WASHINGTON — James Comey is arguing the felony case in opposition to him for allegedly mendacity to Congress ought to be tossed out on the grounds that Sen. Ted Cruz’s questioning of him was too lengthy and complicated — and the previous FBI director’s reply was true regardless.
Attorneys for Comey, 64, claimed his congressional testimony that he didn’t approve leaks to the media about his investigation of Trump wasn’t a lie — and that the feedback had been made after the Texas Republican senator’s allegedly rambling query.
“The indictment conspicuously omits the prolonged, complicated questions that prompted Mr. Comey’s testimony,” the legal professionals wrote in paperwork filed Thursday in an Alexandria, Va., court docket, which quoted from a Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 30, 2020.
The Lone Star State politician requested Comey “to recall statements he had made three years earlier and to concurrently tackle statements that Senator Cruz incorrectly claimed had been made by Andrew McCabe, the previous Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” they stated.
“Seen in context, Senator Cruz’s questions can not type the premise for” the costs in opposition to Comey “as a result of they had been basically ambiguous. And, regardless, Mr. Comey’s solutions to them had been actually true,” the attorneys added within the 23-page submitting.
“A false-statements cost that rests on a selected interpretation of a basically ambiguous query have to be dismissed.”
The indictment, introduced by interim US Legal professional Lindsey Halligan, charged the previous FBI boss with one rely of creating a false assertion to Congress and one rely of obstructing a congressional continuing.
If convicted, Comey might serve a most sentence of 5 years in federal jail.
Comey has pleaded not responsible and claimed the case was introduced in opposition to him for political causes at President Trump’s behest in retaliation for Comey’s probe into alleged collusion between Trump’s 2016 presidential marketing campaign and Russian officers.
Cruz on the time of the listening to was looking for to level out discrepancies in statements made by each Comey and McCabe in separate congressional and federal inquiries.
McCabe had instructed the Justice Division inspector basic’s workplace that his boss on the bureau stated it was “good” he was passing sure data alongside to The Wall Avenue Journal.
That data, offered in an Oct. 30, 2016, article, contained particulars a few pending investigation of the Clinton Basis, and the FBI director and deputy director mentioned the disclosure the day after, in line with the DOJ OIG report launched in February 2018.
Cruz’s meandering line of questioning was additionally much less direct than the inquiry he referenced that made by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) three years prior with reference to the FBI leaks, prompting Comey’s protection workforce to argue for dismissal of the primary rely in opposition to him.
“Director Comey, have you ever ever been an nameless supply in information reviews about issues regarding the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?” Grassley requested within the Could 3, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee listening to.
“By no means,” Comey replied.
“Query two on [sic] comparatively associated, have you ever ever approved another person on the FBI to be an nameless supply in information reviews concerning the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?” the Iowa Republican pressed.
“No,” Comey answered.
In 2020, he affirmed: “I stand by what, the testimony you summarized that I gave in Could of 2017.”
Federal prosecutors alleged of their indictment that the “assertion was false, as a result of as JAMES B. COMEY JR. then and there knew, he the truth is had approved PERSON 3 to function an nameless supply in information reviews relating to an FBI investigation regarding PERSON 1.”
Thursday’s movement to dismiss famous that Halligan’s workforce has since recognized “PERSON 1” as Hillary Clinton and “PERSON 3” as Daniel Richman, a Columbia Regulation College professor and former prosecutor — not McCabe.
“Senator Cruz’s questions are basically ambiguous as a result of folks of extraordinary mind wouldn’t be anticipated to grasp that he meant to ask a broad query about Mr. Comey’s interactions with anybody on the FBI—together with Daniel Richman—throughout a colloquy centered on Mr. McCabe,” wrote protection lawyer Jessica Carmichael.
“Quite the opposite, an inexpensive individual readily would have understood Senator Cruz to be asking solely whether or not Mr. Comey had particularly approved Mr. McCabe to be an nameless supply in information reviews.”
Carmichael additionally claimed the second rely in opposition to Comey ought to be tossed out as a result of the cost “rests on the identical false statements as Rely One.”
Some legal professionals have prompt that a superseding indictment may very well be forthcoming within the case to offer extra proof that Comey lied — however the protection additionally addressed that eventuality of their submitting.
“The federal government can not strive Mr. Comey on cherry-picked statements from a four-hour listening to with out specifying which assertion it believes is fake or deceptive,” Carmichael added. “And certainly the federal government doesn’t consider that it might safe an indictment primarily based on one assertion positioned earlier than the grand jury after which swap to a unique assertion at trial.”
In a separate submitting, Comey’s workforce requested for entry to the grand jury proceedings.
Different court docket papers requested a video clip of Cruz’ query as an exhibit to help their movement to dismiss the 2 expenses Comey faces: mendacity to Congress and obstruction of justice.
Comey — who’s out free on his personal recognizance — is ready to go on trial on Jan. 5, 2026 however he’s looking for to throw out the claims on a number of grounds earlier than then — together with that Jap District of Virginia US Legal professional Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s former private lawyer, was allegedly wrongly appointed to the publish by him.
Reps for the US Legal professional’s Workplace within the Jap District of Virginia didn’t reply to a request for remark.
