On Thursday, James Comey became the first former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be indicted for a federal crime.
That is likely the only fact upon which you will receive anything close to agreement in the country.
For some, the two-count indictment is a long-overdue accountability for a man who pushed through the now-debunked Russian collusion investigation.
For others, it is another abuse on President Donald Trump’s revenge tour.
There are legitimate concerns about the targeting of a political critic of the President, who publicly complained just days ago that Attorney General Pam Bondi was not indicting Comey and others.
However, Comey is hardly the pristine model of “ethical leadership” that he described in his book. Putting aside his critical role in the Russian collusion investigation, Comey tossed aside even the pretense of ethics after Trump fired him.
The Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, issued a scathing report that found Comey was a leaker and had violated FBI policy in his handling of FBI memos.
On his way out of the Bureau, Horowitz wrote, Comey improperly removed FBI materials, including those containing the “code name and true identity” of a sensitive source.
While he did not find that he disclosed the classified information, Horowitz found that Comey took “the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.”
He further added that Comey “set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees — and the many thousands of more former FBI employees — who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.”
Comey later admitted that he asked his friend, Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman, to leak information from the documents to the New York Times.
Comey’s close associate, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, stated that Comey instructed him to leak information to the media. Comey denied that repeatedly under oath.
James Baker, FBI general counsel and a close adviser to Comey, also told investigators that he was “under the belief” that he was “ultimately instructed and authorized to [provide information to the Times] by then FBI Director James Comey.”
That sets up a straightforward question: Who is lying?
It could also set up a bizarre scene of McCabe or Baker testifying against their friend. Both men appear to despise Trump, so either could prove an overtly hostile witness for the prosecutors.
Washington will be glued to any such trial.
The only thing more unnerving than the alleged targeting of a political critic in Washington is the prosecution of a leaker.
This is a city that floats on a rolling sea of leaks.
The Justice Department is notorious for leaks made with lethal effect against targets.
Now the former FBI director will stand trial to see if he is a leaker and a liar.
There is one individual who is likely to be watching with particular interest and perhaps satisfaction: former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
Comey is facing two counts of making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding.
The first count under 18 U.S.C. 1001 (a)(2) is the exact charge that Comey engineered against Flynn.
Comey gave a book tour where he thrilled audiences about how he secured a criminal charge against Flynn for making false statements.
In one event, an audience cheered as Comey took credit for the controversial charge. He explained that what he did was not exactly proper. It was, he explained,
“Something we’ve, I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration … I thought, ‘It’s early enough, let’s just send a couple of guys over.’”
The actual agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he intentionally lied about a meeting with Russian diplomats, but Comey and his investigators pushed for charges anyway.
They drained Flynn of resources, threatened to indict his son, and ultimately secured a guilty plea.
Now it will be Comey in the dock, facing a charge of making a false statement.
He will do so as someone who has admitted to improperly removing FBI material and leaking information to the media.
The odds still favor Comey.
He will have a jury taken from a generally liberal, Democratic jury pool.
He is also a sophisticated player.
Perhaps that is why he issued a videotaped message saying effectively “bring it on” and let’s go to trial.
While an improvement over Comey’s bizarre seashell messages, the videotape message may be a bit too confident.
Perjury or false statements can be challenging to prove, particularly when vague or nuanced language is used.
This is neither vague nor nuanced.
Comey repeatedly swore that he never asked anyone at the FBI to leak information.
That is either true or it is not.
Comey will continue to be vilified and lionized by different parts of the population.
Yet, this is an ignoble moment that he helped bring about.
Notably, this indictment comes 50 years after the only Attorney General was convicted of crimes (including false statements and obstruction).
That was John Mitchell after the Watergate scandal.
Now the man who bragged about nailing Michael Flynn will face the same false statement charge.
The man who celebrated the charging of Donald Trump (including obstruction-related charges) will face his own obstruction charge.
Whether karma or lawfare, Comey will now have his day in court.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
This story originally appeared on NYPost
