Deutsch
Français
Español
Italiano
Português
中文
日本語
Русский
Türkçe
Justice For James Comey — My FULL LEGAL ANALYSIS
Duration: 0:53
Views: 16
Submitted: 2 weeks ago
Submitted by:
Description:
He stood up to Conman Trump, and I will honor him for it here and even dissect his indictment and suggest defence strategies! You see, this assyanked indictment of former FBI Director James Comey represents a watershed moment in American legal and political history actually testing the U.S. Constitution against weaponization of the Justice Department pitted against those who chose to valiantly stand up to his Sicilian Mafia style loyalty demands…. Today, on September 25, 2025, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, charged honorable former FBI Director Comey with one count of making a false statement (18 U.S.C. § 1001) and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1505), stemming from his September 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation. This ass yanked quicky (it appears to have been drafted by handpicked DOJ fags in an expedient manner…) indictment emerged under highly unusual circumstances—days after President Donald Trump publicly demanded action against Comey and other perceived foes, and following the replacement of the previous U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia with a Trump loyalist BITCH who lacks prosecutorial experience. The case immediately triggered debates amongst Americans about whether it represents legitimate accountability or political weaponization of the justice system, with Comey declaring, "I'm innocent, so let's have a trial" while Trump the Conman celebrated with "JUSTICE IN AMERICA!”
Being Mathematician at heart, I will examine the legal merits of the indictment and suggest comprehensive defense strategies because former FBI Director is a just man innocent of false accusations ass yanked by Trump’s DOJ infiltrator Con-Team. The case however, presents extraordinary challenges, combining complex legal questions about false statements and obstruction with unprecedented allegations of political interference. Because of it — I think. — that Comey’s defense must navigate not only courtroom tactics but also the court of public opinion, where perceptions of justice could have lasting institutional consequences. As the case proceeds toward an October 9 arraignment before U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, a Biden appointee, the legal strategies employed will test fundamental principles about the separation of powers and the independence of federal law enforcement from executive influence but I will steadfastly support honorable Director Comey, not the self admitted pussy grabber and Conman Trump…
The charges against Comey center on a specific exchange during his September 30, 2020, Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, when Senator Ted Cruz questioned him about whether he had authorized anyone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source in media reports concerning investigations related to Hillary Clinton. Comey responded, "I stand by that testimony," referring to his 2017 assertion that he did not authorize such leaks. The indictment alleges this statement was false because Comey "had in fact authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1…” While not explicitly named in the indictment, the context suggests Person 1 is Hillary Clinton and Person 3 is former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who told the Justice Department's inspector general that Comey authorized him to speak with a reporter about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation…
Charge Legal Statute Maximum Penalty Key Element to Prove
Making a false statement 18 U.S.C. § 1001 5 years imprisonment Knowingly and willfully making a materially false statement
Obstruction of a congressional proceeding 18 U.S.C. § 1505 5 years imprisonment Corruptly influencing, obstructing, or impeding a congressional inquiry so legal statutes underpinning these charges require prosecutors to meet specific evidentiary thresholds. For the false statement charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the weaponized government prosecutor conwoman, must prove: (1) a false statement was made; (2) it was material to the congressional investigation; (3) the defendant acted knowingly and willfully. The obstruction charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 requires proving: (1) there was a pending congressional proceeding; (2) the defendant was aware of it; (3) they corruptly attempted to influence, obstruct, or impede the proceeding; and (4) there was a nexus between the obstructive conduct and the proceeding. The term "corruptly" in obstruction statutes has been subject to varying interpretations but generally implies an improper purpose or intent to secure an unlawful advantage so I just wanted to clarify that… Notably, the grand jury rejected an additional false