U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, appointed by President Trump, postponed a ruling on Friday regarding whether to dismiss the placeholder criminal case filed against former FBI Director James Comey. The delay gives the Justice Department a window to seek a new indictment over allegations that Comey leaked news media information in 2016.

Judge’s Remarks and Prosecutor’s Response

Judge McFadden acknowledged that, despite the Justice Department’s hopes, an indictment is not guaranteed in Washington, D.C., where grand juries have repeatedly declined to charge in politically sensitive matters. He warned that he would be “extremely frustrated if there’s some sort of dawn raid” to arrest Comey before an indictment is secured, echoing concerns raised by Comey’s defense team.

Prosecutor Dustin Farahnak responded, “That’s not going to happen,” indicating confidence that the process will follow proper legal channels.

Comey’s Legal Team Calls for Dismissal

Comey’s attorneys urged Judge McFadden to block the Justice Department from pursuing a third criminal case against the outspoken critic of President Trump. They argue the Department failed to obtain an indictment within the ten‑year statute of limitations, rendering the filed “waiverless criminal information” legally invalid.

“The criminal information in this case is time‑barred and must be dismissed,” said Ephraim McDowell, one of Comey’s lawyers.

Background on the Information Filing

The information was revealed in court documents unsealed Monday. It alleges that Comey participated in a 2016 news media leak. An information is typically used when a defendant waives the right to a grand jury indictment and intends to plead guilty; Comey has not waived that right, and his lawyers are contesting the charges.

The Justice Department defends the filing as a strategy to extend the statute of limitations while a grand jury reviews evidence. Prosecutors say they are presenting evidence to the grand jury that may fall within the limitations period.

Legal Debate Over Statute of Limitations

Comey’s counsel maintains that the law requires the Department to secure an indictment, not an information, within the ten‑year window. They argue that leaving the matter pending subjects Comey to an unfair “limbo” situation.

“Letting this hang out there pending is a very unfair and unjust result,” McDowell said, adding that Comey would essentially be “sitting here” under the threat of indictment even though the limitations period has expired.

Political Context

The case is the latest in a series of high‑profile investigations targeting Comey as the nation heads toward the midterm elections. President Trump fired Comey in May 2017 after the former director oversaw the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Since then, Comey has repeatedly criticized President Trump, likening him to a mafia don in his memoir, while President Trump has accused Comey of treason and called for his imprisonment.

Previous Legal Actions Against Comey

The first criminal case against Comey, accusing him of lying to Congress in 2020, was dismissed after a judge found the prosecutor had been illegally appointed. A separate pending indictment alleges Comey threatened President Trump through an Instagram photo of seashells arranged as “86 47,” a slang reference meaning “to get rid of” and the number of the current president.

Comey has called the latest effort “an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice,” insisting he remains innocent and confident in the independence of the federal judiciary.

Earlier Investigation Details

The latest allegation stems from an October 2016 New York Times story about a secret court order that required Yahoo to scan emails for potential foreign terrorist links. Prosecutors claim Comey directed staff to correct perceived misinformation in the press, allegedly transferring classified information illegally.

Federal authorities, including former special counsel John Durham, investigated the disclosure in 2017. Durham’s 2018 classified memo recommended no criminal charges. A 2019 follow‑up investigation, code‑named “Tropical Vortex,” was closed without charges in early 2020.

Outlook

Judge McFadden’s decision to hold off on an immediate ruling leaves the case in a state of uncertainty. The Justice Department will continue presenting evidence to the grand jury, and the ultimate outcome will depend on whether a formal indictment is secured before the statute of limitations expires.

Original reporting: KOAT Albuquerque — read the source article.