Stanford Legal Political Enemies and the Weaponization of the DOJ
Oct 16, 2025
Professor Robert Weisberg, co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, joins to delve into the implications of politically motivated indictments against figures like James Comey and Letitia James. Weisberg explains the intricacies of federal grand jury processes, highlighting how recent cases break traditional norms of the DOJ. He explores the thin legal foundations of these charges, the concept of selective versus vindictive prosecution, and the potential challenges that might arise. The discussion also touches on expected future indictments in a politically charged climate.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
How Federal Grand Juries Actually Work
- Federal grand juries are one-sided proceedings where prosecutors present evidence without needing unanimity or defense arguments.
- DOJ guidelines urge good-faith belief in guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but prosecutors often omit exculpatory narratives to secure indictments.
Unusual Role Of Political Appointees
- Lindsey Halligan's direct role in presenting indictments diverges sharply from normal U.S. attorney practice and raised credibility concerns.
- Career prosecutors reportedly declined to bring charges, prompting political appointees to step in to pursue weak cases.
Thin Indictment, Thin Narrative
- The Comey indictment is unusually spare and fails to narrate the alleged false statement or obstruction clearly.
- Thin indictments make it harder to understand the charges and may signal weak prosecutorial footing.
