Pundit Dan Abrams said Sunday on "ABC News This Week" that he thinks there's a 95% chance that former FBI Director James Comey will be acquitted on both of the felony charges he was indicted on last week.
Abrams hearkened back to when the DOJ almost indicted Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe for lying about the same conversation in 2019, but they didn't do so.
Furthermore, the DOJ inspector general interviewed both McCable and Comey at that time, and thought Comey's version of events was more credible than McCabe's.
Abrams said, “When you talk about Andrew McCabe, for example, the Department of Justice inspector general looked into that, listened to what McCabe said, listened to what Comey said, and said we find Comey’s account more credible than McCabe’s. And what makes that particularly interesting is that they almost indicted McCabe back in 2019 for lying about the same conversation. They couldn’t get a grand jury to indict, and now they’re going to indict James Comey for that? So I don’t think that’s what this is about. I think, in the end, this is about another conversation.”
Abrams went on to say that he didn't think most in the Trump administration even thought Comey would be convicted.
To that, he added his own belief that a conviction was extremely unlikely.
He said, “I’m going to go out on a limb here and say, I don’t even think that many in the Trump administration believe they’re going to get a conviction. I think that there’s a 95%-plus chance that there won’t be a conviction. That it’ll either get dismissed by a judge, there’ll be a hung jury, there’ll be an acquittal."
He seemed to suspect that there was another motive at work behind the indictment, but he didn't know what it was.
"I’m not certain that that’s the end goal here," he said, speaking of a conviction. "And that’s what makes this so unusual. Because typically, a prosecutor’s office will not bring a case unless they think they can win it.”
It's clear that Trump would want to go after Comey in any way he can.
After all, Comey was behind a lot of the actions that targeted Trump and tried to get him discredited, investigated and eventually, pursued criminally.
Is Trump doing the same thing he has accused his opponents of doing--engaging in a political prosecution of Comey?
Maybe he figures he might as well do it if the other side is doing it.
Or is he trying to get justice for the way Comey obviously wronged him?
President Donald Trump campaigned in part on a pledge to secure accountability for those who weaponized federal agencies in recent years, and last week’s indictment of one of his longstanding foes has been greeted by many supporters as a promising start.
As Just the News reports, former FBI Director James Comey, now facing criminal charges of making false statements to Congress, placed himself in legal peril by holding firm in 2020 testimony to prior denials of questionable conduct related to leaks of classified information.
The actions of the former FBI director were previously scrutinized amid the agency’s earlier Arctic Haze and Tropic Vortex leak inquiries.
Though details of Comey’s actions were reviewed by former U.S. Attorney John Durham, the controversial ex-FBI chief never faced criminal charges -- until this week.
This week, it was announced that a federal grand jury handed up two charges against Comey -- one for making a false statement and another for obstruction -- both stemming from claims that Comey misled lawmakers in September 2020 when he reiterated a prior 2017 denial of having approved a leak of information to the media regarding the Trump-Russia collusion probe or Hillary Clinton-linked investigations.
The indictment at hand claims that Comey “did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United States by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing….”
At issue was Comey’s reiteration of his prior statement that he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports’ regarding an FBI probe concerning “PERSON 1,” an individual whose identity was not included in the indictment.
The 2017 exchange that laid the groundwork for Comey’s later testimony came during a May 2017 Judiciary Committee hearing in which Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked whether the witness had “ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation.”
Comey flatly replied, “Never,” prompting Grassley to continue his line of questioning.
The senator then asked Comey if he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation,” to which the longtime bureaucrat said, “No,” and when asked if details of the same had been declassified and shared with journalists, he replied, “Not to my knowledge.”
Though his exchange with Grassley is beyond the reach of the statute of limitations, Comey was again questioned on the topic in 2020 by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).
When asked about testimony from former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe indicating that such leaks did occur and that Comey authorized them, he said, “I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”
Though many of the president’s supporters certainly hope that Comey’s own statements will be his undoing as the criminal case against him progresses, at least one prominent legal commentator has cast doubt on federal prosecutors’ ability to make these charges stick.
