Check out the “Today’s Special Read” account! ️
This article was published exclusively on Tencent News
Quick overview of the incident: Former FBI director was prosecuted, and the conflict between Trump and his "old enemy" intensified
On September 25, 2025 local time, the U.S. Department of Justice formally filed a lawsuit against former FBI director James Comey. According to an indictment released by a federal grand jury in Washington, Comey faces two criminal charges:
Make false statements to Congress and hinder Congressional procedures.
The legal core of this prosecution stems from the fact that when Komi testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2020, he was accused of lying about whether he had authorized FBI insiders to leak information about Hillary Clinton's "mail door" or Trump's "TongRumen" investigation to the media.
However, the background of the case is far more complex than the allegations themselves.
Just a few days ago, U.S. President Donald Trump made a public appeal urging the Justice Department to prosecute its long-standing political opponents, including Comey, after the former prosecutor in the case was forced to resign due to his refusal to prosecute, and Trump quickly appointed one of his former private lawyers to take over and pushed the big jury vote in a short time.
Press the image to move the small window.
XFollowing the announcement, Comey posted videos on social media, maintaining his innocence and saying "My family and I have known for years that daring to stand up to Trump will come at a price … We won't live on our knees." "My heart is broken for the Justice Department, but I have full confidence in the federal justice system … let's see you in court."
Is this a belated justice or a carefully planned political reckoning? "Today's Special Reading" gives you an in-depth interpretation.
Foreign media observation: Suggestion that Trump uses presidential power to finally liquidate his "old enemy"
Once Komi's indictment was published, it caused an earthquake in the global media community. The analysis of various media goes beyond the case itself, but generally puts it in the context of Trump's long-term struggle with the "deep state" of the United States, pointing out that it will inevitably have a far-reaching impact on the independence of the judiciary in the United States.
A “later-to-later” political revenge or a tough judicial justice?
Many media unanimously focused on behind the prosecution Strong color of political intervention。
The Washington Post report disclosed in detail the "coach change" controversy behind the scenes in the case. Reports pointed out that Erik S., the former federal prosecutor in charge of the case. Siebert) refused to file a lawsuit because he believed that the evidence was insufficient to convict Comey. However, under intense pressure from the Trump administration, Siebert was forced to resign last week. He was replaced by Lindsey Halligan, Trump's former personal lawyer and White House assistant who lacked prosecutorial experience. This dramatic personnel change has caused the outside world to widely question whether the motive of prosecution is pure.(Related reports:Washington Post | Former FBI Director James Comey formally indicted amid Trump's pressure to prosecute political opponents）
The newspaper also pointed out that even after Halligan took office, many senior prosecutors in her office raised serious concerns about the reliability of the evidence, but in the end she chose to submit the case to the grand jury.
The Guardian's analysis is even more straightforward. It believes that Trump's long-term unabashed public expression of his hatred of Comey and repeated calls for him to be sent to prison will make it extremely difficult for prosecutors to convince jurors in the future that the case was brought entirely out of legal rather than political retaliation. (Related reports:Deep Analysis: How James Comey Steps to Become Trump's No. 1 Public Enemy）
Avoiding the "TongRumen", what did the congressional testimony say?
Contrary to external expectations, The prosecution cleverly avoided the complicated and highly controversial “Russian door” investigation of the case itself.
The complaint, which contained only two charges, was “slightly narrow” and it accused Comey of lying when he testified to Congress in 2020 about “whether the FBI had authorized an internal person to anonymely leak information about Trump or Hillary Clinton’s investigation to the media.”Associated Press | Former FBI Director James Comey formally indicted after Trump pressured to prosecute old enemy Associated Press| In-depth analysis: How did the long feud between Trump and Comey end up in a complaint?）
These details may suggest that the relevant evidence failed to completely convince the grand jury, even with the strong push of the prosecution. This "precision strike" litigation strategy, on the one hand, reduces the difficulty of the prosecution in giving evidence, and on the other hand, makes it look more like looking for a "technical" breakthrough that can convict Komi. The confusion and haste of this prosecution process have further deepened the impression of the outside world that the prosecution was forced by political pressure to "forcibly" push forward the case.
From the test of "loyalty" to the accusation of "treason", a chronicle of personal grudges
The Associated Press (AP) positioned the lawsuit as the "latest chapter" in years of tension between Trump and Comey. In his report, he used a long piece to review the evolution of the two men from allies to sworn enemies, sorting out a clear timeline of the conflict for readers.
The starting point of the rupture between the two began in early 2017. In a private meeting with Comey, Trump asked him, then FBI director, to swear an oath of "loyalty" and asked him to abandon his investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. However, Comey refused. A few months later, Comey was fired by Trump in a flash after publicly confirming that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's "Russia Pass" incident.