statement charge that prosecutors sought, indicating potential weaknesses in the government's case. This rejected charge reportedly concerned whether Comey had read a September 2016 report about the Clinton campaign's interest in using Trump's alleged Russia ties as a distraction. The partial rejection by the grand jury suggests that even after selective presentation of evidence, jurors found insufficient basis for all proposed charges—a point the defense I think should highlight to question this weaponized DOJ ass yanked case's overall strength. Trump the Conman’s CORRUPT CUNT prosecutor faces significant legal hurdles in securing a conviction, beginning with the challenge of proving materiality—that the alleged false statement had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the congressional investigation. Comey's legal team can argue that even if his statement about authorizing leaks was technically inaccurate (which they deny), it was immaterial to the Senate committee's oversight function. The investigation into the FBI's Russia probe had largely concluded by September 2020, and the specific question of who authorized media contacts about the Clinton Foundation investigation may have been peripheral to the main inquiry. Legal precedent establishes that trivial or insignificant falsehoods cannot support a conviction under § 1001, regardless of their technical falsity… Dumb MAGA fags didn’t know I am well versed in their American g-fag laws huh? You will now sorry ass low IQ’d mother fuckers! Appointed MAGA cunt prosecution's greatest challenge will be proving criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt because this dumb white MAGA BITCH in order to establish that Comey acted "knowingly and willfully," this hoe’ must show he deliberately lied with specific intent to violate the law, not merely that he misspoke, misremembered, or interpreted a question differently than prosecutors now do… "Perjury is a very difficult crime for Trump’s utterly corrupt DOJ cunts to prove... prosecutors must not only prove the statement was false, but also that the defendant knew it was false at the time…” Comey's defense can highlight that the questioning involved nuanced interpretations of what constitutes "authorizing" leaks, and that his response reflected his understanding of the term's meaning in the specific context of the exchange. American high-level officials often speak in measured, calculated language that gives room for clarification later, making it difficult to pinpoint deliberate deception… The context and phrasing of the questioning present additional obstacles I think… Comey was asked whether he authorized someone at the FBI "to be an anonymous source in news reports.” His defense can argue that this phrasing could be interpreted narrowly—referring to formal authorization of a specific individual to serve as a regular anonymous source—rather than the broader concept of approving a subordinate to share information with media on a particular occasion. Andrew McCabe's own credibility issues, documented in a 2018 Justice Department inspector general's report that found he made multiple false or misleading statements — further complicate the Trump DOJ handpicked Cunt’s prosecution's ability to prove what exactly was authorized and communicated. Without conclusive contemporaneous documentation or unambiguous evidence, the case may devolve into a "he said, she said" scenario insufficient for criminal conviction but great late Jerry Springer TV shit-show material — WOOHOO! The defense should immediately file a motion to dismiss based on selective and vindictive prosecution, arguing that the indictment resulted from unconstitutional political interference rather than impartial law enforcement cause the way I see it, nothing on merit, this case is DOJ ass yanked bullshit vindictive strategy Version 666! Hey, you Trump cunts and bitches should have an app developed from your DOJ G-cunt bullshit CASE LOADS! FurtherMORE: timeline is highly suggestive due to the fact that Conman Trump publicly demanded action against Comey on September 20, 2025; within days, U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert (who had reservations about the case) was replaced with Lindsey Halligan (interesting huh?)… Trump's former personal attorney with no prosecutorial experience; and an indictment followed just before the statute of limitations expired on September 30th if I am not mistaking the actual filing date? The defense can cite Halligan's unusual solo signature on the indictment—typically such documents also bear the names of career prosecutors who investigated the case—as evidence of irregular procedure. Additionally, the fact that the grand jury rejected one of the proposed charges indicates prosecutorial overreach. The defense should also highlight due process concerns regarding the vague nature of the charges, you should read the entire indictment if you want a good laugh!