As The Hill reports, Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy has already gone on record saying, “I don’t think there’s a case, noting, “If you look closely at what McCabe said, what McCabe said was that he directed a leak to the Wall Street Journal and told Comey about it after the fact. So it’s true that Comey never authorized it in the sense of OKing it before it happened.” Whether his take on the situation ultimately proves correct or Comey ultimately receives the legal reckoning millions believe is long overdue, only time will tell.
In a significant loss to the legal and publishing worlds, Robert Barnett, a towering figure in Washington, D.C., known for brokering major book deals for political giants, has died at the age of 79, Fox News reported.
Barnett, who shaped the intersection of politics and media through decades of high-profile negotiations, passed away on Thursday night at Sibley Memorial Hospital due to an undisclosed illness.
Born in Illinois, Barnett built a remarkable career as an attorney, distinct from the typical literary agent, by focusing on elite clients and billing by the hour rather than taking royalties.
Early in his journey, Barnett contributed to Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential campaign, marking his entry into the political arena.
He later played a key role in Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, further cementing his influence among Democratic leaders.
Barnett also aided Clinton and other candidates with debate preparation, showcasing his strategic acumen beyond legal negotiations.
One of Barnett's landmark achievements was securing the deal for Bill Clinton’s 2004 memoir, "My Life," which became a defining moment in his career.
He also negotiated multiple book contracts for Hillary Clinton, including "Living History" in 2003 and "Hard Choices" in 2014, along with related film and TV projects.
His ability to represent figures across the political divide, such as Barack and Michelle Obama, Edward M. Kennedy, Dick Cheney, and Mitch McConnell, highlighted his unique bipartisan approach.
Barnett's influence extended to the media world, with a 30-year professional relationship with Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott, who praised his integrity and counsel.
Scott noted, "Bob Barnett was legendary as an industry titan across media, politics and law, and, at his core, a wonderful man."
She added, "His pristine integrity, wise counsel and knowledge of our business were an invaluable resource to me over the course of our 30-year relationship."
Scott concluded, "He will be deeply missed by the Fox News Media family and the many anchors and correspondents he represented. We extend our heartfelt condolences to his wife, Rita, and his entire family."
The Clintons also mourned his loss, calling him a "brilliant lawyer" who meant a great deal to them. "He was a dear friend, a trusted advisor and a wise, faithful, and steadfast guide to the publishing and entertainment worlds," their statement read.
They further emphasized, "In everything he did, Bob brought his own special spark of joy. Bob had an insightful eye for editorial detail and a keen ear for language and nuance, but more importantly, he was utterly devoted to his clients, always unfailingly generous with his time and his considerable talents."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It's shaping up as a fight between what now is known to have been the weaponization of the federal government against Donald Trump by Democrats, and claims that Trump now is weaponizing the government against those who participated in the now-debunked "Russiagate" conspiracy theory Democrats launched against him during his first campaign.
The trigger is a federal indictment of ex-FBI chief James Comey for obstruction and lying.
He was, of course, a key player in the Russiagate lies, having had his FBI launch an investigation of Trump and his campaign during 2016 based on the wild claims that he was conspiring with Russia, a fabrication that Barack Obama had been told was being assembled by failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.
Comey posted on social media his claim to innocence which focused more on blaming Trump, and boasting about how he and his family were "standing up to Donald Trump."
But social media pointed out how even going to social media to make statements was banned for Donald Trump when the Democrat weaponization was at its most aggressive.
And social media pointed out the multiple lawfare cases against Trump and dozens of others, assembled by the Democrat power structure at the time.
Kash Patel, the current FBI chief, said the bureau under his management is just calling "the balls and strikes."
He said claims of politicization – now – are "wildly false" and come "from the same bankrupt media…"
Some of the evidence in the case already is in the public record, including on video:
GOP members of Congress suggested it was about time.
