ALEXANDRIA, Virginia — The courtroom was tense as lawyers for former FBI Director James Comey argued for the dismissal of criminal charges against him during a hearing on Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff raised significant concerns about the conduct of the prosecutor who secured the indictment and the influence of President Donald Trump on the case.

Comey’s defense team contends that the charges stem from Trump’s personal animosity toward him. They argue that the indictment is a politically motivated act aimed at silencing Comey for his criticisms of the president. Comey has pleaded not guilty to charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation.

During the hearing, Comey’s attorney, Michael Dreeben, described the prosecution as a “blatant use of criminal justice to achieve political ends.” He pointed to a September 20 social media post by Trump, which demanded action against Comey and others, as evidence of political motivation. Dreeben stated, "This is effectively an admission that this is a political prosecution."

In response, Justice Department attorney Tyler Lemons argued that Comey was charged solely for lying to Congress, not due to any directive from Trump. Lemons insisted, "He was not indicted at the direction of the president of the United States."

Judge Nachmanoff pressed Lemons on whether career prosecutors had recommended against bringing the case. Lemons initially claimed he was unaware of any such documents but later admitted he had looked into the matter, stating he was bound by instructions not to disclose further details.

The judge also questioned the process by which the indictment was presented to the grand jury. It was revealed that the final version of the indictment had not been shown to the entire grand jury, raising procedural concerns. Halligan, the interim U.S. Attorney who secured the indictment, acknowledged that only the foreperson and one other juror reviewed the final document. This admission prompted Dreeben to argue that the case should be dismissed due to this procedural error.

Nachmanoff’s inquiries highlighted the potential implications of Trump’s influence on the prosecution. He noted that the case could reflect a broader pattern of politically motivated prosecutions against Trump’s critics. The judge stated, "This is an extraordinary case and it merits an extraordinary remedy."

The hearing lasted about 90 minutes, during which the judge expressed skepticism about the legitimacy of the indictment. He instructed both parties to provide briefings on a 1969 Supreme Court case that could impact Comey’s situation.

Comey’s legal team has compiled over 200 of Trump’s comments about him, arguing that these statements demonstrate a clear intent to retaliate against Comey for his public criticisms. The defense maintains that the charges would likely not have been pursued without Trump’s intervention.

As the hearing concluded, Judge Nachmanoff did not issue a ruling, stating that the issues at hand were complex and required further consideration. The outcome of this case could have significant ramifications, not only for Comey but also for the broader context of political prosecutions under the Trump administration. Comey is scheduled for trial on January 5, 2024, while the judge is expected to rule on the legality of Halligan’s appointment before Thanksgiving.