Misleading.com Contributor Cynthia McCallum 9/26/25 1:45 PM MST
I wasn’t sent to settle scores. I was sent to ask why the truth keeps changing.”
In her first dispatch, Cynthia Kadell steps into the fog surrounding the Comey controversy—not to clear it, but to map its shifting terrain.
Cynthia McCallum joins Misleading.com with a dual-coast sensibility—rooted in Butte, Montana’s rugged realism and shaped by the political humidity of Pompano Beach, Florida. Her editorial voice is sharp, grounded, and unafraid to ask uncomfortable questions. In her debut piece, she tackles the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, a case that has reignited partisan fires and raised fundamental questions about justice, timing, and presidential power.
The Indictment: What Happened
On September 25, 2025, just days before the statute of limitations expired, James Comey was indicted on two felony counts: obstruction of a congressional proceeding and making false statements during his 2020 Senate Judiciary testimony. The charges stem from Comey’s denial that he authorized leaks related to the FBI’s investigations into Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Prosecutors allege that Comey knowingly misled Congress, citing internal FBI communications and testimony from his former deputy, Andrew McCabe.
The indictment was brought by Lindsey Halligan, a newly appointed U.S. Attorney and former Trump legal advisor. Her predecessor, Erik Siebert, reportedly refused to pursue charges, citing lack of probable cause. Halligan’s swift action—days after her appointment—has led critics to question whether the indictment was legally sound or politically engineered.
The Right’s Case: Accountability and Collusion
For many on the political right, Comey’s indictment is long overdue. They argue that the former FBI Director weaponized federal law enforcement against Trump during the 2016 election and its aftermath. The Russia investigation, launched under Comey’s leadership, is viewed by Trump allies as a partisan smear campaign rooted in fabricated intelligence and media manipulation.
“Justice delayed is not justice denied,” said Peter Navarro, echoing a sentiment shared by many in Trump’s circle. Attorney General Pam Bondi declared, “No one is above the law,” framing the indictment as a restoration of public trust. FBI Director Kash Patel went further, calling it “a step toward full accountability” and condemning past leadership for eroding institutional integrity.
The core of the right’s argument is that Comey lied to Congress and colluded—if not with Russia, then with anti-Trump forces—to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. They point to Comey’s October 28, 2016 letter to Congress about Hillary Clinton’s emails, followed by his role in launching the Russia probe, as evidence of erratic and politically motivated behavior.
“He played both sides,” said Senator John Cornyn. “But the damage to the FBI’s credibility was real, and there must be consequences”.
The Left’s Rebuttal: Revenge and Rule of Law
Democrats and civil libertarians see the indictment as a dangerous precedent—one that undermines judicial independence and weaponizes the Department of Justice for political revenge. They argue that Comey’s prosecution was orchestrated by Trump, who publicly pressured Attorney General Bondi and replaced Siebert with Halligan to ensure charges were filed.
“We aren’t on a slippery slope to a constitutional crisis. We are IN the crisis,” said Senator Chris Murphy. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the indictment “a disgraceful attack on the rule of law,” while Senator Mark Warner warned of “dangerous abuse of power”.
Comey himself responded with defiance. “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice,” he said in a video statement. “But I have great confidence in the federal judicial system. I’m innocent, so let’s have a trial and keep the faith”.
Critics of the indictment argue that the charges are weak and politically motivated. Legal analysts note that proving intent—especially in complex congressional testimony—is notoriously difficult. One federal prosecutor even resigned rather than pursue the case, citing lack of evidence.
Historical Context: From Hillary-Gate to Russia-Gate
James Comey’s career has been marked by controversy. Appointed FBI Director under President Obama, he first drew national attention during the Clinton email investigation. His decision not to recommend charges in July 2016 enraged Republicans, while his October letter announcing a reopened probe infuriated Democrats.
In early 2017, Comey confirmed the FBI was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, including possible ties to the Trump campaign. Weeks later, Trump fired him. The dismissal led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and a multi-year investigation that ultimately found insufficient evidence to charge Trump with conspiracy—but did not exonerate him on obstruction.
Since then, Comey has been a lightning rod. To the right, he’s a symbol of deep-state corruption. To the left, he’s a flawed but principled public servant who stood up to Trump. His indictment now reopens those wounds, with both sides claiming vindication.
Legal Questions: Can the Case Stick?
The charges against Comey fall under 18 U.S.C. §1001, which criminalizes knowingly making false statements to Congress. Prosecutors must prove that Comey’s statements were false, material, and made with intent to deceive. That’s a high bar—especially given the ambiguity of memory, interpretation, and bureaucratic communication.
Defense attorneys argue that Comey’s statements were either truthful or misremembered, not criminal. They point to internal DOJ memos warning against indictment and the grand jury’s decision to reject one of three proposed charges.
If the case fails, it could backfire—damaging the DOJ’s credibility and reinforcing claims of political interference. “Career-ending for prosecutors if they don’t get this right,” warned former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman.
Editorial Reflection: What’s at Stake
Cynthia McCallum’s editorial lens is not about picking sides—it’s about exposing the machinery behind the narrative. Whether Comey is guilty or innocent, the timing of the indictment, the political pressure, and the erosion of prosecutorial norms demand scrutiny.
In the post-Watergate era, presidents have largely refrained from directing criminal prosecutions. Trump’s approach—publicly demanding indictments, replacing prosecutors, and celebrating legal action against rivals—marks a departure from that tradition.
For readers, the question isn’t just whether Comey lied. It’s whether the justice system is being used to settle scores. Is this accountability, or is it autocracy dressed in legal robes?
Final Thought: Decide for Yourself
Cynthia McCallum doesn’t ask you to trust her opinion. She asks you to examine the facts, the timing, the players, and the precedent. Comey’s trial will unfold in court—but the larger trial is one of public judgment. What kind of justice do we want? What kind of country do we want?
Whether you see Comey as a corrupt bureaucrat or a scapegoated whistleblower, the indictment is a mirror. Look closely.