President Trump, who long has been calling for prosecutions over the Russiagate conspiracy theory and the lies it involved, was blunt, "Whether you Corrupt James Comey or not, and I can't imagine too many peple liking him, HE LIED! It is not a complex lie, it's very simple, but IMPORTANT one. There is no way he can explain his way out of it. He is a Dirty Cop, and always has beren, but he was just assigned a Crooked Joe Biden appointed Judge, so he's off to a very good start. Nevertheless, words are words, and he wasn't hedging or in dispute. He was very positive, there was no dbout in his mind about what he said, or meant by saying it. He left himself ZERO margin of error on a big and important answer to a question. He just got unexpectedly caught. …"
Democrats lined up with the claims that it is a "malicious prosecution."
Democrat Sen. Mark Warner said, "This kind of interference is a dangerous abuse of power. By ousting a respected, independent prosecutor and replacing him with a partisan loyalist, Trump is undermining one of the most important U.S. Attorney's offices in the country and eroding the rule of law itself."
In early September, a federal judge appointed by former President Joe Biden ordered President Donald Trump and his administration to pay out roughly $4 billion in foreign aid funds that they had held back.
However, the defeat was short-lived, as the U.S. Supreme Court this week temporarily halted the early September order from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, allowing the Trump administration to continue to hold back the funds, the Daily Caller reported.
The high court added that the ruling was its "preliminary review" of the case and that it wasn't determined on "merits."
Regardless, the ruling marks another crucial Supreme Court victory for President Trump, who has relied on the high court to combat the judical activism seemingly on display in the federal judiciary.
The Supreme Court explained in its ruling why it decided to allow the funds to be held back by the Trump administration.
"[O]n the record before the Court, the asserted harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents,” the Supreme Court’s order read.
"This order should not be read as a final determination on the merits," it added. "The relief granted by the Court today reflects our preliminary view, consistent with the standards for interim relief."
Not surprisingly, the three liberal justices on the high court dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, "I appreciate that the majority refrains from offering a definitive view of this dispute and the questions raised in it."
She added, "But the effect of its ruling is to allow the Executive to cease obligating $4 billion in funds that Congress appropriated for foreign aid, and that will now never reach its intended recipients."
The Trump administration, specifically Solicitor General John Sauer, explained why it needed the high court's help in the matter in its emergency application.
"To have any hope of complying in time, the Executive Branch would have to immediately commence diplomatic discussions with foreign nations about the use of those funds—discussions the President considers counterproductive to foreign policy—and notify Congress about planned obligations that the President is strongly opposing," Sauer wrote.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration wrote that the federal judge's ruling was "a grave and urgent threat to the separation of powers."
It'll be interesting to see where this case ends up and which side gets the win.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Planned Parenthood, America's abortion industry giant, already is contending with what some have called an existential threat to its future because Congress adopted a law withholding federal Medicaid funds – hundreds of millions of dollars a year – from the abortionists.
Planned Parenthood actually went to court over that law, claiming it now has a constitutional right to be paid taxpayer money.
It has complained that it will have to shut down some of its abortion business locations if it doesn't take tax money to keep them open.
But there's also another threat, and this one, in the race to be an "existential threat," is far and away ahead.
According to a report in the National Catholic Register a court case accuses Planned Parenthood of taking hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers that it was not allowed to take.
It was an anonymous activist, and the state of Texas, that brought the claim the abortionists improperly took money from Medicaid.
The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Thursday in the case, which is titled Doe v. Planned Parenthood, and a decision could come soon.
"When Planned Parenthood was exposed for selling fetal tissue and organs, Louisiana and Texas quickly moved to revoke the organization's Medicaid eligibility. Court orders delayed the revocation. As the courts debated Planned Parenthood's eligibility, the group continued to make Medicaid reimbursement claims despite the uncertain status until 2020, when the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the states," the report documented.
