In 2017, Senator Grassley asked Comey whether he had ever authorized someone at the FBI to be an anonymous source.
Comey denied it then, and he stood by that denial in his 2020 testimony. This consistency aligns with McCabe’s own account, undermining the notion that Comey lied under oath or attempted to mislead Congress.
3. Cruz’s Shifting Narrative
Goodman highlights a critical discrepancy between Cruz’s questioning at the hearing and his subsequent referral letter to the DOJ. During the hearing, Cruz asked whether Comey was “aware AND authorized” the leak.
But in his letter, Cruz frames Comey’s testimony as a denial of both awareness and authorization, a subtle but significant shift that misrepresents the actual exchange and inflates the basis for criminal liability.
4. The “Authorization” Shell Game
Perhaps most damning is Goodman’s critique of the ambiguous use of the word “authorize.” The DOJ’s theory hinges on conflating after the fact approval with prior authorization, a definitional sleight of hand that collapses under scrutiny.
Without a clear, consistent definition, the government cannot meet its burden to prove that Comey knowingly made a false statement.
The Political Backdrop: Retaliation Disguised as Justice
The context surrounding the indictment only deepens the suspicion that this case is not about enforcing the law but about settling political scores.
From the earliest days of the Trump presidency, the former president made it clear that he viewed Comey as a political enemy who needed to be punished.
The relentless attacks on the FBI, the efforts to discredit the Russia investigation, and the ongoing campaign to delegitimize those who held Trump accountable all point to a broader strategy: use the Justice Department to target critics and consolidate power.
The timing, the personnel, and the public statements by Trump and his allies all point to a prosecution driven by political motives rather than the impartial pursuit of justice.
If you want independent, fact based work like this to stay ad free and open to everyone, become a subscriber today.
Legal Standards: A High Bar the DOJ Cannot Clear
The legal hurdles facing the DOJ are formidable. For a false statement conviction, the government must prove that Comey’s statement was not only false but knowingly and willfully so, a standard that is difficult to meet given the ambiguities in the record and the lack of clear evidence of intent.
For obstruction, the Supreme Court has held that there must be a “natural and probable effect” of interfering with the proceeding, and a direct nexus between the act and the investigation.
The DOJ’s case, built on ambiguous testimony and shifting definitions, falls far short of these requirements.
Additional vulnerabilities in the indictment
Congress’s rules gate under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(c). Section 1001 reaches statements to Congress only when the proceeding is an investigation or hearing conducted consistent with applicable congressional rules. The indictment treats that threshold as automatic. It is not. If the government cannot show the hearing satisfied that statutory condition, the false-statement count falters at the starting line. [2]
Ambiguity and literal truth. A fundamentally ambiguous question cannot support a false-statement conviction. Separately, a literally true answer is not a crime, even if it is incomplete or unhelpful. The case turns on whether authorize means prior permission or later approval. Unless the questioning locked in that meaning, the defense will be entitled to jury instructions on ambiguity and literal truth. [3]
Materiality requires more than wordplay. The prosecution must prove the statement had a natural tendency to influence a concrete committee decision. If the committee already had the Inspector General’s findings and the disputed point is a single word’s scope, the capacity-to-influence showing is weak. [4]
Venue is not a foregone conclusion. The indictment places venue in the Eastern District of Virginia because of where the witness sat during remote testimony. The defense can argue the statement was submitted to a Senate committee seated in Washington. If the government chose the wrong courthouse, that is not a fixable technicality. [5]
The obstruction count depends on the false-statement theory. The obstruction charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 is built on the same contested statement about authorization. If the false-statement theory stumbles on falsity, willfulness, materiality, jurisdiction, or venue, then the obstruction theory has nothing independent to support it. [6]
Charging irregularities that matter to jurors. Reporting indicates the grand jury declined an additional count and that the filing raced a statute of limitations clock. Those facts strengthen the defense narrative and affect discovery, Rule 403 balancing, and how jurors perceive the government’s burden. [7]
Historical Echoes: The Dangers of Politicized Prosecution
The Comey indictment is not an isolated incident. It fits a long and troubling tradition of politically motivated prosecutions in American history, from the Red Scare and McCarthy era to the targeting of civil rights leaders and antiwar activists.
Legal scholars warn that such prosecutions erode public trust in the justice system and risk transforming the law into a weapon of political retribution rather than a shield for the rule of law.
Expert Consensus: Skepticism and Alarm
While some commentators argue that “no one is above the law,” the consensus among legal experts is one of deep skepticism. The evidence is weak, the process is tainted by political interference, and the precedent is dangerous.
As Ryan Goodman and others have made clear, the case against Comey is not just unconvincing, it is a glaring example of how the machinery of justice can be twisted to serve partisan ends.
Conclusion: A Case That Should Never Have Been Brought
The DOJ’s case against James Comey, when subjected to rigorous legal and factual scrutiny, collapses under its own weight.
Ryan Goodman’s analysis exposes the indictment as a product of misrepresentation, ambiguity, and political vendetta. In a healthy democracy, the justice system must be insulated from the whims of those in power.
The Comey indictment is a stark warning of what happens when that insulation is stripped away. It is not just a bogus case, it is a threat to the very foundations of American justice.
Help fund more reporting that calls out political prosecutions and protects the rule of law. Join as a free or paid subscriber now.
Footnotes
Ryan Goodman bio: NYU Law School profile and professional summary.
18 U.S.C. § 1001(c) text requires that statements to Congress be made in an investigation or hearing conducted consistent with applicable congressional rules.
Ambiguity and literal truth principles trace to Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) and subsequent applications to federal false statement statutes.
Materiality is an element that asks whether the statement had a natural tendency to influence a decision by the body addressed. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995).
Venue for false statements generally turns on where the statement was made, submitted, or filed. Remote testimony complicates that analysis. DOJ Criminal Resource Manual 918, “False Statements and Venue.”
Obstruction under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 requires a corrupt endeavor tied to an official inquiry, which in this case rests entirely on the contested statement.
CBS News reporting describes the grand jury’s partial no-bill and the looming statute of limitations.
So the DOJ wants us to believe that James Comey gave false testimony and obstructed justice. Ha! Good luck with that.
We know the reason for these false accusations. Mr. Comey was invited to a private dinner with President Trump on the first disastrous presidential term. Trump wanted the head of the FBI to swear loyalty to him. James Comey refused to do so because the head of the FBI and the FBI as an organization serves the people of the United States.
After this incident, Mr. Comey revealed what had happened to the public.
Well, we’re here. I’d like to clear up one more thing. Many people believe that James Comey lost Hillary Clinton the election. If people were paying attention, they would’ve realized that the third investigation by the FBI with James Comey at the head should have proven to the people that Hillary Clinton Was ready to lead the nation. That last investigation found that she was not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing. So, once again, if you voted for Donald Trump, it was the wrong thing to do. He is a criminal. Hillary Clinton was held to some very high standards and she passed.
It will be a great day when the Trump thugs at the DOJ and their bogus charges are thrown out of court.