The indictment fails to specify precisely what Comey authorized, when, and with whom, instead referring vaguely to "PERSON 3" and "PERSON 1" and already even if you are legally RETARDED and don’t even know what a Subpoena is, lacks specificity which makes it ALSO difficult for the Comey’s legal Counsel to prepare an adequate defense and violates fundamental fairness principles. The resignation of Comey's son-in-law, Troy Edwards, a prosecutor in the same office bringing the charges, "to uphold my oath to the Constitution and country" provides additional evidence of internal ethical concerns about the prosecution. These procedural arguments could result in dismissal or create appellate issues preserving defenses for higher review. On the substantive charges, the defense should attack each element systematically which is what I would do.. Against the false statement charge, Comey's team should emphasize the lack of materiality and ambiguous context of the questioning. The exchange with Senator Cruz was brief and referenced testimony from three years earlier. Comey stated he stood by his earlier answers "without elaborating" to me suggesting he was affirming his recollection and understanding at the time of the original testimony, not making a new categorical statement. The defense can introduce expert testimony on FBI protocols regarding media contacts to demonstrate that Comey's understanding of what constituted "authorizing" an "anonymous source" may have differed from the prosecution's interpretation…. For the obstruction charge, the defense must challenge the "corrupt" intent element by presenting evidence of Comey's consistent cooperation with congressional oversight throughout his career. The defense can argue that Comey participated in the hearing voluntarily and responded to questions in what he believed to be a truthful manner. Obstruction requires a "corrupt" purpose to impede proceedings, which is inconsistent with Comey's history of engagement with oversight bodies. The defense might also note that the information in question was already publicly known or that Comey believed his communications were protected by executive privilege or confidentiality considerations. By focusing on the requirement of corrupt intent, the defense can frame the obstruction charge as an unprecedented extension of the statute to circumstances that do not meet the legal standard — and that is all I’m sayin’, dig? Beyond technical legal arguments, the defense must craft a compelling counter-narrative that exposes the indictment as political retaliation. This narrative would emphasize that Comey is being targeted for his refusal to pledge personal loyalty to Trump and for overseeing the Russia investigation because he FIRED him over that… The defense can highlight the stark contrast between this prosecution and the findings of previous investigations—including Special Counsel John Durham's probe during Trump's first term, which did not charge Comey with any crime. This history suggests the current indictment stems from political pressure rather than new evidence EVEN to stupid FSB fucks in Kremlin where Trump serves as their ass kisser! The defense should also present Comey as a public servant acting in good faith rather than a criminal. Character witnesses from both political parties could testify to Comey's integrity throughout his decades of public service. The defense might contextualize the alleged conduct within broader FBI media engagement practices, arguing that limited, authorized disclosures to reporters sometimes serve legitimate law enforcement purposes rather than constituting improper leaks. By focusing on Comey's intentions rather than narrow semantic disputes, the defense can appeal to jurors' sense of fairness and proportionality.
In retrospect, I think that this false assumption yanked indictment of James Comey represents more than a legal proceeding against an individual; it shows how Donald J. Trump utterly corrupted DOJ and completely obliterated Justice Department's independence from political influence so my defense strategies outlined above—combining procedural challenges, substantive legal arguments, and compelling narrative-building—offer a viable path to acquittal. However, the case's significance transcends its outcome in American courts because “the rule of law was supposed to replace vendettas, blood feuds, and mad kings exacting vengeance on their perceived enemies so I believe that this sordid episode is one more savage assault on justice in America" and therefore egardless of one's view of Comey, the precedent set by this prosecution will unfortunately reshape the relationship between executive power and federal law enforcement for generations and the coming trial will unfold against a backdrop of profound institutional concerns, with career prosecutors reportedly resisting the case and the judge already expressing confusion about the unusual indictment process — and I note that here in case you missed it and didn’t pickup on it? Ultimately, this case will be decided on whether the jury perceives the prosecution as legitimate law enforcement or political retaliation DEPARTMENT! Comey's declaration that "we will not live on our knees" encapsulates the defense's strategy to frame the trial as a defense of democratic norms rather than merely a determination of individual guilt. However the case concludes, it will inevitably influence public trust in legal institutions and establish precedents about the permissible bounds of presidential influence over justice—outcomes that will long outlast the specific charges against this particular defendant and if I were you let me assure you that Conman only have ONE THING other mind which is their NEXT BIG CON! The fact that a convicted Conman infiltrated ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH and CORRUPTED it, demonstrates importance of keeping even most sophisticated Conmen, where they belong in PRISON!
Don’t be a sucker!
But wait, ain’t this a satire site?
Yup!
Not a legal Eagle “CASE WIGGLE?”
Nope!
So I drafted a dummy legal document contextualizing actual legal arguments and case law references for the indictment of James Comey to have this bullshit case DISMISSED! Of course, I am not a licensed attorney so this is for entertainment purposes ONLY so don’t freakin call me after you get arrested cause I only do satire with serious legal reflections when cases get dire!
LEGAL STATELESS WARRIOR DISCLAIMER: This is my DUMMY LEGAL DOCUMENT which I created for entertainment and illustrative purposes only. It is NOT a legally binding filing, does not constitute legal advice, and should not be used in any actual legal proceeding. My arguments, while based on real legal principles, are applied to a bullshit scenario so while all my case citations are real, their application here is fictional cause I not a lawyer monkey but do have key of knowledge so nobody can do me Court funky — ya’ll dig?