The lawsuit, from 2021, comes under the False Claims Act which requires "any person who knowingly submits, or causes to submit, false claims to the government is liable for three times the government's damages plus a penalty that is linked to inflation."
Jennie Bradley Lichter, chief of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, told the publication that taking money from the government "while ineligible" must be "repaid in full."
Planned Parenthood lawyer Susan Baker Manning said there's no grounds for the abortionists to worry.
"This case has one goal: to shut down Planned Parenthood and deny patients access to sexual and reproductive health care," she said.
The problem, however, is that, according to Katie Glenn Daniel of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, "The whistleblower in this case, Doe, is suing on behalf of the people to recover taxpayer dollars Planned Parenthood had no right to take and still has not voluntarily paid back, plus fees and interest."
She said Planned Parenthood for years after being disqualified continued billing Medicaid in Texas and Louisiana and taking the cash.
The Hill reported, "Planned Parenthood's access to tax dollars has also been limited by the Supreme Court ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which upheld states' authority to decide whether abortion providers qualify for Medicaid reimbursements.
"Against this backdrop, the under-the-radar case of U.S. ex rel. Doe v. Planned Parenthood represents an existential threat to Planned Parenthood. Now, Planned Parenthood could be on the hook for treble damages, civil penalties, interest and legal fees, pushing its total potential liability in the pending case past $1.8 billion — a financial catastrophe for the abortion giant.
It actually could "hasten its end."
President Donald Trump is not hiding his satisfaction with the criminal indictment of former FBI director James Comey, who was expected to surrender to the authorities on Friday.
“JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. “One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey, the former Corrupt Head of the FBI.”
“Today, he was indicted by a Grand Jury on two felony counts for various illegal and unlawful acts," he added.
Trump has spent years clamoring for Comey and other "Deep State" actors to be held accountable for the Russian collusion hoax that consumed the president's first term. The charges against Comey provide Trump with a measure of satisfaction, although Comey's fate is in the hands of a Biden-appointed judge and a jury of his peers.
The indictment charges Comey with making false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. In particular, Comey is accused of lying to Congress in September 2020 when he denied making unauthorized leaks to the press.
“That statement was false, because, as JAMES B. COMEY JR. then and there knew, he in fact had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1,” read the two-page indictment.
Comey is facing up to five years in prison if convicted on both counts. He maintains his innocence. “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I’m innocent, so let’s have a trial and keep the faith,” he said in a Substack video.
Comey has never been one to conceal his feelings concerning Trump, having previously fallen under scrutiny for tweeting "8647," which some interpreted as a coded threat against the president.
Under Comey, the FBI was engulfed in a historic scandal as Trump's presidential campaign was spied on using opposition research from the Clinton camp as evidence.
The FBI's Trump-Russia probe eventually grew to consume much of Trump's first White House term, although he was ultimately cleared by special counsel Robert Mueller, who failed to uncover evidence of collusion.
Mueller's appointment was triggered in part by Trump's firing of Comey, who admitted to leaking sensitive memos in an effort to trigger the Special Counsel probe.
Democrats have decried Comey's indictment as an extraordinary act of political retribution, although many say Democrats have themselves to blame after they embraced a then-unprecedented effort by leftist prosecutors to derail Trump's 2024 campaign.
Trump has signaled that other opponents of his could still face charges, including former CIA director John Brennan, who also played a significant role in the Trump-Russia investigation.
"We’ll have to see what happens," he told Fox News Digital. "It is up to the Justice Department, but I can tell you, it is a group of people that was very disappointing,” Trump added. “This makes Watergate look like peanuts.”
“They tried to destroy our country," he added.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
"It's not some sort of automatic deal where you can just say, 'Stare decisis,' and then turn off your brain."
That's the reasoning that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas explains was why the faulty Roe v. Wade precedent that fabricated a constitutional right to abortion had to fall.
Also, the Chevron ruling that used to give, but no longer does, great weight to bureaucrats' decisions on how the American government should be running.
