The Comey indictment.

I'm Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today’s read: 13 minutes.

Heads up.

Hey everyone, Isaac here. I’m in Italy this week for a friend’s wedding and leaving you in the capable hands of our editorial team: Ari, Will, Lindsey, and Audrey. I may chime in here or there, but I’m excited to join you all as a reader for the week — and I hope you enjoy some new perspectives! In the meantime, in case you missed it, check out my piece on the brewing tech backlash that we published on Friday. 

— Isaac

Quick hits.

1. A gunman killed four people and injured eight others after driving his truck into a church in Grand Blanc, Michigan, and opening fire on people attending services inside. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints chapel was also set on fire before law enforcement shot and killed the suspect. (The shooting)
2. New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) announced he was ending his reelection bid roughly five weeks before the city’s mayoral election. Adams did not immediately endorse any of the remaining candidates. (The announcement)
3. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered 200 Oregon National Guard troops to be deployed to Portland, Oregon, after President Donald Trump said he would send the military to protect federal immigration facilities in the city. The state has filed a lawsuit challenging the deployment. (The order)
4. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of President Trump’s executive order seeking to end the guarantee of citizenship for all people born in the United States. (The request)
5. On Monday, President Trump will meet with congressional leaders from both parties to discuss the imminent government shutdown. Without an extension, federal funding will lapse on October 1 at midnight. (The meeting)

Today’s topic.

James Comey's indictment. On Thursday, The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia announced the indictment of former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey for allegedly false statements he gave during congressional testimony related to the Trump–Russia probe. The indictment includes two counts, which together carry a potential five-year prison sentence. Prosecutors initially considered bringing a third count related to a separate alleged false statement, but that count was rejected by the grand jury. The indictment was filed in Alexandria, Virginia, just before the five-year statute of limitations for Comey’s September 2020 testimony was set to expire. Comey is due to be arraigned on October 9.

Back up: In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, Comey oversaw the FBI’s investigation (code-named “Crossfire Hurricane”) into possible collusion between President Trump’s campaign and Russia. President Trump fired Comey months into his first administration, citing Comey’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Trump would later state that firing Comey relieved him of pressure from the Russian collusion probe. The probe ultimately concluded in 2019 with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, which uncovered links between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives but did not find evidence of criminal conspiracy.

A special counsel investigation into the FBI’s management of the case, led by John Durham, concluded that the FBI’s decision to launch its collusion investigation displayed a “serious lack of analytical rigor.” Durham proposed an internal oversight position for politically fraught investigations, but he did not recommend any prosecutions.

As part of the response to Crossfire Hurricane, Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020; one of Comey’s answers from that testimony is the subject of the latest indictment. In response to a question from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Comey testified that he never authorized Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe to leak information about the Clinton investigation. The Justice Department alleges that his answer was false, that he did authorize the leak, and that his answer amounted to obstruction. 

The indictment was signed by Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, a White House lawyer who previously worked as a defense attorney for President Trump. Halligan replaced former U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert, who declined to bring charges in cases against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D). Earlier this month, Trump told reporters that he “wanted [Siebert] out,” prompting Siebert to resign hours later.

“No one is above the law,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said when announcing the charges against Comey. “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.” On Thursday, Comey released a video on Instagram affirming his innocence, saying, “My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump” and that he is “not afraid.”

We’ll break down what the right and left are saying about the indictment below. Then, Senior Editor Will Kaback gives his take.

What the right is saying.

• The right is mixed on the indictment, but many say Comey’s actions laid the groundwork for his prosecution. 
• Some say the case is fatally flawed and should be dismissed.
• Others argue Trump is righting past wrongs by holding Comey and others to account.

In The New York Post, Jonathan Turley wrote “James Comey is no pristine model of ethics, and now he’s staring down karma.”