Let me begin…
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Criminal No. 1:25-cr-00123 v.
MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT JAMES B. COMEY,
FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION of Defendant.
AND FAILURE TO STATE AN OFFENSE
DEFENDANT JAMES B. COMEY, by and through his undersigned counsel “STATELESS WARRIOR” respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(3)(B)(v), and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, for an order dismissing the indictment in its entirety. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This case presents a textbook example of a constitutionally impermissible prosecution. The indictment, brought under highly unusual and politically charged circumstances, fails as a matter of law for two independent and compelling reasons.
2. First, the timing and context of the indictment establish a prima facie case of vindictive prosecution, violating Mr. Comey’s Due Process rights. The prosecution is a direct and transparent response to public demands for vengeance from a political adversary, rather than the impartial administration of justice.
3. Second, even accepting the indictment’s allegations as true, the statements in question are non-actionable as they are either immaterial or protected expressions of recollection and belief, and thus fail to state an offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1505.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On September 30, 2020, Mr. Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. During questioning, he affirmed his prior testimony regarding media contact protocols. (Indictment ¶ 6).
2. For nearly five years, career prosecutors at the Department of Justice declined to bring charges related to this testimony, finding no probable cause of criminal conduct.
3. On September 20, 2025, a prominent political figure publicly demanded the prosecution of Mr. Comey. Within days, the sitting U.S. Attorney for this district was replaced with a political loyalist lacking prior prosecutorial experience.
4. On September 25, 2025, a grand jury returned the instant indictment, just days before the statute of limitations was set to expire. Notably, the grand jury rejected at least one proposed count sought by the prosecution, signaling weakness in the government’s theory.
ARGUMENT
I. THE INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT IS THE PRODUCT OF TRUMP’S VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION.
1. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits a prosecutor from punishing a defendant for exercising a protected legal right. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 27-28 (1974). A presumption of vindictiveness arises when circumstances show a "reasonable likelihood" that the prosecution is retaliatory. United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 373 (1982).
2. Here, the sequence of events creates an undeniable presumption of vindictiveness: a. Political Pressure: The prosecution was initiated immediately following a public, vengeful demand from a political adversary of Mr. Comey. b. Change in Prosecutorial Control: The lead prosecutor was replaced with a individual whose appointment was a direct consequence of that political pressure. c. Last-Minute Timing: The indictment was filed at the eleventh hour, after years of inaction by career professionals, suggesting an improper motive to avoid the expiration of the statute of limitations rather than a bona fide belief in the merits of the case.
3. The Supreme Court has consistently condemned the use of the criminal justice system to settle political scores. See, e.g., Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985) (holding that prosecution based on "arbitrary classification" such as political affiliation violates the Constitution). The government cannot rebut this presumption, and the indictment must be dismissed to protect the integrity of the judicial process.
II. THE INDICTMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE A VIOLATION OF LAW BECAUSE THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT MATERIALLY FALSE.
1. To sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the government must prove, inter alia, that the alleged false statement was "material" to the federal inquiry. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995). A statement is material if it has "a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision-making body." Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988).
2. The indictment alleges Mr. Comey’s statement about authorizing media contacts was false. However, the line of questioning was a minor, tangential point in a broader congressional hearing. The core subject of the hearing was the FBI's investigation into a presidential campaign, not the minutiae of media protocol for a closed investigation from years prior.
3. As a matter of law, a statement concerning a collateral matter cannot form the basis for a prosecution. See United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 502 (5th Cir. 2012) (dismissing a § 1001 charge where the false statement was not capable of influencing the agency's function). The defense will demonstrate that the committee’s investigation and findings were in no way dependent on Mr. Comey’s answer to this specific question.
4. Furthermore, the statement, "I stand by that testimony," is an affirmation of a prior belief or recollection, not a statement of provable fact. The Eleventh Circuit has held that "statements of opinion, belief, or recollection" are not actionable under false statement statutes. United States v. Ajayi, 808 F.3d 1113, 1122-23 (11th Cir. 2015). The ambiguity of the term "authorize" in this context further supports dismissal.