It is in a report at Courthousenews that explains Thomas' defense of the court's "purge of longstanding precedents."
Stare decisis is the legal concept of upholding precedents that exist.
He was speaking at Catholic University Law School.
Thomas described those precedent-following decisions like cars in a train. New cases are new cars and they simply following wherever the train goes.
But that can provide problems.
"We never go to the front to see who's driving the train or where it is going, and you could go up there to the engine room and find out it's an orangutan," he explained.
The court also has made significant changes to standards for affirmative action, ruling that universities cannot use race as an admissions qualifier, and changing up requirements of the Voting Rights Act.
Now pending is Humphrey's Executor, which dates to 1935 and addresses presidential authority over regulatory board members.
This, of course, was triggered by President Donald Trump's decisions to cut government expenses by eliminating federal jobs and changing up the managers who are running a lot of government operations.
He also wants those running various government processes to be aboard with his Make America Great Again agenda, not a holdover from Joe Biden's administration who would do everything possible to stop the president's success.
The report said Thomas pointed out that some rulings have been "disregarded," even though they've never been formally abandoned, such as a 1927 ruling affirming forced sterilization that was used to support eugenics.
"Do we believe that you can go around sterilizing people just because the case has been decided?" Thomas asked.
He said, "I do give respect to the precedent, but the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition and our country and our laws and be based on something," Thomas said.
The Roe decision was overturned because it based its power on "implied" rights, also described as "substantive due process," those that judges perceive could be suggested in the Constitution, but are not actually there.
Due process is there, not "substantive due process."
Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently addressed that issue.
The case used to overturn Roe, Dobbs, "laid out the evidence to demonstrate that Roe was incorrect to say that a right to terminate a pregnancy had been deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the American people," said Barrett.
That same argument now is expected to be presented to the high court again, this time in a fight over same-sex marriage.
A county clerk, Kim Davis in Kentucky, was jailed within days of when the high court, then filled with leftists who no longer are on the bench, created "same-sex marriage" nationwide.
That decision also was based on implied rights.
Davis not only was jailed for refusing to sign marriage licenses for homosexual duos, she was sued by those duos, and while one jury cleared her of wrongful behavior, the other ordered her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars damages.
But her state quickly created a religious exemption for county clerks, in the law, and Davis had not discriminated because she withheld her signature from ALL marriage licenses, planning to wait until the dispute was resolved.
At the time the Obergefell case allowed the then-majority liberal justices to fabricate same-sex "marriage," there were warnings the ruling could be used against people of faith, those the values of family that have endured for millennia, and more.
All of those warnings were rejected by progressives and other leftists as likely not to exist, or be extremely rare.
Now that those observations have been proven wrong, there is a new movement, a new sentiment, that the precedent fabricated in Obergefell, a precedent that even dissenters on the Supreme Court warned was unrelated to the Constitution, should be overturned.
It's in a report in the Federalist that experts now confirm, "We can either recognize gay marriage or recognize children's right to their mother or father. We can't have both."
That's according to Katy Faust, of Them Before Us, an organization that advocates for the right of children to their biological parents.
"Marriage has, throughout our country and nearly every other culture throughout history, been the pathway to secure that right. But as every one of the 38 countries which have legalized gay marriage has learned, when you make husbands and wives optional in marriage, you make mothers and fathers optional in parenthood. The problem is, from the child's perspective, their own mother and father are never optional. Not in terms of their identity, their development, their safety, or their rights," she said.
The report in the Federalist warns the "tentacles" of the decision now are "in media, schools and curricula."
"The decision has left in tatters the single most important institution in society — marriage and family — while ushering in an LGBT indoctrination agenda, annual state-enforced homosexuality, a boost to the rent-a-womb industry, and a burgeoning acceptance of eugenics to service the rent-a-womb industry," the report warned.
The backlash has been developing for some time already. The report noted support for "gay marriage' among Republicans has dropped 14% since 2021, when it reached its high.
