James Comey Pokes Giant Hole in Trump’s Revenge Suit Against Him

Former FBI Director James Comey may have ruined the federal government’s case against him.

Comey’s attorneys argued in a court filing Tuesday night that he was charged under the wrong law, making the government’s criminal indictment moot.

“On the actual question before the court, the government has little to offer,” the filing states. “A call for others to commit violence can only be incitement—which the indictment does not charge.”

Comey was charged with making threats against President Donald Trump by posting a picture to social media of seashells spelling out “86 47” in May last year. But his lawyers argued that the government made a mistake. Prosecuting Comey under the wrong law would unconstitutionally “broaden the possible bases for conviction beyond those included in the indictment.”

“The government’s attempt to prosecute an incitement case through a threats indictment violates settled law,” Comey’s lawyers wrote. “The indictment must be dismissed.”

Comey’s lawyers also mocked the federal government’s rationale that “86 47” constitutes a death threat, accusing federal prosecutors of relying on “a 2005 edition of Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang” and a 1991 New York Times article explaining to its readers that “86” was “military jargon for killed in action.”

The fact that prosecutors had to explain the term means that “the ordinary meaning of ‘86’ is not ‘to kill,’” the filing states, making it clear that “86 47” is “a statement of nonviolent political opposition.”

Trump is obviously using ginned-up charges to take revenge on Comey for supposedly wronging him during his first term as president. The case has been riddled with missteps since last year. It doesn’t help that the embattled current FBI Director Kash Patel cobbled the case together based on conspiracy theories, or that prosecutors consulted a former mobster in an attempt to prove that “86” was threatening language, only to be told their claims were bogus.

The Department of Justice even made the stunning claim that, while Trump or his supporters didn’t pressure the DOJ to prosecute Comey, it’s OK if the department has no independence from the president. This case has all kinds of issues, and Comey’s attorneys seem to have no trouble making it look like a farce.

Speaker Mike Johnson and the GOP have an even smaller House majority now after Democratic Representative Everton Blair of Georgia was sworn in on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

Republicans now have a 218–213 advantage over Democrats, and they’ll be down one more vote once California Democrat Aisha Wahab—who replaced scandal-ridden ex-Representative Eric Swalwell—is sworn in later this week.

Blair—Georgia’s first openly gay congressman—was victorious in a special election last month to complete the term of deceased Representative David Scott, and will only serve until January. State Representative Jasmine Clark will represent the party in the November midterm elections in a district that usually trends blue.

Swearing in two Democrats in one week is unusual for Johnson, as he has traditionally gone well out of his way to delay Democrats taking their seats—it took Representative Adelita Grijalva a record 50 days to be sworn into office, delaying the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. In contrast, it took him less than 48 hours to swear in a Republican colleague last year.

Blair was sworn in hours before a tense vote on the Republican legislative agenda—including a resolution to condemn socialism, among other things. The vote resulted in the bill’s survival and averted a government shutdown, as Democratic Representatives Jared Golden and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez joined Republicans to advance it, even though five other Republicans refused to do so.

Two Blue Dog Democrats rescued the Republican legislative agenda Tuesday, casting the votes needed to advance a slate of GOP-backed bills—to the embarrassment of the rest of the party.

Representatives Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington bridged the gap left by five Republicans who voted against the rule. Without Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez, it would not have passed. Among the proposed legislation now advancing to debate is a resolution to condemn socialism ahead of the midterm elections, a bill designed to punish universities that speak out against the Israeli government, and alterations to environmental protections for the North Atlantic right whale.

After the vote, congressional Democrats were quick to voice their surprise and frustration. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies told reporters that he “didn’t get a heads up,” and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that, when she sat at the helm of the chamber, “We didn’t even consider that anybody would do that…. We never had that problem, so I’m disappointed that they did that.”

“It’s one of the rules of being on a team, is that we vote against the rule,” Democratic Whip Katherine Clark told The Hill, referring to the precedent that members are generally expected to vote with their party when it comes to rules votes, regardless of how they plan to vote on the final legislation. “I’m sure we’ll have further discussions,” Clark said.