“There are legitimate concerns about the targeting of a political critic of the president, who publicly complained just days ago that Attorney General Pam Bondi was not indicting Comey and others. However, Comey is hardly the pristine model of ‘ethical leadership’ that he described in his book. Putting aside his critical role in the Russia collusion investigation, Comey tossed aside even the pretense of ethics after Trump fired him,” Turley said. “Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued a scathing report that found Comey was a leaker and had violated FBI policy in his handling of FBI memos.”

“Perjury or false statements can be challenging to prove, particularly when vague or nuanced language is used. This is neither vague nor nuanced. Comey repeatedly swore that he never asked anyone at the FBI to leak information. That is either true or it is not. Comey will continue to be vilified and lionized by different parts of the population. Yet this is an ignoble moment that he helped bring about,” Turley wrote. “Now the man who bragged about nailing Michael Flynn will face the same false statement charge. The man who celebrated the charging of Donald Trump (including obstruction-related charges) will face his own obstruction charge.”

In National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy argued “the indictment against Comey should be dismissed.”

“The vindictive indictment the Trump Justice Department barely managed to get a grand jury to approve on Thursday is so ill-conceived and incompetently drafted, he should be able to get it thrown out on a pretrial motion to dismiss. Legally, he’ll be entitled to that, and it would short-circuit the very expensive and punitive litigation process,” McCarthy said. “Put aside that McCabe, whom the perjury case against Comey appears to hinge on, is not a credible witness, particularly on this subject… The indictment fails on its own terms because McCabe never even claimed that Comey ‘authorized’ the leak as that term is commonly understood.”

“A rational juror could not convict Comey of perjury on that record. [Sen.] Cruz garbled what is meant by the word ‘authorize’; McCabe didn’t claim Comey authorized the leak; ergo, there is no evidence — much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt — that Comey was lying when he told Cruz he hadn’t authorized McCabe’s leak,” McCarthy wrote. “The indictment should be dismissed because there is no factual basis for a perjury charge and because the second count, obstruction, hinges on the perjury charge. I’m sure Comey would rather have a jury clear him, but this baseless case should never see a trial court.”

In American Greatness, Roger Kimball explored whether the indictment is “retribution or justice.”

“Is what Trump is doing a matter of retribution or of justice? But that, I submit, is the wrong question. There is no doubt that Trump is going after his political opponents — or, to put it more accurately, he is going after those of his opponents who went after him and his associates,” Kimball said. “But the point to appreciate is that Trump’s goal is not vengeance (though that might be a collateral benefit to him personally) but rather the righting of a wrong. For years, the deep state waged war against all things Trump.”

“Trump not only survived but also triumphed. But in the course of their scorched-earth campaign against Trump, his opponents acted like Pandora when she unsealed her fateful jar. The usual rules and conventions, the mannerly behavior, and the gentleman’s largesse were suddenly set loose. Perhaps, someday, they can be rounded up, placed back where they belong, and reinstated as the norms of political conduct. Perhaps,” Kimball wrote. “For us now, the important point is that Trump’s retribution is not an alternative to justice. On the contrary, it is the very name of, and the prerequisite for, justice.”

What the left is saying.

• The left strongly criticizes the indictment, arguing Trump is weaponizing the Justice Department. 
• Some say the indictment is flawed and may be thrown out. 
• Others worry that the Justice Department is being taken over by Trump loyalists.

The New York Times editorial board said “the Comey indictment plunges the country into a grave new period.”

“Long before this week, Mr. Trump crossed some of the clearest and most important lines in how justice is administered. He ran for office promising to prosecute his enemies and appointed loyalists who have ordered investigations of people the president does not like. On their own, those moves deserved to be the biggest law enforcement scandal of the past 50 years. Yet they turned out to be just a start. He has now gone beyond ordering investigations to dictating their outcome,” the board wrote. “He has removed any pretense that the law is blind. As despots have done for centuries, he is persecuting people he considers his enemies, with little justification other than raw political power.”