STATELESS WARRIOR’S CONCLUSION
The indictment against my honorable client James B. Comey is a legally insufficient instrument born of an unconstitutional, vindictive motive. It threatens the foundational principle that the administration of justice must be impartial and free from political influence. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the indictment with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________ Stateless Warrior, Esq. Fcuk Trump MAGA Bitches & Associates, P.C. 123 Liberty Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 555-0123 Counsel for Defendant James B. Comey
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this day, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss was served upon all parties of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system.
____________________ Stateless Ho, Ho, Whore, Esq.
Date: October 9, 2025
Hey, hope you had a good laugh…
~Stateless Warrior
Being Mathematician at heart, I will examine the legal merits of the indictment and suggest comprehensive defense strategies because former FBI Director is a just man innocent of false accusations ass yanked by Trump’s DOJ infiltrator Con-Team. The case however, presents extraordinary challenges, combining complex legal questions about false statements and obstruction with unprecedented allegations of political interference. Because of it — I think. — that Comey’s defense must navigate not only courtroom tactics but also the court of public opinion, where perceptions of justice could have lasting institutional consequences. As the case proceeds toward an October 9 arraignment before U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, a Biden appointee, the legal strategies employed will test fundamental principles about the separation of powers and the independence of federal law enforcement from executive influence but I will steadfastly support honorable Director Comey, not the self admitted pussy grabber and Conman Trump…
The charges against Comey center on a specific exchange during his September 30, 2020, Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, when Senator Ted Cruz questioned him about whether he had authorized anyone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source in media reports concerning investigations related to Hillary Clinton. Comey responded, "I stand by that testimony," referring to his 2017 assertion that he did not authorize such leaks. The indictment alleges this statement was false because Comey "had in fact authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1…” While not explicitly named in the indictment, the context suggests Person 1 is Hillary Clinton and Person 3 is former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who told the Justice Department's inspector general that Comey authorized him to speak with a reporter about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation…
Charge Legal Statute Maximum Penalty Key Element to Prove
Making a false statement 18 U.S.C. § 1001 5 years imprisonment Knowingly and willfully making a materially false statement
Obstruction of a congressional proceeding 18 U.S.C. § 1505 5 years imprisonment Corruptly influencing, obstructing, or impeding a congressional inquiry so legal statutes underpinning these charges require prosecutors to meet specific evidentiary thresholds. For the false statement charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the weaponized government prosecutor conwoman, must prove: (1) a false statement was made; (2) it was material to the congressional investigation; (3) the defendant acted knowingly and willfully. The obstruction charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 requires proving: (1) there was a pending congressional proceeding; (2) the defendant was aware of it; (3) they corruptly attempted to influence, obstruct, or impede the proceeding; and (4) there was a nexus between the obstructive conduct and the proceeding. The term "corruptly" in obstruction statutes has been subject to varying interpretations but generally implies an improper purpose or intent to secure an unlawful advantage so I just wanted to clarify that… Notably, the grand jury rejected an additional false statement charge that prosecutors sought, indicating potential weaknesses in the government's case. This rejected charge reportedly concerned whether Comey had read a September 2016 report about the Clinton campaign's interest in using Trump's alleged Russia ties as a distraction. The partial rejection by the grand jury suggests that even after selective presentation of evidence, jurors found insufficient basis for all proposed charges—a point the defense I think should highlight to question this weaponized DOJ ass yanked case's overall strength. Trump the Conman’s CORRUPT CUNT prosecutor faces significant legal hurdles in securing a conviction, beginning with the challenge of proving materiality—that the alleged false statement had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the congressional investigation. Comey's legal team can argue that even if his statement about authorizing leaks was technically inaccurate (which they deny), it was immaterial to the Senate committee's oversight function. The investigation into the FBI's Russia probe had largely concluded by September 2020, and the specific question of who authorized media contacts about the Clinton Foundation investigation may have been peripheral to the main inquiry. Legal precedent establishes that trivial or insignificant falsehoods cannot support a conviction under § 1001, regardless of their technical falsity… Dumb MAGA fags didn’t know I am well versed in their American g-fag laws huh? You will now sorry ass low IQ’d mother fuckers! Appointed MAGA cunt prosecution's greatest challenge will be proving criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt because this dumb white MAGA BITCH in order to establish that Comey acted "knowingly and willfully," this hoe’ must show he deliberately lied with specific intent to violate the law, not merely that he misspoke, misremembered, or interpreted a question differently than prosecutors now do… "Perjury is a very difficult crime for Trump’s utterly corrupt DOJ cunts to prove... prosecutors must not only prove the statement was false, but also that the defendant knew it was false at the time…” Comey's defense can highlight that the questioning involved nuanced interpretations of what constitutes "authorizing" leaks, and