The Lawfare Podcast Lawfare Live: Discussing the Hearings on James Comey’s Prosecution and the Alien Enemies Act
Nov 19, 2025
Join Molly Roberts, a Senior Editor known for her keen legal analysis, Roger Parloff, an experienced courtroom journalist, and Anna Bower, who provides on-the-ground insights from the recent hearings. They dive into the complexities surrounding James Comey’s prosecution, discussing key aspects like vindictive prosecution and the implications of a potential dismissal. Anna highlights irregularities in grand jury presentations, while Roger shares insights on contempt proceedings related to deportations. The panel also previews future hearings that could shake up the legal landscape.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Vindictiveness Framed As Direct Evidence
- Michael Dreeben framed Comey's motion around direct evidence of vindictive intent rather than seeking broad discovery.
- The court focused on direct statements and actions (including presidential remarks) as potentially dispositive of vindictiveness.
Imputation Versus Independent Prosecutor
- The government argued Halligan's independent role insulates the prosecution from presidential animus.
- The judge repeatedly pressed whether news reports and presidential statements could be relied on as direct evidence.
Timeline Links Public Attacks To Motive
- Dreeben emphasized a clear timeline linking Trump's public attacks and Comey's speech behavior to motive.
- The defense argued the prosecution served as a cudgel to silence dissent, supported by repeated presidential statements.