“We know the response that Trump allies will offer, and it is wholly unpersuasive. They claim that the actions of Mr. Trump and his attorney general, Pam Bondi, are no worse than the Biden Justice Department’s decision to indict Mr. Trump,” the board said. “But that notion buys into a false equivalence. In the earlier cases, there is no doubt that laws were broken, and there is significant evidence that Mr. Trump was a part of it. No such evidence exists as yet about his current targets.”

In The Daily Beast, Shan Wu explored “the fatal flaws in Trump’s revenge case.”

“Comey is charged with one count of lying to Congress and one count of obstruction of a Congressional proceeding. These two counts make up an indictment so thin on evidence that any responsible prosecutor, myself included, would not have brought it,” Wu wrote. “In fact, that seems to be exactly what has already happened: Erik S. Siebert, the U.S. Attorney who led the investigation into Comey, reportedly concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge him. Career prosecutors also put together a memo outlining the lack of evidence.”

“Comey, armed with the financial resources and a strong team to fight against weak evidence and a weak prosecutor, may manage to avoid a criminal conviction. Our broader system of justice will not be so fortunate. Trump has now fully brought the Department of Justice under his personal control — and brags about it in ways that no other president would have dared,” Wu said. “There are, of course, plenty of good line prosecutors with integrity that remain, but it seems clear that the price for showing that integrity is demotion and/or dismissal.”

In MSNBC, Barbara McQuade wrote “there’s a reason Trump tapped Lindsey Halligan to take on James Comey.”

“Halligan stands in stark contrast to Siebert. As described in a Justice Department press release from January, Siebert is an award-winning 15-year veteran of the office with supervisory experience… Halligan has a very different record. The former Florida insurance lawyer has no prosecutorial experience,” McQuade said. “Her resume does not necessarily suggest someone capable of leading an office that handles some of the nation’s most sensitive national security matters, including cases arising out of the Pentagon or transiting through Dulles International Airport.”

“The DOJ’s Principles of Federal Prosecution prohibit prosecutors from seeking charges unless the evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. With his training and experience, Siebert seems to have made the appropriate decision to decline to seek an indictment,” McQuade wrote. “Halligan chose a different path. And her journey is just beginning. Securing an indictment is only the first step — now she has to mount a case and convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”

My take.

Reminder: “My take” is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• The prosecution of Comey is clearly personal and political.
• Grand jury indictments are easy to obtain, but the evidence isn’t likely to result in a conviction.
• Trump’s usage of the Justice Department is undermining its legitimacy.

Trump has wanted to prosecute Comey since his first term. His reasons are well documented: Trump believes that Comey mismanaged the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email controversy, that he illegally leaked information, and that he mishandled classified documents. Above all, though, Trump sees Comey as his enemy, and his desire for retribution has not subsided even after his return to the White House. 

In my view, President Trump’s statements and actions make it pretty plain that this is a political prosecution. On September 19, he suggested that Erik Siebert, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, should be forced out for failing to bring charges against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, prompting Siebert’s resignation. The next day, Trump publicly criticized Attorney General Pam Bondi, questioning her perceived inaction against Comey, James and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Then, on September 22, White House adviser and former Trump defense attorney Lindsey Halligan replaced Siebert and brought charges against Comey three days later — despite the protestations of federal prosecutors who had been working the case. No career prosecutors signed onto the indictment — a rarity — and the grand jury declined to indict Comey on one of the three potential charges — also a rarity. 

With that said, Halligan still presented the grand jury with enough evidence of potential wrongdoing to get them to sign off on two of the three counts. A grand jury rejecting an indictment is exceedingly rare, as grand jury hearings do not include testimony from the defense and only determine whether the prosecution can demonstrate enough probable cause for a trial. That the grand jury rejected even one charge is noteworthy. At the same time, Halligan is following proper procedure, and the Justice Department may still have more information about the case that’s not yet public — we’ll just have to see. For now, we can only judge this case based on publicly available information, and that information is not persuasive. 

