Ex-Federal Prosecutor Says Comey Indictment Could 'Blow Up' in Trump's Face

A former federal prosecutor said Friday that the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey could backfire on Donald Trump if the charges are as weak as some observers contend. Andrew Weissmann, who worked on high-profile cases in the Mueller era, appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe to describe the charges against Comey as “extremely thin” and to speculate about the defense’s possible moves, including an immediate trial that could test the government’s strategy.

Weissmann argued that a weak case, if borne out by the evidence and the defense’s approach, could unravel quickly as a political and legal narrative. He noted that in recent weeks career DOJ officials, and even a Trump appointee, have resigned rather than move a case to a grand jury, a trend he said should give the public pause. “If this really is as thin as we suspect, that’s something they could do,” Weissmann said, suggesting the defense might push for rapid proceedings to highlight any gaps in the government’s argument. Such a tactic, he warned, could become a political headache for the Trump side if the public perceives the charges as overreaching.

The charges involve former FBI Director James Comey and stem from allegations that he made false statements to Congress in 2020, a pillar of the dispute over his handling of investigations during his tenure. The indictment was brought by the Department of Justice, with a Trump-nominated prosecutor, Erik Siebert, involved in the process; reports have said Siebert declined to prosecute Comey at one point due to concerns about the strength of the case. Weissmann’s characterization of the indictment as thin underscores a broader debate over how aggressively prosecutors can pursue high-profile figures while maintaining public confidence in their independence.

Observers noted that the timing and framing of the indictment could influence political optics ahead of upcoming electoral cycles. If defense teams press for expedited trials and the government cannot present a robust, easily understandable case, supporters of both sides will seize on the narrative to support their positions. The situation illustrates the persistent tension in U.S. politics between aggressive legal action and the perception of fairness and proportionality in high-stakes prosecutions.

Legal experts have stressed that the realism of any indictment rests on concrete evidence and the strength of the legal theory—elements that critics say have sometimes been foregrounded in political discussions surrounding Trump-related cases. The Comey matter, in particular, has drawn attention to the standards prosecutors apply when charging government officials with statements made in Congress or to investigators, and how these standards are applied in a highly politicized environment.

As the case moves forward, the key questions will hinge on how the defense responds, whether prosecutors offer additional details in court, and how the public weighs the credibility of the allegations in light of the broader political landscape. The next steps will reveal much about the DOJ’s approach to high-profile prosecutions and the enduring question of how such cases affect public trust in institutions.

Notes from the political and legal communities emphasize that outcomes in cases involving former administration officials often carry symbolic weight beyond the courtroom. The Comey indictment, regardless of its outcome, is likely to be cited in future debates over how accountability is enforced when political leaders and senior officials are involved. In the meantime, observers will closely watch prosecutorial strategy, defense tactics, and the evolving narrative around this case within the wider frame of U.S. politics.