Comey's Lawyers Cite Trump's 'Vindictive Motive' to Sink Seashells Case

James Comey's attorneys argue Trump's personal animus drove a bad-faith prosecution, asking a federal judge to dismiss the seashells threat case.

Comey Team Argues 'Presumption of Vindictiveness' Should End Seashells Prosecution

A new court filing from former FBI Director James Comey's legal team contends that President Donald Trump's "vindictive motive" provides an independent ground for permanently ending the so-called seashells prosecution — even if the judge declines to toss the case on its merits, Law & Crime reports.

The 20-page reply memorandum, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court in North Carolina, asks Judge Louise Flanagan to find that a "presumption of vindictiveness" entitles Comey to an evidentiary hearing at which the government would be required to rebut that presumption.

Comey's lawyers borrowed the strategy from the Kilmar Abrego Garcia litigation. A federal judge in Tennessee dismissed the wrongfully deported Garcia's criminal human-smuggling case in May, concluding that the government had not rebutted the defendant's "prima facie showing of some evidence of a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness." The Justice Department is appealing that ruling to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing the Tennessee judge "erred" and opened the door to "dangerous" probing of prosecutors' mental states — improperly "inviting courts to usurp the prosecutorial discretion constitutionally committed to the Executive Branch."

Comey is now using those dismissals to his advantage. His filing points to Trump's "voluminous record of public statements" and "personal animus" as evidence that the president himself "caused this vindictive prosecution."

"It is well established that a defendant may demonstrate that 'the prosecutor acted with genuine animus toward the defendant' by showing either that the prosecutor himself 'harbored genuine animus toward the defendant' or that the prosecutor 'was prevailed upon to bring the charges by another with animus such that the prosecutor could be considered a stalking horse,'" the filing stated, citing recent district court rulings that hold the animus of senior DOJ officials can be imputed to line prosecutors.

The filing connects the current North Carolina case directly to the collapse of an earlier federal prosecution in Virginia. That indictment, Comey's team argues, was obtained by a prosecutor it characterized as personally selected and unlawfully appointed by Trump — a reference to Lindsey Halligan. When the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed that indictment, they argue, the administration pivoted to the seashells theory.

Central to that theory is an Instagram post in which Comey photographed a "cool shell formation" he spotted on a beach walk with his wife Patrice. Prosecutors alleged the arrangement of shells spelling "8647" constituted a threat against Trump. Comey's legal team has consistently argued the interpretation "defies dictionary definitions, context, precedent, and common sense," and submitted an affidavit from a former mob prosecutor asserting there is "literally no support for the central allegation on which the case rests."

The filing also highlights what it describes as the prosecution's shaky origins. According to Comey's lawyers, after the Secret Service opened its investigation — taking steps that participants internally described as "overkill" and "legally questionable" — the agency categorized the matter as "non-referred." Former Attorney General Pam Bondi and eventual AG Todd Blanche reportedly considered the underlying evidence "weak."

"It was only after Mr. Comey prevailed in the Virginia case — and the President increased pressure on Mr. Blanche to 'audition' for the Attorney General role — that the government suddenly reinvigorated this investigation and indicted Mr. Comey," the filing stated.

Blanche offered a different account in May, telling reporters the case is "not just about a single Instagram post" but "about a body of evidence that was collected over the series of about 11 months" and "presented to the grand jury."

Comey's team further noted that the government leans heavily on his forthcoming book "FDR Drive" to bolster its case, even though the book "had not yet been published" at the time of the seashells post — it was "only five days from public release." That reliance, the lawyers suggest, underscores the overreach at the heart of the prosecution.

The filing asks Judge Flanagan to dismiss the case with prejudice outright, or alternatively to order discovery so Comey's team can probe the prosecution's origins. If the vindictive-prosecution motion fails entirely, the government still faces the separate burden of proving at trial that Comey's post constituted a "true threat" — a legal standard the courts have so far declined to accept in connection with the display or posting of "86."

The DOJ is also separately appealing the dismissal of Comey's earlier false-statements indictment in Virginia to the relevant circuit court.

Reporting contributed by Matt Naham, Law & Crime.

Source: Law & Crime