that his response reflected his understanding of the term's meaning in the specific context of the exchange. American high-level officials often speak in measured, calculated language that gives room for clarification later, making it difficult to pinpoint deliberate deception… The context and phrasing of the questioning present additional obstacles I think… Comey was asked whether he authorized someone at the FBI "to be an anonymous source in news reports.” His defense can argue that this phrasing could be interpreted narrowly—referring to formal authorization of a specific individual to serve as a regular anonymous source—rather than the broader concept of approving a subordinate to share information with media on a particular occasion. Andrew McCabe's own credibility issues, documented in a 2018 Justice Department inspector general's report that found he made multiple false or misleading statements — further complicate the Trump DOJ handpicked Cunt’s prosecution's ability to prove what exactly was authorized and communicated. Without conclusive contemporaneous documentation or unambiguous evidence, the case may devolve into a "he said, she said" scenario insufficient for criminal conviction but great late Jerry Springer TV shit-show material — WOOHOO! The defense should immediately file a motion to dismiss based on selective and vindictive prosecution, arguing that the indictment resulted from unconstitutional political interference rather than impartial law enforcement cause the way I see it, nothing on merit, this case is DOJ ass yanked bullshit vindictive strategy Version 666! Hey, you Trump cunts and bitches should have an app developed from your DOJ G-cunt bullshit CASE LOADS! FurtherMORE: timeline is highly suggestive due to the fact that Conman Trump publicly demanded action against Comey on September 20, 2025; within days, U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert (who had reservations about the case) was replaced with Lindsey Halligan (interesting huh?)… Trump's former personal attorney with no prosecutorial experience; and an indictment followed just before the statute of limitations expired on September 30th if I am not mistaking the actual filing date? The defense can cite Halligan's unusual solo signature on the indictment—typically such documents also bear the names of career prosecutors who investigated the case—as evidence of irregular procedure. Additionally, the fact that the grand jury rejected one of the proposed charges indicates prosecutorial overreach. The defense should also highlight due process concerns regarding the vague nature of the charges, you should read the entire indictment if you want a good laugh!
The indictment fails to specify precisely what Comey authorized, when, and with whom, instead referring vaguely to "PERSON 3" and "PERSON 1" and already even if you are legally RETARDED and don’t even know what a Subpoena is, lacks specificity which makes it ALSO difficult for the Comey’s legal Counsel to prepare an adequate defense and violates fundamental fairness principles. The resignation of Comey's son-in-law, Troy Edwards, a prosecutor in the same office bringing the charges, "to uphold my oath to the Constitution and country" provides additional evidence of internal ethical concerns about the prosecution. These procedural arguments could result in dismissal or create appellate issues preserving defenses for higher review. On the substantive charges, the defense should attack each element systematically which is what I would do.. Against the false statement charge, Comey's team should emphasize the lack of materiality and ambiguous context of the questioning. The exchange with Senator Cruz was brief and referenced testimony from three years earlier. Comey stated he stood by his earlier answers "without elaborating" to me suggesting he was affirming his recollection and understanding at the time of the original testimony, not making a new categorical statement. The defense can introduce expert testimony on FBI protocols regarding media contacts to demonstrate that Comey's understanding of what constituted "authorizing" an "anonymous source" may have differed from the prosecution's interpretation…. For the obstruction charge, the defense must challenge the "corrupt" intent element by presenting evidence of Comey's consistent cooperation with congressional oversight throughout his career. The defense can argue that Comey participated in the hearing voluntarily and responded to questions in what he believed to be a truthful manner. Obstruction requires a "corrupt" purpose to impede proceedings, which is inconsistent with Comey's history of engagement with oversight bodies. The defense might also note that the information in question was already publicly known or that Comey believed his communications were protected by executive privilege or confidentiality considerations. By focusing on the requirement of corrupt intent, the defense can frame the obstruction charge as an unprecedented extension of the statute to circumstances that do not meet the legal standard — and that is all I’m sayin’, dig? Beyond technical legal arguments, the defense must craft a compelling counter-narrative that exposes the indictment as political retaliation. This narrative would emphasize that Comey is being targeted for his refusal to pledge personal loyalty to Trump and for overseeing the Russia investigation because he FIRED him over that… The defense can highlight the stark contrast between this prosecution and the findings of previous investigations—including Special Counsel John Durham's probe during Trump's first term, which did not charge Comey with any crime. This history suggests the current indictment stems from political pressure rather than new evidence EVEN to stupid FSB fucks in Kremlin where Trump serves as their ass kisser! The defense should also present Comey as a public servant acting in good faith rather than a criminal. Character witnesses from both political parties could testify to Comey's integrity throughout his decades of public service. The defense might contextualize the alleged conduct within broader FBI media engagement practices, arguing that limited, authorized disclosures to reporters sometimes serve legitimate law enforcement purposes rather than constituting improper leaks. By focusing on Comey's intentions rather than narrow semantic disputes, the defense can appeal to jurors' sense of fairness and proportionality.