The main count alleges that Comey “willfully and knowingly [made] a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement” by stating that he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” about an unspecified FBI investigation (referring to the investigation into Clinton). This allegation hinges on Comey’s answer to Sen. Ted Cruz in a 2020 congressional hearing that he had not “authorized” then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe to leak information to The Wall Street Journal about the case. The Justice Department has not yet explained why that statement was a lie, but it probably contrasts it against McCabe’s prior statements that he had directed his assistant to leak the information and then told Comey about it after the fact.

Do you see the problem here? 

Set aside the debate over whether or not McCabe was telling the truth (notably, Inspector General Michael Horowitz found that McCabe repeatedly lied to investigators about the leak). Even assuming he was, McCabe only claimed to have told Comey about the leak after it happened; he never said that he approached Comey for permission to leak the information.

These facts, as we currently know them, don't support the Justice Department's allegations. But recognizing the fundamental flaws of this case does not require defending Comey’s tenure as FBI director or his actions since then. I think he bungled the Clinton email investigation, demonstrated a clear bias against President Trump while serving as FBI director, and mismanaged the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. As a prosecutor, Comey also employed the same questionable tactics now being used in his indictment to prosecute Republican figures (like Michael Flynn) and celebrities (like Martha Stewart): bringing lesser charges like obstruction of justice when there was insufficient evidence of more significant wrongdoing. 

Prosecutors had months to review all of the available evidence and determined it did not justify charging Comey. Instead, this flawed indictment was brought forward — after the previous U.S. attorney was forced out — by a Trump loyalist with no prosecutorial experience, just before the statute of limitations expired. This case clearly isn’t about the pursuit of justice, it’s about seeking retribution.

Some conservatives have argued that President Trump is only adhering to the precedent set by the Biden administration when they prosecuted him. And yes, some cases against Trump seem clearly motivated by personal animus toward Trump, like Letitia James’s civil fraud case in New York. But not every case was frivolous — the January 6 case, the Georgia election interference case, and especially the classified documents case all produced valid indictments based on strong evidence. Still, even if they were all witch hunts, does that mean the best response is more witch hunts? How is any of this worth the government’s time and resources?

Even if you believe Trump was unfairly prosecuted, it doesn’t follow that the proper response is more political prosecutions. We all lose in that scenario. A Justice Department (and presidency) that prioritizes retribution against political opponents is a Justice Department that will hemorrhage quality attorneys and make it more difficult to prosecute significant wrongdoing. Its legitimacy in the eyes of the public will further erode, and future cases will (justifiably) be clouded by perceptions that the department is motivated by political animus. In the simplest terms, two wrongs do not make a right, and any temporary satisfaction that Comey’s indictment brings will be outweighed by the long-term damage to the DOJ’s credibility. 

I hope this case is dismissed before it reaches trial. If it goes to trial, I hope Comey is acquitted. I expect one or the other will happen, for the reasons I mentioned above. 

But I worry that regardless of the outcome, the real damage has been done. Isaac previously listed prosecuting political opponents on dubious charges as one of the “genuine danger signs” of an authoritarian-style presidency, and I think Comey’s indictment checks that box. Even more worrisome is Trump’s comment that “there will be others” prosecuted after Comey. I don’t think it’s “alarmist” to say that we’re staring down a crisis of legitimacy for the Justice Department — and that’s something all of us, regardless of party or ideology, should be concerned by.

Take the survey: How significant do you think Comey’s indictment is? Let us know. 

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

Q: I have a question more for Ari than anyone else as he is a Vermonter. I was curious as to his perspective on his home state’s Governor Phil Scott. He seems to be one of the last true Rockefeller Republicans left in the country. I recently read about an innovative partnership with the Hartford Group to provide a voluntary program to expand social insurance in the state in the form of paid family leave. 

I’m curious as to a Vermonter’s opinion of him as he seems very popular even with the state’s largely liberal voting population?

