A conservative lawyer has sharply criticized the Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Donald Trump, calling its recent legal filing regarding former FBI Director James Comey a “bad joke.”

David French, a prominent attorney and columnist, expressed his disdain in a column for The New York Times, arguing that the filing represents a troubling misuse of the legal system for political retribution.

French’s attack comes on the heels of a filing by the DOJ in which Comey is accused of leaking information to The New York Times back in 2016. French contends that this latest charge is even less credible than previous attempts to indict the former FBI chief, which had failed in 2017 and 2019.

According to French, this recent effort by the DOJ follows what he describes as “a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad month” for the department, highlighting that its actions appear more driven by vendetta than by justice.

In his analysis, French clarified the nature of the legal filing, noting that an “information” does not equate to an indictment. He emphasized that the filing cannot initiate any case against Comey unless he waives his right to a grand jury indictment, which he has not.

“The Fifth Amendment clearly states that no person shall face criminal charges without a grand jury indictment,” French pointed out. “Yet this filing appears to have been made solely to pause the statute of limitations, in what can only be described as a desperate legal maneuver.”

French further elaborated that the DOJ itself acknowledged that the information was filed just before the ten-year statute of limitations was set to expire, suggesting a strategy to keep the case alive without substantial grounds.

Compounding the issue, French noted that a former federal prosecutor pointed out the inadequacy of this strategy: the relevant statute of limitations does not allow tolling via an “information,” reinforcing the flimsy nature of the DOJ’s filing.

Ultimately, French did not hold back in his assessment, stating that the DOJ lawyers who brought this case should be “ashamed” for wasting the court’s time and resources.

The controversy comes at a time when the DOJ, now under the leadership of Attorney General Todd Blanche, appears increasingly willing to pursue cases that align with Trump’s desires, regardless of the legal foundations.

This pattern of behavior, according to French, poses a significant threat to the integrity of the legal system, as it is being weaponized in favor of a political agenda.

Critics of the Trump administration have long argued that the legal system should not be used as a tool for personal vendettas against perceived enemies, including Comey, whose previous investigation into Trump was politically charged.

As the situation unfolds, the legal community will watch closely to see how the courts respond to these latest filings and whether they will uphold the principles of justice or allow political motivations to guide judicial proceedings.

The implications for future DOJ actions are significant, as the department’s credibility hangs in the balance amid accusations of politicization under the Trump administration.

For French and many others, the question remains whether the DOJ will move away from actions perceived as politically motivated and return to its core mission of enforcing the law impartially.

As this story develops, it highlights a broader concern regarding the role of law enforcement in the current political climate and raises questions about accountability and ethical standards in the justice system.

The fallout from this DOJ filing could have lasting consequences not only for Comey but also for the standard practices of legal accountability moving forward.

With mounting criticism, lawmakers and citizens alike are increasingly challenging the usage of legal resources to settle scores, emphasizing the need for reform and stronger safeguards against such practices.

As legal experts deliberate on the ramifications of these actions, the DOJ finds itself at a critical juncture, where its decisions could significantly influence public trust and the future of the American legal landscape.