Comey did not remain silent after being fired.He leaked memoirs of his conversations with Trump to the media through friends, and in 2018 published a memo called "Higher Loyalty," portraying Trump as an unethical leader who was "disconnected from the facts" and "like a mafia boss."
In response, Trump launched years of fierce attacks on Comey on social media, calling it a “unfair mucus ball” and even accusing him of committing a “crime of treason.”The Associated Press noted that although Comey had been criticized in several previous internal investigations, until the prosecution, no prosecutor thought there were sufficient grounds to bring criminal lawsuits against him.
This report suggests, This prosecution is more like Trump's final liquidation of his "old enemy" by using the power of the president.
Comey's role reverses with the ghost of the 2016 election
In addition, this incident also contains profound political irony. A boomerang of history came from 2016, right between the eyebrows of this chaotic lawsuit in court.
The Guardian commented that one of the biggest ironies of this case is that, Comey's own controversial behavior in the 2016 election largely paved the way for Trump's victory.
At that time, as FBI director, Comey first publicly criticized Hillary Clinton’s use of private mail servers as “extremely negligent” and then suddenly announced the resumption of the investigation into the “mail door” a few days before the election.
The report also recalls a classic scene in the 2016 presidential debate: when Hillary said, “It’s great for a person with a character like Donald Trump not to rule the laws of our country,” Trump pulled out: “Because then you’ll go to jail.” Nine years later, according to the Guardian, Trump appears to be putting the campaign slogan of the year into practice on Comey, who had indirectly helped himself.
Axios also reviewed this history, emphasizing that Trump expressed "respect" for Comey's decision to reopen the investigation in 2016, but his attitude took a 180-degree turn when the FBI's investigation subjects turned to him. This inconsistent attitude clearly reveals Trump's logic of fully using judicial tools to serve personal political interests.
The Wrestling of Law and Politics: A Tough Battle for Conviction
Combining information from all sides, the media generally believes that even if the prosecution succeeds, prosecutors want to convict Comey also face serious challenges.
It is expected that defense lawyers will almost certainly use "political persecution" as their core defense strategy. From the bizarre change of prosecutors to President Trump's own public remarks, they have provided sufficient "ammunition" for this strategy.
At the same time, the Washington Post detailed the chaotic scenes in the prosecution process, including the judge’s “confusion” with the prosecutor’s filing of two inconsistent charges at the same time, and Comey’s son-in-law Troy A. Edwards Jr., who served as Assistant Federal Attorney in East Virginia, resigned after his son-in-law was prosecuted.
This upcoming court confrontation will undoubtedly be a fierce clash between legal processes and political narratives.
Conclusion Outlook: Using judicial liquidation of political opponents may become the potential norm?
The indictment of James Comey is far from an isolated legal incident.
It not only symbolizes the continuation of the long-term game between Trump and the "deep government" of the United States, but also reflects the complex interweaving of personal grudges and political power. What is more serious is--
It has refraced. Potential erosion of the neutrality of the judicial system.
Foreign media observations generally point to a core concern:
When the Justice Department is suspected of becoming a tool to serve the president's personal wishes, its credibility will be lost.
The future direction of the case is full of uncertainty. Komi's defense team is likely to use procedural details and evidence issues to drag the trial into a long tug-of-war, trying to prove to the public and the jury that this is a political revenge from the White House, rather than a fair legal prosecution.
Whatever the final outcome, The entire trial process will become a new fuel for political polarization, and will be repeatedly used by the two parties to attack.，It further weakens social consensus and deepens public distrust of government institutions.
At the same time, the more far-reaching impact may be that the case could open a dangerous Pandora's door, providing a precedent for future political operations, and Using the state justice machine to liquidate former officials or political opponents becomes a potential norm.
Once this trend solidifies, the political ecology of the United States and the stability of power transfer will face unprecedented challenges.
No matter what the outcome is, the Komi case has made a profound mark in the history of American law and politics.
The core questions it raises are deaf and yet unresolved.
So, in your opinion, does American society have the capacity to curb the spread of this “political revenge” or do you think that the era of a “winner-eating and loser-in-prison” has inevitably come? Welcome to share your views in the commentary area and click on attention to track the Trump-induced right storm with the "Special Readings Today" column.
The author is Susa. Senior Independent Writer on International and Citizenship Issues
Edit | San San
Previous review:
● Issue 23:From “cutting the ground” to “shooting the Russian aircraft”, Trump’s attitude toward Ukraine is a 180-degree reversal, behind which is a big bet?
● Issue 22:The death of Kirk sparked the American culpability game: the gunman is only one, but the enemy is the entire “left.”
The 21st section:Trump opens the Federal Reserve "big cleaning", and the calm of Wall Street is a fatal misjudgment?
● Issue 20:Textbook Survival Technique! How does Lee Jae-myung use the "Trump Rule" to get Trump?