In retrospect, I think that this false assumption yanked indictment of James Comey represents more than a legal proceeding against an individual; it shows how Donald J. Trump utterly corrupted DOJ and completely obliterated Justice Department's independence from political influence so my defense strategies outlined above—combining procedural challenges, substantive legal arguments, and compelling narrative-building—offer a viable path to acquittal. However, the case's significance transcends its outcome in American courts because “the rule of law was supposed to replace vendettas, blood feuds, and mad kings exacting vengeance on their perceived enemies so I believe that this sordid episode is one more savage assault on justice in America" and therefore egardless of one's view of Comey, the precedent set by this prosecution will unfortunately reshape the relationship between executive power and federal law enforcement for generations and the coming trial will unfold against a backdrop of profound institutional concerns, with career prosecutors reportedly resisting the case and the judge already expressing confusion about the unusual indictment process — and I note that here in case you missed it and didn’t pickup on it? Ultimately, this case will be decided on whether the jury perceives the prosecution as legitimate law enforcement or political retaliation DEPARTMENT! Comey's declaration that "we will not live on our knees" encapsulates the defense's strategy to frame the trial as a defense of democratic norms rather than merely a determination of individual guilt. However the case concludes, it will inevitably influence public trust in legal institutions and establish precedents about the permissible bounds of presidential influence over justice—outcomes that will long outlast the specific charges against this particular defendant and if I were you let me assure you that Conman only have ONE THING other mind which is their NEXT BIG CON! The fact that a convicted Conman infiltrated ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH and CORRUPTED it, demonstrates importance of keeping even most sophisticated Conmen, where they belong in PRISON!
Don’t be a sucker!
But wait, ain’t this a satire site?
Yup!
Not a legal Eagle “CASE WIGGLE?”
Nope!
So I drafted a dummy legal document contextualizing actual legal arguments and case law references for the indictment of James Comey to have this bullshit case DISMISSED! Of course, I am not a licensed attorney so this is for entertainment purposes ONLY so don’t freakin call me after you get arrested cause I only do satire with serious legal reflections when cases get dire!
LEGAL STATELESS WARRIOR DISCLAIMER: This is my DUMMY LEGAL DOCUMENT which I created for entertainment and illustrative purposes only. It is NOT a legally binding filing, does not constitute legal advice, and should not be used in any actual legal proceeding. My arguments, while based on real legal principles, are applied to a bullshit scenario so while all my case citations are real, their application here is fictional cause I not a lawyer monkey but do have key of knowledge so nobody can do me Court funky — ya’ll dig?
Let me begin…
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Criminal No. 1:25-cr-00123 v.
MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT JAMES B. COMEY,
FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION of Defendant.
AND FAILURE TO STATE AN OFFENSE
DEFENDANT JAMES B. COMEY, by and through his undersigned counsel “STATELESS WARRIOR” respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(3)(B)(v), and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, for an order dismissing the indictment in its entirety. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This case presents a textbook example of a constitutionally impermissible prosecution. The indictment, brought under highly unusual and politically charged circumstances, fails as a matter of law for two independent and compelling reasons.
