Since Blanche took over the top post in April, the Justice Department has brought criminal charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center, released a report alleging misconduct in prior prosecutions of anti-abortion activists, and indicted a former National Institutes of Health official for allegedly concealing records related to COVID-19 pandemic research.
Trump has for years railed against Comey over his role overseeing an FBI investigation into alleged ties between Trump’s first presidential campaign and Russian officials in 2016. The Justice Department brought a separate case against Comey last September, accusing him of lying in congressional testimony about authorising disclosures to the news media about FBI investigations.
A federal judge dismissed the case after finding that the prosecutor who secured the indictment was not lawfully appointed. The Justice Department is appealing the ruling.
That case was brought after Trump issued a call on social media for Bondi to seek criminal charges against Comey and other Trump adversaries. The Justice Department for decades sought to preserve distance between the White House and individual criminal investigations.
The first case against Comey encountered several legal obstacles. A federal judge found that the lead prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, may have made serious legal errors before the grand jury that approved the indictment. Another judge later blocked the Justice Department from using crucial evidence, finding that prosecutors had violated protections against unlawful searches and seizures in the US Constitution.
Comey‘s lawyers said the case was a vindictive prosecution brought to punish Comey for his criticism of Trump, which the defence may revive in the latest case.
The case is also likely to be challenged on free speech grounds. The First Amendment to the US Constitution includes robust protections for political statements, even those that use intimidating language or advocate violence.
The Constitution does not, however, protect direct threats to a person’s life or safety, legal scholars say.
“We will contest these charges in the courtroom and look forward to vindicating Mr Comey and the First Amendment,” Comey lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement.
The US Supreme Court has not clearly defined a “true threat”, scholars say, making it difficult for police and prosecutors to know where to draw the line. Law enforcement officials often look for language or context that reflects a clear intent to act or instil fear, rather than simply suggesting a frightening outcome.
The First Amendment has at times posed obstacles for the Justice Department in investigating people who direct explicitly intimidating and violent language at public officials.
