James Comey's Real 'Crime': Putting the Law Before Loyalty to Trump

In 1931, a brilliant lawyer named Hans Litten summoned Adolf Hitler to testify in a criminal case. Litten was representing the injured parties of a brutal assault perpetrated by members of Hitler's SA paramilitary group at an entertainment venue frequented by political activists. By the time the violence concluded, multiple individuals had been killed.

During the extensive cross-examination of the Nazi party leader, Litten achieved what few dared. The dictator anticipated intimidation, but instead ended up skillfully interrogated while sworn in, transformed into an angry, stumbling speaker. By trapping Hitler in contradictions and revealing his pattern of lying, Litten also exposed the Nazi goal of destroying German democracy.

Hitler's revenge arrived after a brief period, shortly after his ascent to power. In the wake of the parliament burning and using an emergency decree allegedly for security, Hitler ordered the arrest and "so-called safeguarding of numerous political enemies, among them the lawyer. Over five years, as he moved between concentration camps, Litten faced repeated beatings and torture. Eventually, seeing no possibility of freedom, he ended his life. The transgression: defending legal principles and constitutional democracy against an aspiring dictator.

Modern Parallels

The United States in the present differs from Germany in that era. Nevertheless, Litten's experience has a disturbingly familiar ring. Recently, federal prosecutors in Virginia revealed that former FBI director James Comey faced charges for allegedly lying while sworn to a congressional committee.

The charges against Comey are so weak that the district's chief prosecutor, Trump's appointed legal official, resisted filing charges. Siebert's fair assessment predictably earned the president's anger. "Remove him," the president declared, and so Siebert resigned prior to dismissal, leaving his position following a brief tenure.

Trump quickly appointed a successor: Lindsey Halligan, a member of the president's legal team now occupying key positions within the justice system. Regardless of no prior prosecutorial experience and overseeing complex national security cases, Halligan's main credential seemed readiness to do what Siebert would not: indulge Trump's desire for revenge. The charges she filed targeting the former director, delivered shortly prior to the statute of limitations expired, only confirmed the previous prosecutor's concerns.

Judicial Proceedings

Legal trainees often learn the expression that a determined lawyer may secure a grand jury "to charge any target." But Halligan apparently failed to: the grand jury refused to indict on a single of three counts submitted.

Trump celebrated the two-count indictment by proclaiming on social media: "JUSTICE IN AMERICA!" – perhaps an apt, if unintentionally dystopian, characterization of the current state of the rule of law across the country. The case concerns score-settling, yet represents much more alarming consequences.

Granting momentarily that the president faced biased investigation previously, it would still be unacceptable for the nation's leader to answer perceived wrong with another.

The reality is that federal examination into foreign meddling in the 2016 election – the source of Trump's campaign targeting the former director – represented no politically motivated "witch-hunt". Instead, it uncovered an extensive, organized campaign to disrupt the electoral process.

True Transgression

The former director's genuine "crime" parallels Hans Litten's. He ventured to demonstrate fidelity to his office and legal principles, rather than the Great Leader. Not that Comey risks experiencing Litten's fate. Through openly stating the director's culpability and transparently interfering in the legal process, Trump has provided the court grounds to throw out charges as retaliatory legal action.

If the former director face court proceedings, the case's obvious weaknesses might well result in dismissal. Even if Comey were convicted and sent to prison, the United States currently maintains no network of political detention centers where political opponents endure organized abuse.

Yet this offers little consolation. The fact remains that the director faces targeting, not prosecuted, for prioritizing service to the nation over obedience to a man. Seemingly enacting a dictator's handbook, Trump is making consequences for his act of constitutional fidelity. What should alarm all Americans is the facility with which Trump, assisted by his craven legal lackeys, has transformed the traditionally autonomous legal system into a tool of authoritarian consolidation.