Legal AF by MeidasTouch: "Trump DOJ Put in Their Place as Arraignment Goes Horribly"
Date: October 13, 2025
Host: Michael Popok (MeidasTouch Network)
Episode Focus: Dissecting the disastrous DOJ-led arraignment of former FBI Director James Comey, the dubious perjury charges, prosecutorial missteps, and the political/legal implications at play.
Episode Overview
This episode centers around the high-profile arraignment of former FBI Director James Comey on a contested perjury charge, widely seen as an act of "vindictive prosecution" by a Trump-influenced DOJ. Host Michael Popok offers a blow-by-blow account of the courtroom drama, the evident weaknesses in the government's case, and the looming motion to dismiss. He also places these events in the broader context of ongoing political weaponization of law enforcement.
Key Discussion Points and Insights
1. The Arraignment: Outclassed Prosecutors, No Perp Walk
-
Lindsey Halligan, the DOJ lawyer, appeared completely unprepared and overwhelmed, described as "dumbfounded and mute," failing to even speak during the hearing (01:00).
"She spent the entirety of the arraignment rocking back and forth in her seat and nodding. It looks like she's practicing to get into the fetal position."
— Michael Popok [01:08] -
No perp walk for Comey, despite political pressure and public threats. Instead, a routine self-surrender was arranged. Popok theorizes that Comey's team called the DOJ's bluff:
“You want to do a perp walk? Just tell us where and when... We're gonna have a video camera crew out in front of James Comey's house... we'll have our guy miked for the perp walk.”
— Popok [02:58] -
Judge Nachmanoff (EDVA, Biden appointee) set an extremely rapid trial schedule, giving the DOJ only three months, a move that strongly benefits Comey.
"You want to hear about a rocket docket in Eastern District of Virginia? We're going to trial in less than three months in the Comey case. And that's all to James Comey's advantage.”
— Popok [01:38]
2. The Perjury Charge: A Murky, Politicized Prosecution
- The perjury allegation pertains to supposed contradictions in Comey's testimony before the Senate in 2017 and 2020, particularly an exchange with Senator Ted Cruz over FBI leaks relating to the Trump and Clinton investigations.
- Popok highlights the vagueness and confusion at the heart of the indictment:
"As I said, it is woefully deficient on its face. We don't know who person one is. We don't know who person two is. ...We're not even sure if that's the right clip of Cruz."
— Popok [09:56]
Key Senate Exchange (at heart of charge):
-
[07:58-09:56]
Cruz presses Comey: “...Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true... Who's telling the truth?”
Comey stands firm: “I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”Cruz, in classic adversarial style, concludes:
"There are only two possibilities, that you were deliberately corrupt or woefully incompetent. And I don't believe you were incompetent. ...That is the legacy you have left."
— Ted Cruz [09:17]
3. The Government’s Case in Disarray
-
Unorthodox Prosecution Team: No one from the Eastern District of Virginia wanted this case; the DOJ had to bring in prosecutors "carpetbaggers from North Carolina."
"She couldn't get anyone to prosecute the case from her own office, the Eastern District of Virginia."
— Popok [01:18] -
Material Favoring the Defense: The judge’s fast timeline forces the government to turn over all possibly exculpatory material ("Brady" evidence) within weeks.
- This includes DOJ memos indicating prior decisions not to prosecute, and reports from:
- John Durham (Special Counsel): “...He said, no, I didn't go after Comey because there's no perjury there.” [06:33]
- D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office: “...Looked at Comey for two whole months... nothing there on perjury...” [10:43]
- U.S. Attorney (EDVA): “...Memo by the Courier prosecutors... saying we shouldn't prosecute, that it was handed to Lindsey Halligan.” [10:48]
- This includes DOJ memos indicating prior decisions not to prosecute, and reports from:
-
Star Witness Problems:
Daniel Richman (Columbia Law, ex-prosecutor, long-time Comey associate) was evaluated as unhelpful to the prosecution.“That the prosecutors evaluated him and thought that his testimony would prevent insurmountable hurdles to getting a perjury charge sustained against Comey.”
— Popok [12:29]
4. The Broader Legal and Political Context
-
Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive Prosecution:
Popok predicts an imminent filing:“The next thing out of the box is going to be the motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution. It’s coming. It could be any minute now... They're going to clear Comey's name. They're going to draw a line in the sand.”
— Popok [15:20] -
Impact of Judge’s Timeline:
With a January trial date, the defense is poised to overwhelm the shaky prosecution before trial begins—a calculated move by Judge Nachmanoff.
Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments
-
On Lindsey Halligan’s Performance:
"She spent the entirety of the arraignment rocking back and forth in her seat and nodding. It looks like she's practicing to get into the fetal position."
— Michael Popok [01:08] -
On the Perp Walk Bluff:
"You want to do a perp walk? Just tell us where and when... We'll have our guy miked for the perp walk."
— Michael Popok [02:58] -
On DOJ’s Case Weakness:
“Fitzgerald comes into court and says we can't make heads or tails of the indictment... We’re not even sure if that’s the right clip of Cruz.”
— Michael Popok [09:56] -
On John Durham’s Prior Investigation:
“He said, no, I didn’t go after Comey because there’s no perjury there.”
— Michael Popok [06:33] -
Sen. Ted Cruz’s Confrontation:
"There are only two possibilities, that you were deliberately corrupt or woefully incompetent. And I don’t believe you were incompetent. ...That is the legacy you have left."
— Ted Cruz [09:17]
Timestamps for Crucial Segments
- 00:59 – Detailed Breakdown of Arraignment, Halligan’s Dismal Showing
- 04:40 – Background and Timeline of Perjury Charge
- 07:58 – Crucial Senate Testimony: Cruz vs. Comey
- 09:56 – Fitzgerald Critiques Indictment’s Vagueness
- 10:45 – Exculpatory Evidence, Previous Non-Prosecution Decisions
- 12:29 – Daniel Richman’s Role Undermines DOJ Case
- 15:20 – Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive Prosecution Preview
Conclusion and Takeaways
The episode paints a vivid picture of a politically motivated, competence-challenged prosecution quickly unraveling under legal and factual scrutiny. The hosts expect a decisive defense victory before the case ever reaches trial, highlighting both the continuing risks of politicizing the DOJ and the resilience of adversarial process.
For more analysis and the upcoming motion to dismiss, Popok points listeners to the Legal AF Substack and YouTube channel.