Attorneys for former FBI Director James B. Comey sought Monday to throw out an indictment accusing him of lying to Congress, arguing that President Donald Trump engineered the charges to retaliate against a vocal critic.

In a pair of motions, the attorneys argue U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was improperly appointed and should not be able to bring the charges, and those charges are a vindictive and selective prosecution brought at the direction of the president.

The motions called the Justice Department’s appointment of Halligan contrary to a federal law and a “paradigmatic violation” of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which requires the Senate consent to the appointment of some officials.

Halligan was the only government official to sign a two-count grand jury indictment against Comey last month in the Eastern District of Virginia, accusing him of lying to Congress during a 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

The indictment alleged Comey lied about whether he authorized FBI employees to be an anonymous source for news reports about an FBI investigation. Comey pleaded not guilty.

Comey’s attorneys argue that while an attorney general can appoint an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days without Senate confirmation, after that district courts may appoint them.

In Comey’s case, prior interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert had been appointed in January, and the judges of the Eastern District of Virginia decided in May to retain him in that interim role as his nomination for the job remained pending in the Senate.

Comey’s attorneys argue that after Siebert resigned, reportedly because he refused to move forward with cases against Comey and other Trump critics, the federal judges had “exclusive authority” to pick an interim U.S. attorney, and not Attorney General Pamela Bondi.

“Were it otherwise, and the Attorney General could string together 120-day appointments, the government would have little incentive to conform to the congressional plan that U.S. Attorneys be appointed through the structural safeguard of presidential nomination and Senate confirmation,” the motion states.

The motions reference Trump’s post on Truth Social exhorting “Pam” — likely Attorney General Pam Bondi — to go after Comey and others, calling them “guilty as hell.” The next day he posted he would appoint Halligan, a White House attorney with no prosecutorial experience, and five days later the indictment was returned.

Comey’s filing argued the appointment was “in defiance of the law and for the sole purpose of securing an indictment grounded in retaliatory animus days before the relevant statute of limitations expired.”

That motion will be handled by a judge outside the Eastern District of Virginia, according to court documents.

Criminal defendants have challenged several other Trump administration changes to U.S. attorneys, including the Justice Department moves to extend the terms of interim U.S. attorneys in New Jersey and Nevada.

Vindictive case

Comey’s attorneys, citing in one motion years of Trump’s public statements criticizing the former FBI director and multiple news reports about Trump’s actions behind the scenes, said the government “may not use courts to punish and imprison their perceived personal and political enemies.”

“But that is exactly what happened here,” the motions states.

Comey’s attorneys argued that multiple investigations examined his actions handling the Russia investigation, and none of them found evidence that he violated federal law. It was only after Comey criticized Trump, the filing said, that Trump sought to retaliate against him, including by having him investigated and possibly charged.

The filing also noted that Trump has publicly disparaged Comey for years and repeatedly sought to use government channels to retaliate against him.

After the start of the second Trump term, Comey’s filing said the harassment campaign ramped up, including firing without cause his daughter Maureen Comey from her role as a federal prosecutor.

“Objective evidence establishes that President Trump directed the prosecution of Mr. Comey in retaliation for Mr. Comey’s public criticisms and to punish Mr. Comey because of personal spite,” the filing said. “Such a vindictive prosecution serves no legitimate government interest and contradicts fundamental constitutional values.”

Monday’s filing also noted that Comey intends to try to nix part of the case by arguing he told the “literal truth” to Congress.