Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi was called to the Hill to testify before congressional committees.
The hot topic of the day was the Department of Justice's investigation into the likes of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Now, there is another problem surrounding those prosecutions, in that Comey and James’ defense teams are trying to undermine the authority of the DOJ's attorney.
When Bondi was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she was getting hammered about her conversations with the president and also about these specific prosecutions.
Bondi never caved, replying, "I took office with two main goals: to end the weaponization of justice and return the department to its core mission of fighting violent crime.. While there is more work to do, I believe in eight short months we have made tremendous progress towards those ends."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) responded, "Our nation's top law enforcement agency has become a shield for the president and his political allies when they engage in misconduct. In eight short months, you fundamentally transformed the Justice Department and left an enormous stain on American history. It will take decades to recover."
Funny, Democrats did not have the same opinion when it was Trump administration officials being hauled in.
Last week, it was announced that Letitia James had been indicted by a grand jury, a small fact that Democrats forget to mention when they discuss the politicization of these situations.
Ray Brescia, professor at Albany Law School who also worked on James’ transition team after her 2018 election win, believes the entire case will be dismissed due to “unconstitutional selective prosecution.”
Brescia contends, “James is charged with having engaged in mortgage fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. The case appears to rest on flimsy and conflicting evidence at best, has been brought on grounds that are rarely prosecuted and was filed over the objection of career lawyers within the Justice Department who did not think there was probable cause to bring the case.”
Correct me if I am wrong, that sure sounds like the argument the president's defense lawyers made when James sued Trump in civil court for very similar fraud charges.
Both Comey and James have something else in common, and that is that they want to have the prosecuting attorney removed as an unconstitutional appointment. They are arguing that since the original prosecutor was removed by Trump for declining to bring charges, the appointment of Lindsey Halligan is invalid.
Erik Siebert had been in place before Halligan was appointed, but he refused to prosecute the cases, so Trump had him removed and replaced with a more willing participant. Comey’s attorneys stated, "We think that’s an unlawful appointment.”
The DOJ is already up against it in this case, with Biden-appointed Judge Michael Nachmanoff having been assigned to the matter. In fact, the DOJ has already lost one motion in the case to keep “protected” evidence away from the Comey defense team.
The indictment was one thing, but winning these cases may prove to be nearly impossible, considering the jury pool and its potential bias. And if government lawyers don’t win, this entire debacle will blow up in their faces and be used against the GOP in the upcoming election cycle. Launching these prosecutions was a risky move by the DOJ, and I really hope it pays off, because I believe both of these individuals are guilty, especially Comey.
