Former FBI Director James Comey will be arraigned on two felony counts in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Wednesday. News reports indicate that he is charged with obstruction and lying to Congress about a scheme to leak information to the press about an FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton‘s use of a computer server to store government documents illegally. To the surprise of many, the charges against Comey aren’t related to anything he did to President Donald Trump.
I certainly don’t know if Comey is guilty of the crimes with which he has been charged. As a defense attorney, I always stand by the fundamental American legal principle that every criminal defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before an impartial judge or jury of his peers.
COMEY WON’T APPEAR BEFORE HOUSE OVERSIGHT, DENIES KNOWLEDGE OF EPSTEIN FILES
But the rhetoric from the liberal media and Comey’s defenders is dripping with irony. Legacy media has gone so far as to cheer and applaud career prosecutors for nailing manifestos to their office walls, declaring the end of impartial justice and the collapse of the American legal system.
The pearl clutching is so tight that these fired prosecutors should be thankful that blood pressure medicine is covered under their new COBRA health plan.
“Selective prosecution,” they scream out on MSNBC.
“Comey Indictment Shows Danger of Subservient Prosecutors,” writes liberal Joyce Vance.
“Trump’s Threat to Justice: Comey and the Politics of Prosecution,” writes former prosecutor James Zirin.
They call the indictment a stain on the judicial system. I call their analysis selective amnesia. Just 16 months ago, I sat in an old, cold New York City courtroom alongside now-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and now-Judge Emil Bove to defend Trump, then the presumptive Republican nominee, in a criminal prosecution brought by a partisan elected Democrat district attorney.
One of the district attorney’s lead lawyers on the prosecution team had been handpicked from the top ranks of the Biden Justice Department. The jury of Trump’s peers was a pool of citizens who had voted over 90% for Joe Biden in the 2020 election. And the judge’s daughter literally worked for then-Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump’s political opponent.
It’s funny, I don’t recall seeing many manifestos posted to office doors or hearing much from the media and establishment then about “selective prosecution” and the collapse of the judicial system.
When we moved for dismissal of the criminal charges against Trump on the grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution, our arguments were ridiculed as frivolous and laughed at by the D.C. establishment. Back then, the rhetoric of the day was “Nobody is above the law,” “Justice is coming to Trump,” and the always famous “Lock him up!”
While serving as one of Trump’s defense attorneys, I watched numerous judges refuse and prosecutors openly mock our selective prosecution argument, time and time again. Here’s a timeline:
- Nov. 6, 2023: In the federal election interference case, prosecutors rebuffed Trump’s arguments for dismissal based on selective and vindictive prosecution, describing them as “distortions and misrepresentations” in a court filing.
- Feb. 15, 2024: In the New York hush money case, Judge Juan Merchan denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the charges, which included claims of selective prosecution, allowing the trial to proceed as scheduled.
- Feb. 26, 2024: In the classified documents case, federal prosecutors rejected Trump’s claims of unfair or selective prosecution in a filing, arguing that the charges were based on his unique conduct in retaining and obstructing the return of classified materials.
- Aug. 3, 2024: In the federal election interference case, Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment on grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution, stating there was no evidence of political motivation by President Joe Biden or the Justice Department influencing the case.
But now, when James Comey’s attorneys and the so-called “legal experts” make similar claims, the legacy press treats it as not only credible, but compelling. It’s not.
GRAND JURY INDICTS FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY
What criminal charge does Comey face? A criminal charge that has nothing to do with Trump. Who is the likely federal judge overseeing the case? A gentleman who was appointed by Biden. What kind of jury pool will he face? A group of people who will likely be 50% Republican and 50% Democratic. Who is his defense attorney? A former senior U.S. attorney and former partner at America’s top law firm, Skadden.
The liberal media and the anti-Trump legal establishment aren’t fooling anyone. Their proxy outrage over the Comey indictment is a mere symptom of their continued disdain for the duly elected 45th and 47th president.
Kendra Wharton is a former associate deputy attorney general and senior member of Trump’s legal team. She is the founder and managing attorney at Wharton Law PLLC.
