Comey Indictment Shows Danger of Subservient Prosecutors – Brennan Center for Justice

Report on Prosecutorial Independence and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: The Role of an Impartial Judiciary in Achieving SDG 16

The integrity of a nation’s criminal justice system is a critical component in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. The power vested in prosecutors—to charge individuals, recommend sentences, and impact life and liberty—necessitates absolute independence from political influence. This report examines a case of alleged political interference within the U.S. Department of Justice, analyzing its implications for the rule of law and the principles enshrined in SDG 16.

Foundational Principles for Accountable Institutions (SDG 16.6)

The Prosecutor’s Role in Upholding the Rule of Law (SDG 16.3)

The function of a prosecutor is foundational to ensuring equal access to justice. As articulated by former Attorney General Robert Jackson in 1940, this role carries immense discretionary power. The proper exercise of this power is a cornerstone of a just society, while its misuse for political or malicious purposes represents a significant threat to institutional integrity.

• Beneficent Force: When guided by facts and law, the prosecutor is a positive societal force.
• Malignant Force: When motivated by malice or factional purposes, the prosecutor becomes one of society’s worst elements.

This dichotomy underscores the importance of robust, independent institutions (Target 16.6) that can withstand pressures that threaten the impartial application of law (Target 16.3).

Case Analysis: The Indictment of James Comey

Allegations of Political Interference and Institutional Decay

Recent events surrounding the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey present a significant challenge to the principles of prosecutorial independence and threaten progress toward SDG 16. The process leading to the indictment raises concerns about the politicization of justice, a form of institutional corruption that SDG Target 16.5 seeks to reduce.

1. Replacement of Personnel: The incumbent U.S. Attorney, Erik Siebert, a career prosecutor, declined to prosecute Mr. Comey, citing insufficient evidence. He was subsequently replaced by Lindsey Halligan, a former personal lawyer to the president with no prosecutorial experience.
2. Executive Influence: The replacement followed a public social media post by the president demanding prosecutorial action, a direct intervention that contradicts post-Watergate norms established to protect the justice system from political corruption.
3. Precedent of Interference: This event is part of a broader pattern of interference, including the dismissal of officials involved in cases disapproved of by the administration, which weakens the effectiveness and accountability of justice institutions (Target 16.6).

Substantive and Procedural Flaws in the Indictment

The resulting indictment against Mr. Comey exhibits significant legal and procedural weaknesses, suggesting a departure from the rigorous standards necessary to ensure the rule of law (Target 16.3).

Procedural Irregularities

• Rushed Process: The indictment was secured shortly before the statute of limitations was set to expire.
• Unusual Grand Jury Session: The magistrate judge noted the grand jury convened at an unusually late hour to hear the case.
• Narrow Margin of Support: The indictment was returned with only 14 of 23 possible grand juror votes, with one proposed count being rejected entirely. This lack of consensus at the low “probable cause” standard indicates potential weaknesses in the case when presented to a trial jury, which requires a unanimous verdict based on “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Substantive Deficiencies

• Vagueness: The indictment lacks clarity regarding the specific false statements allegedly made by Mr. Comey, failing to meet the legal requirement that an indictment be a “plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts.” This ambiguity undermines a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
• High Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove that Mr. Comey knowingly lied and possessed a “corrupt” state of mind to obstruct a congressional inquiry. The imprecise nature of the questions asked during the hearing and the ambiguous context make this a difficult evidentiary burden to meet.

Conclusion: Upholding SDG 16 Through Adherence to Prosecution Principles

The Federal Principles of Prosecution mandate that prosecutors only bring charges if they believe they can obtain and sustain a conviction based on admissible evidence. The process and substance of the Comey indictment suggest a failure to adhere to these principles, prioritizing political objectives over the impartial administration of justice. This deviation directly undermines the goals of SDG 16.

A justice system tainted by politics fails to provide equal access to justice for all (Target 16.3), fosters corruption (Target 16.5), and erodes the efficacy and accountability of public institutions (Target 16.6). The safety of citizens and the stability of the rule of law depend on prosecutors who serve the law, not factional interests. This case serves as a critical reminder that safeguarding prosecutorial independence is essential for achieving a just, peaceful, and inclusive society as envisioned by the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The primary Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) addressed in the article is:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. The entire article focuses on the principles of justice, the rule of law, and the integrity of legal institutions. It examines the dangers of political interference in the criminal justice system, the importance of prosecutorial independence, and the need for accountable and transparent institutions to ensure that justice is administered fairly and without political bias. The article’s core theme is the threat to a strong, impartial justice system, which is the central focus of SDG 16.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s discussion, the following specific targets under SDG 16 are relevant:

1. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   • Explanation: The article directly addresses this target by emphasizing that prosecutorial decisions must be “based solely on the facts and the law, and without fear or favor.” The central argument is that the indictment of James Comey was a political act rather than a legal one, undermining the principle that “No one can be above the law or unfairly subjected to it.” The critique of the indictment’s legal weaknesses and the process behind it highlights a failure to uphold the rule of law.
2. Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.
   • Explanation: The article portrays the president’s actions as a form of corruption, specifically an abuse of power for political ends. It describes the “presidential interference in prosecutorial decision-making” as something that “contradicts everything our country has done in the post-Watergate era to protect against corruption in the justice system.” The act of replacing a career prosecutor with a loyalist to secure an indictment against a political opponent is presented as a corrupting influence on the justice system.
3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Explanation: The article critiques the institutional process that led to the indictment. It points to a breakdown in effectiveness and accountability by noting that an “experienced career prosecutor” was replaced by “a lawyer with no prosecutorial experience” to achieve a desired outcome. Furthermore, it suggests a lack of transparency and accountability by stating that the standard “robust review process to surface issues in an indictment” does not “seem to have happened with this one,” resulting in a flawed and legally weak indictment.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not mention official SDG indicators but implies several qualitative and process-based indicators that can measure progress towards the identified targets:

• For Target 16.3 (Rule of Law):
  • Implied Indicator: Adherence to established principles of prosecution. The article explicitly references the “Federal Principles of Prosecution,” which “obligate prosecutors to only indict if they believe a target’s conduct constitutes a federal crime on which prosecutors can obtain and sustain a conviction.” The new prosecutor’s failure to “heed them” serves as a negative indicator of the rule of law.
  • Implied Indicator: Independence of prosecutorial decision-making from political pressure. The article details how the president’s “Truth Social post” and direct intervention led to the indictment, demonstrating a lack of independence.
• For Target 16.5 (Corruption):
  • Implied Indicator: Incidence of politically motivated prosecutions. The article presents the Comey indictment as a clear case of a prosecution that is “undeniably tainted with politics,” which could be tracked as an indicator of corruption within the justice system. The discussion of “selective prosecution” and “vindictive prosecution” as potential legal defenses points directly to this.
• For Target 16.6 (Effective, Accountable Institutions):
  • Implied Indicator: Merit-based appointments in key justice system positions. The replacement of “Erik Siebert, an experienced career prosecutor” with “Lindsey Halligan… a lawyer with no prosecutorial experience” is a clear negative indicator for this target, suggesting appointments are based on political loyalty rather than merit.
  • Implied Indicator: Functioning of internal review and quality control mechanisms. The article suggests the failure of the “robust review process” that federal prosecutors typically use before taking a case to a grand jury, indicating a breakdown in institutional effectiveness.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: brennancenter.org