The five conservative Republican holdouts declined to vote to get their party’s rules over the finish line in protest of Republican leaders’ handling of an earlier vote Tuesday on government spending. Without Golden and Glusenkamp Perez’s surprise intervention, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson’s agenda for the week would have been dead on arrival.

Golden, who is not seeking reelection, is reportedly supportive of one of the Republican bills, which could protect a key Maine constituency—loberstermen—from the economic harm that may come from fishing regulations designed to protect the right whale.

The House of Representatives has returned from its five-week summer vacation, but for more than three dozen members that extended break apparently wasn’t enough.

According to the House clerk, 46 lawmakers failed to make it back to Washington in time for the first roll-call vote on Monday. The 6:56 p.m. event recorded the names of the missing members, which included 22 Republicans, 23 Democrats, and one independent. No lawmakers voted “present” on the bill, which aimed to establish national standards for the Justice Department to assess and respond to reports of sexual abuse by incarcerated people against prison staff.

Some of the missing lawmakers managed to make it to the lower chamber within the next 15 minutes, however, where a second roll-call vote took place at 7:10 p.m. At that point, 42 members (21 Republicans and 21 Democrats) were still missing in action, according to the clerk’s office.

The names of the representatives who still failed to arrive in time for the second vote Monday evening are listed below.

Democrats

• Nanette Barragán (California)
• Steve Cohen (Tennessee)
• Shomari Figures (Alabama)
• John Garamendi (California)
• Robert Garcia (California)
• Sylvia Garcia (Texas)
• Daniel Goldman (New York)
• Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
• Stephen Lynch (Massachusetts)
• Kweisi Mfume (Maryland)
• Seth Moulton (Massachusetts)
• Richard Neal (Massachusetts)
• Nancy Pelosi (California)
• Ayanna Pressley (Massachusetts)
• Delia Ramirez (Illinois)
• Jan Schakowsky (Illinois)
• Adam Smith (Washington)
• Haley Stevens (Michigan)
• Nydia Velázquez (New York)
• Bonnie Watson Coleman (New Jersey)
• Frederica Wilson (Florida)

Republicans

• Andy Barr (Kentucky)
• Vern Buchanan (Florida)
• Scott DesJarlais (Tennessee)
• Byron Donalds (Florida)
• Neal Dunn (Florida)
• Sam Graves (Missouri)
• Wesley Hunt (Texas)
• John James (Michigan)
• Dusty Johnson (South Dakota)
• Nancy Mace (South Carolina)
• Michael McCaul (Texas)
• Lisa McClain (Michigan)
• Daniel Meuser (Pennsylvania)
• Mary Miller (Illinois)
• Cory Mills (Florida)
• Jay Obernolte (California)
• Burgess Owens (Utah)
• Jefferson Shreve (Indiana)
• Victoria Spartz (Indiana)
• Pete Stauber (Minnesota)
• Thomas Tiffany (Wisconsin)

A federal judge lit into the Department of Health and Human Services, headed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for using either AI or fake studies to defend the Trump administration’s decision to fund only abstinence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs.

“While abstinence-only education may well be appropriate for some age groups or communities, the agency has offered no explanation or evidence to support its across-the-board mandate that only abstinence strategies be pursued,” U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper wrote in his opinion. “On the topic of body literacy, the notices (remarkably) reference public health studies that appear either not to exist or not to support the propositions for which they are cited—a hallmark of AI-generated citations.”

Cooper issued a preliminary injunction, pausing an order that has already led to millions of dollars in grant cuts.

“The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on their arbitrary and capricious claim, combined with the severity and irremediable harm to their programming and the balance of equities in their favor, justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction in this case,” he wrote.

This isn’t the first time the Trump administration—and HHS—have used AI to generate references or content. Last year, the department’s “Make America Healthy Again” report contained references to articles that didn’t exist and multiple citation errors.

The HHS is likely using fake AI slop to justify and defend bad MAHA policies that have real material impacts on the lives of everyday Americans, and could have alarming effects on public health.