2. First, the timing and context of the indictment establish a prima facie case of vindictive prosecution, violating Mr. Comey’s Due Process rights. The prosecution is a direct and transparent response to public demands for vengeance from a political adversary, rather than the impartial administration of justice.
3. Second, even accepting the indictment’s allegations as true, the statements in question are non-actionable as they are either immaterial or protected expressions of recollection and belief, and thus fail to state an offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1505.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On September 30, 2020, Mr. Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. During questioning, he affirmed his prior testimony regarding media contact protocols. (Indictment ¶ 6).
2. For nearly five years, career prosecutors at the Department of Justice declined to bring charges related to this testimony, finding no probable cause of criminal conduct.
3. On September 20, 2025, a prominent political figure publicly demanded the prosecution of Mr. Comey. Within days, the sitting U.S. Attorney for this district was replaced with a political loyalist lacking prior prosecutorial experience.
4. On September 25, 2025, a grand jury returned the instant indictment, just days before the statute of limitations was set to expire. Notably, the grand jury rejected at least one proposed count sought by the prosecution, signaling weakness in the government’s theory.
ARGUMENT
I. THE INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT IS THE PRODUCT OF TRUMP’S VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION.
1. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits a prosecutor from punishing a defendant for exercising a protected legal right. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 27-28 (1974). A presumption of vindictiveness arises when circumstances show a "reasonable likelihood" that the prosecution is retaliatory. United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 373 (1982).
2. Here, the sequence of events creates an undeniable presumption of vindictiveness: a. Political Pressure: The prosecution was initiated immediately following a public, vengeful demand from a political adversary of Mr. Comey. b. Change in Prosecutorial Control: The lead prosecutor was replaced with a individual whose appointment was a direct consequence of that political pressure. c. Last-Minute Timing: The indictment was filed at the eleventh hour, after years of inaction by career professionals, suggesting an improper motive to avoid the expiration of the statute of limitations rather than a bona fide belief in the merits of the case.
3. The Supreme Court has consistently condemned the use of the criminal justice system to settle political scores. See, e.g., Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985) (holding that prosecution based on "arbitrary classification" such as political affiliation violates the Constitution). The government cannot rebut this presumption, and the indictment must be dismissed to protect the integrity of the judicial process.
II. THE INDICTMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE A VIOLATION OF LAW BECAUSE THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT MATERIALLY FALSE.
1. To sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the government must prove, inter alia, that the alleged false statement was "material" to the federal inquiry. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995). A statement is material if it has "a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision-making body." Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988).
2. The indictment alleges Mr. Comey’s statement about authorizing media contacts was false. However, the line of questioning was a minor, tangential point in a broader congressional hearing. The core subject of the hearing was the FBI's investigation into a presidential campaign, not the minutiae of media protocol for a closed investigation from years prior.
3. As a matter of law, a statement concerning a collateral matter cannot form the basis for a prosecution. See United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 502 (5th Cir. 2012) (dismissing a § 1001 charge where the false statement was not capable of influencing the agency's function). The defense will demonstrate that the committee’s investigation and findings were in no way dependent on Mr. Comey’s answer to this specific question.
4. Furthermore, the statement, "I stand by that testimony," is an affirmation of a prior belief or recollection, not a statement of provable fact. The Eleventh Circuit has held that "statements of opinion, belief, or recollection" are not actionable under false statement statutes. United States v. Ajayi, 808 F.3d 1113, 1122-23 (11th Cir. 2015). The ambiguity of the term "authorize" in this context further supports dismissal.
STATELESS WARRIOR’S CONCLUSION
The indictment against my honorable client James B. Comey is a legally insufficient instrument born of an unconstitutional, vindictive motive. It threatens the foundational principle that the administration of justice must be impartial and free from political influence. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the indictment with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________ Stateless Warrior, Esq. Fcuk Trump MAGA Bitches & Associates, P.C. 123 Liberty Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 555-0123 Counsel for Defendant James B. Comey
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this day, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss was served upon all parties of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system.
____________________ Stateless Ho, Ho, Whore, Esq.
Date: October 9, 2025
Hey, hope you had a good laugh…
~Stateless Warrior
Categories:
People and Blogs