Thomas, at the time Obergefell was released, said, "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [right of married persons to obtain contraceptives], Lawrence [right to engage in private, consensual sex acts], and Obergefell," he wrote.
Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted for lying to Congress.
Comey was charged with making false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding, Fox News reports.
There have been demands for years from President Trump and his MAGA base to punish "Deep State" figures like Comey, a notorious Trump critic who oversaw the Trump-Russia probe, known as "Crossfire Hurricane," before his firing in May 2017.
"No one is above the law," said Attorney General Pam Bondi. "Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case."
Prosecutors had been facing a Tuesday deadline to charge Comey over statements he made to Congress in September 2020, denying that he made unauthorized leaks to the media.
FBI director Kash Patel touted the charges against Comey as a step towards accountability for the Russian collusion hoax that derailed Trump's first term.
"Everyone, especially those in positions of power, will be held to account – no matter their perch," Patel wrote on X.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller spent nearly two years investigating Trump but failed to find evidence of Russian collusion.
In 2019, Comey was reprimanded by the Justice Department's Inspector General for publicizing sensitive memos of his conversations with Trump through a friend, Columbia University professor Daniel Richman.
Comey admitted to Congress that he leaked his memos to trigger a Special Counsel probe into Trump, whom Comey has criticized repeatedly over the years.
The case against Comey is being led by Lindsey Halligan, whom Trump recently appointed as acting US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan has never been a prosecutor before.
Trump had pressured Halligan's predecessor, Erik Siebert, to resign after he failed to bring a case against another Trump foe, New York attorney general Letitia James (D), for mortgage fraud.
Comey also fell under scrutiny earlier this year for sharing what many saw as a coded threat to kill Trump, "8647."
In a recent post, Trump publicly complained to Attorney General Pam Bondi about the Justice Department's inaction against foes like Comey.
“Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, ‘same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam 'Shifty' Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,’” Trump wrote.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In what undoubtedly will shake the foundations of the Democrats' power structure in America and worry a lot of leftists who participated in the weaponization of the government against President Trump during his first term, a grand jury has indicted ex-FBI chief James Comey.
Comey, who recently promoted the "86-47" messaging presumed to mean "86" or destroy "47," with Trump being the 47th president, was indicted on two counts – one count of lying and one count of obstruction of justice.
He already has been complaining how Trump has weaponized the government against his opponents, such as Comey. But Comey's comments come in the aftermath of his participation, and the participation of multiple Democrat power figures, in the fraudulent "Russiagate" conspiracy theory that was assembled to try to keep Trump from being elected, or then to destroy him during his first term.
That conspiracy, now proven to be completely falsified, was based on a scheme by twice-failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton to tie Trump to Russia.
Comey's FBI participated in that scheme, including launching an unfounded investigation of Trump.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said, "No one is above the law. Today's indictment reflects this Department of Justice's commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case."
The charges followed Trump's decision to remove Erik Siebert, then the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who sources insisted had doubts about charges against Comey.
Also in the equation is New York Attorney General Letitia James, who campaigned for office on the promise to "get" President Trump even before she assembled wild claims of fraud against him and his companies.
Her case penalizing Trump nearly $500 million came through a judge with a confirmed anti-Trump agenda, and was reversed as unconstitutional at the appellate level.
Trump replaced Siebert with Lindsay Halligan, a former defense attorney.
ABC said that federal prosecutors in Virginia claimed they could not establish probable cause to charge Comey.
Trump said, "Pam Bondi is doing a GREAT job as Attorney General of the United States. She is very careful, very smart, loves our Country, but needs a tough prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, like my recommendation, Lindsey Halligan, to get things moving."
Reports called the charges a "most dramatic escalation" in what Trump opponents have claimed is retribution by Trump against those who attacked him when they were in power in government.
Comey, who in fact was fired by Trump during his first term, has vocally criticized Trump over and over.
He's even claimed Trump is politicizing the justice system, a charge that Trump himself repeatedly has brought against Comey and other Democrats.