— David from Poynette, WI

Ari Weitzman, Managing Editor: First, to be honest, I’m still relatively new to the state, having been a Vermonter for just two years. But I think people can be somewhat surprised by the Green Mountain State’s politics. Vermont’s obviously quite liberal, but it’s also rural and much more pro-gun than other solidly blue states (though the state has passed what I think are good restrictions regarding bump stocks and background checks). This is anecdotal, but I’ve also noticed less of an insistence on left-leaning language choices about race and gender than I detected when I lived in California, and even Pittsburgh.

Also, since the state is so small only a few thousand people can sway an election. That’s about two or three good town halls. So one of the largest differentiators between a strong candidate and a weak one is how genuine voters feel that they are. And, in my opinion, Gov. Phil Scott (R) feels genuine.

Now, any successful Vermont politician almost has to hold some left-leaning positions. Scott is pro-choice, pro-environment and doesn’t discuss religion as a lens for his decision making, which matches the state’s emphasis on liberal politics and de-emphasis on religion. He aligns with Democrats on many important issues. However, he is also unapologetically fiscally conservative, and he has pledged to veto any new law that will increase taxes (and by and large he has). Scott’s supporters want him in office to balance the leftward lean of the legislature, but I don’t really think his stance on guns and religion and abortion (and even his libertarian tilt towards gender and marijuana use) would fit with Republican platforms in purple states.

To your last question about the state’s paid family leave program (which went into effect in 2023): It does sound like something moderate Republicans could back in some municipalities, and perhaps Vermont’s program will serve as a model for other jurisdictions.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

On Thursday, a report commissioned by Los Angeles County supervisors to assess the response to the Eaton and Palisades fires in January found that limited resources and outdated policies for sending emergency alerts delayed evacuation warnings and contributed to the devastation of the fires. The report highlighted staffing shortages in the sheriff’s office and Office of Emergency Management, a lack of sufficient emergency vehicles, and an inadequate public alert system as key issues that hindered the response. In all, the fires killed over 30 people and destroyed thousands of homes in the Los Angeles area. The Associated Press has the story.

Numbers.

• 109. The number of days into President Donald Trump’s first term that he fired FBI Director James Comey. 
• 10. The number of days until Comey will appear in court for an arraignment on the charges against him. 
• 155,615. The number of suspects investigated for potential criminal wrongdoing by U.S. attorneys in 2016. 
• 6. The number of those suspects that the U.S. attorneys declined to prosecute because they could not secure a grand jury indictment. 
• 30% and 41%. The percentage of U.S. voters who said they had a favorable and unfavorable view, respectively, of Comey in an April 2018 Quinnipiac University poll.
• 35%. The percentage of U.S. voters who said they trusted President Trump to tell the truth about important issues more than Comey.
• 54%. The percentage of U.S. voters who said they trusted Comey to tell the truth about important issues more than Trump.

The extras.

• One year ago today we had just explored whether crime is increasing or decreasing in the United States.
• The most clicked link in Thursday’s newsletter was fighter jets intercepting Russian warplanes near Alaska.
• Nothing to do with politics: Hershey was sued for its Halloween candies not being spooky enough.
• Thursday’s survey: 2,646 readers responded to our multi-select survey on the United Nations with 58% saying the UN funds worthwhile programs. “Yes the UN does not appear to accomplish much. WHO is an exception,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

Cristy Medearis, known professionally as DJ C-Rae, recently started running karaoke night at The String Bean in Richardson, Texas. Since she started, one performance has blown her away more than any other: a duet between 77-year-olds Jerry Guy and Ben Coker to Flo Rida’s 2007 rap hit “Low.” Medearis knew immediately that she needed to record the performance, which became a viral sensation on social media. “After we got through singing this young man came up to me and goes, ‘You need to go work the crowd. The girls love you guys,’” Guy said. “And I said, ‘Son, at my age you bring your own girl, you don’t go chasing ‘em around.’” WFAA has the story (and video of the performance).