James Comey faces two federal counts—lying to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding—that carry up to five years in prison. Yet he’s asking a court to throw the case out, claiming Senator Ted Cruz’s questions were so “long and confusing” that any truthful answer he gave should stand. That defense rings hollow.
Comey’s motion brands Cruz’s line of questioning “fundamentally ambiguous.” Yet in every courtroom in America, witnesses aren’t absolved of perjury because a lawyer rambles. If your question isn’t clear, you ask for clarity. Comey did neither.
The indictment zeroes in on a September 2020 Senate Judiciary hearing. Cruz pressed Comey about leaks to the media—asking if Comey had ever “authorized someone else at the FBI” to serve as an anonymous source. Comey responded, “No.” That answer was false, prosecutors say, because Comey had indeed green-lit disclosures through a Columbia professor, Daniel Richman.
Comey’s lawyers counter that Cruz was referring only to then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, not every FBI official. But that defense collapses on its own terms. Cruz’s question plainly used the phrase “someone else at the FBI,” an unambiguous catch-all. There’s simply no wiggle room for Comey’s broad denial.
On Count Two—obstruction—the defense argues it duplicates the false-statement charge. But federal law treats obstruction of a congressional proceeding as a separate crime. You can’t lie to Congress and then claim you didn’t obstruct it. The two counts stand on distinct legal footing.
Comey also challenges the authority of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, appointed amid Trump’s final days in office. He suggests her appointment was flawed. Yet no court has ever tossed an indictment on that technicality alone—especially when the evidence of wrongdoing is so clear.
Rumors swirl about a superseding indictment to shore up gaps in the current charges. But Comey’s core problem remains: he answered a direct question falsely. No motion to dismiss can erase that fact.
Comey, released on his own recognizance, is set for trial on January 5, 2026. If his motion fails, he’ll have to defend every misleading word under oath—precisely the accountability he spent years demanding from others. Adelante to the rule of law.
