US Scholars Link James Comey's Prosecution to Global Autocracy Tendencies
A group of scholars studying global autocracy has weighed in on the prosecution of former FBI director James Comey, suggesting that his case shares similarities with politicized prosecutions found in countries such as Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela.
In an amicus brief submitted to a Virginia federal judge, these experts argue that the prosecution against Comey "mirrors many of the features" of similar cases they've studied abroad. Specifically, they point out that President Trump's public statements have long been critical of Comey, indicating a clear adversarial relationship between the two men.
The scholars also note that the Trump administration's actions in Comey's case violate longstanding norms of prosecutorial independence and appear to be driven by a desire for revenge against an individual who had become a vocal critic. The fact that the newly-installed US Attorney in Comey's case, who was previously appointed as a personal attorney to the President, presented the indictment to the grand jury over the objections of career prosecutors further fuels these concerns.
By framing the prosecution of James Comey within the broader context of how politicized prosecutions are used in autocracies and backsliding democracies, these scholars highlight the risks posed by such actions. They argue that even a single case like this can have far-reaching consequences for the rule of law and the integrity of the judiciary.
Comey's lawyers are now seeking to have his charges dismissed on grounds of vindictive and selective prosecution, with this scholarly brief offering one piece of evidence in support of their argument. This is not an isolated instance of outside pressure on the Trump administration - other groups, including a bipartisan panel of former federal judges and prosecutors, have also come forward to argue that Comey's case poses significant threats to the rule of law.
These developments underscore the global implications of how politicians and prosecutors wield power in democratic societies, and highlight the urgent need for robust checks and balances on executive authority.
A group of scholars studying global autocracy has weighed in on the prosecution of former FBI director James Comey, suggesting that his case shares similarities with politicized prosecutions found in countries such as Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela.
In an amicus brief submitted to a Virginia federal judge, these experts argue that the prosecution against Comey "mirrors many of the features" of similar cases they've studied abroad. Specifically, they point out that President Trump's public statements have long been critical of Comey, indicating a clear adversarial relationship between the two men.
The scholars also note that the Trump administration's actions in Comey's case violate longstanding norms of prosecutorial independence and appear to be driven by a desire for revenge against an individual who had become a vocal critic. The fact that the newly-installed US Attorney in Comey's case, who was previously appointed as a personal attorney to the President, presented the indictment to the grand jury over the objections of career prosecutors further fuels these concerns.
By framing the prosecution of James Comey within the broader context of how politicized prosecutions are used in autocracies and backsliding democracies, these scholars highlight the risks posed by such actions. They argue that even a single case like this can have far-reaching consequences for the rule of law and the integrity of the judiciary.
Comey's lawyers are now seeking to have his charges dismissed on grounds of vindictive and selective prosecution, with this scholarly brief offering one piece of evidence in support of their argument. This is not an isolated instance of outside pressure on the Trump administration - other groups, including a bipartisan panel of former federal judges and prosecutors, have also come forward to argue that Comey's case poses significant threats to the rule of law.
These developments underscore the global implications of how politicians and prosecutors wield power in democratic societies, and highlight the urgent need for robust checks and balances on executive authority.
. I mean, Comey was just trying to do his job, right? But now with these scholars saying that the prosecution might be part of a bigger pattern of autocratic behavior... it's like, we need to keep an eye on this stuff. The fact that the new US Attorney presented the indictment over career prosecutors' objections is a major red flag 
. It feels like Trump's gotta get rid of someone who's not playing ball with him. I'm all for accountability, but come on... let's keep it fair and balanced 
.
. I mean, come on, a lawyer from the Trump administration presenting an indictment to a grand jury without career prosecutors agreeing? That's just not right 
. It smells like revenge to me 
.
. If we start to see more cases like this, where politicians are trying to use prosecutors for their own gain, then we're going to have big problems 
.
. That's the only way we can trust it to do its job and hold people accountable fairly 
. This whole thing just feels like a slippery slope to me... 
. I mean, shouldn't we be protecting the integrity of our institutions and making sure they're not being manipulated by whoever is in power? 
. It's so important that we hold our leaders accountable and make sure they're not using their power to suppress dissenting voices or silence whistleblowers.
and it's high time we started having some real conversations about how we can strengthen our checks and balances 
.
.
i mean, come on, he's still got his Twitter account and everyone knows it 
and what's with these academics thinking they're above the law too? newsflash: if u wanna be taken seriously, don't go making wild claims about autocracies when u r just mad at trump 
anyway, its about time some ppl spoke up on Comey's case... even if they are using it to make a point about " Checks and balances" and whatnot