(A)Political - September 27th

Good morning everyone,

Busy week in D.C. as usual. Let’s dive in!

Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia on counts of making a false statement and obstructing a congressional proceeding related to his 2020 Senate testimony, with an Oct. 9 arraignment and a public denial of wrongdoing. A new presidential memorandum orders a coordinated crackdown on organized left-wing political violence, placing the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces at the center alongside DOJ, DHS, and Treasury using existing statutes and financial-tracing tools. The administration plans to channel a portion of tariff receipts to U.S. farmers through USDA-run payments, echoing prior trade-war aid while final program details on eligibility and amounts remain pending.

• Former FBI Director Comey Now Federally Indicted

• Trump Orders Crackdown On Left Wing Violence

• Federal Tariff Revenue Set To Go To Farmers

Former FBI Director Comey Now Federally Indicted

_{By: Atlas}

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury on Thursday, on two charges related to his Sept. 30, 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The indictment, filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleges one count of making a false statement and one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding. Prosecutors say the statements at issue concerned whether Comey authorized or was aware of disclosures to the press about FBI matters during the 2016 investigations. Comey released a brief video after the charges were announced, saying he is innocent and that he has confidence in the judicial process. An arraignment has been set for Oct. 9 in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.

The Charges and the Testimony at Issue

The false-statement count is brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and alleges that Comey “willfully and knowingly” made a materially false representation to Congress when he denied authorizing anyone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source for reporting related to FBI investigations. The obstruction count is brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 and alleges that Comey “corruptly endeavored” to influence, obstruct, or impede the Senate Judiciary Committee’s work through those statements during sworn testimony.

According to the indictment, the government’s theory rests on the materiality of the specific exchanges and on contemporaneous records and witness accounts about internal authorization for media contacts in 2016. In the 2020 hearing, senators questioned Comey on decision-making around politically sensitive cases and on whether senior officials were cleared to speak to reporters on background. The indictment mirrors the structure of other congressional-testimony cases: it identifies particular answers, alleges falsity, and links the answers to the committee’s fact-finding mandate.

Prosecutors sought two counts; a third proposed false-statement charge tied to a separate line of questioning was presented to the grand jury but not returned. Each of the two charged offenses carries a maximum statutory penalty of five years’ imprisonment. As in comparable cases, sentencing—if there is a conviction—would depend on federal guidelines and judicial findings about loss, intent, and other factors.

How the Case Came Together

The timing tracks the five-year limitations period for offenses connected to the 2020 testimony. The indictment was returned in Alexandria, where the U.S. Attorney’s Office presented witnesses and documentary material to the grand jury. The case stems from a broader review of disclosures by senior FBI officials in 2016 and 2017, and from later congressional inquiries into the origins and handling of the Trump–Russia and Clinton-related investigations.

A key part of the background is the longstanding dispute over who authorized what, when, during the final months of 2016. Public records from inspector general reviews and prior litigation describe differing accounts by former senior officials on background briefings and on a Wall Street Journal article concerning an FBI inquiry. The government now alleges that Comey’s categorical denials in 2020 were false and had the capacity to influence the Senate committee’s oversight. The defense is expected to argue that the answers were truthful as Comey understood them, that any discrepancies are immaterial, or that the questions and authorizations were too ambiguous to sustain a criminal charge.

Procedurally, the next steps are standard. Comey will appear for arraignment, enter a plea, and receive an initial schedule for motions and discovery. The court will address protective orders for sensitive material and set deadlines for pretrial filings. Discovery in a case of this type typically includes hearing transcripts, FBI communications, witness statements, and any exhibits the government plans to use to prove knowledge and materiality.

Reactions from the White House and Justice Department

President Donald Trump publicly welcomed the indictment. In social media posts and brief remarks to reporters, he characterized the charges as evidence that “justice in America” applies to senior officials, asserting that Comey “gave a very specific answer” under oath that was contradicted by other evidence. Asked whether the prosecution reflected personal payback, Trump said the matter was about enforcing the law and that charging decisions are made by prosecutors.

The Justice Department said the case demonstrates that “no one is above the law,” pointing to the statutes that govern truthfulness and obstruction in congressional proceedings. The FBI director issued a brief statement emphasizing that the bureau cooperates with lawful inquiries and that cases involving former leaders are handled by career personnel under established procedures. Critics of the case questioned its timing, noting it was filed close to the limitations deadline and after public calls by the president to pursue certain former officials. Supporters said the indictment is narrow, focused on sworn testimony rather than policy disagreements, and should be evaluated in court rather than in political forums.

Comey’s video response was concise. He said he is innocent, expressed confidence in the courts, and called for a trial to resolve the allegations. His legal team is expected to file motions challenging the sufficiency of the indictment, the materiality element, and the government’s interpretations of the 2020 exchanges.

What to Watch Next

Several points will define the trajectory. First, the defense’s pretrial motions: expect arguments over whether the statements identified in the indictment meet the legal standards for falsity and materiality, and whether the obstruction count can rest on the same testimony. Courts have held that materiality requires a natural tendency to influence a decision-making body; the parties will litigate how that applies to oversight hearings focusing on historical events.

Second, evidence of knowledge and authorization practices: the government will seek to show that Comey’s public denials in 2020 were inconsistent with contemporaneous authorizations or internal understandings. That likely means testimony from former FBI officials with firsthand knowledge of media contacts during 2016 and 2017, as well as documentary records. The defense may counter with witnesses and records suggesting that any approvals were narrower than prosecutors allege or that Comey’s statements reflected his good-faith understanding of policy and practice at the time.

Third, the schedule and venue dynamics: cases in the Eastern District of Virginia tend to move quickly. Protective orders for sensitive materials and any classification issues will affect timing, but the court’s standard “rocket docket” practices favor firm dates for motions, hearings, and trial.

Fourth, the political environment: while outside the courtroom, public debate will continue over the implications for congressional oversight and for the Justice Department’s independence. The court process, however, will confine itself to the charges at hand—whether two specific statements were false, knowingly made, and material, and whether they amounted to obstruction of a congressional proceeding.

On the record today are the essential facts: a two-count federal indictment tied to sworn testimony; an announced arraignment date in Alexandria; a defendant’s categorical claim of innocence; and a president’s public endorsement of the case coupled with department statements that emphasize the rule of law. The outcome will depend on the evidence presented in court and on the legal standards that govern false statements and obstruction in the congressional context.

Subscribe to (A)Political to read the rest.