Court hears Maurene Comey was fired as retaliation against ex-FBI chief father

Maurene Comey, the federal prosecutor who helmed criminal cases against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, appeared at Manhattan federal court on Thursday, in a lawsuit claiming she was fired as political retaliation against her father, James Comey.

Comey was terminated in July, shortly after the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, whose prosecution she led; he was found guilty of prostitution-related crimes. Comey’s lawsuit contends that Donald Trump’s justice department axed her without explanation or cause, and instead simply cited “article 2 of the United States constitution and the laws of the United States” in an email.

Comey claimed in her suit that she asked US attorney Jay Clayton for a reason, and he allegedly said: “All I can say is it came from Washington. I can’t tell you anything else.” She received an exemplary review – from the same prosecutor who would ultimately inform her of the shocking termination – three months earlier, the suit claims.

“Defendants have not provided any explanation whatsoever for terminating Ms Comey. In truth, there is no legitimate explanation,” Comey’s suit charges. “Rather, Defendants fired Ms Comey solely or substantially because her father is former FBI director James B Comey, or because of her perceived political affiliation and beliefs, or both.”

The hearing on Thursday was largely procedural, lasting less than one hour. Comey’s legal team wants to move forward with discovery. This term refers to a stage in litigation where both sides exchange evidence related to the dispute.

US government attorneys have contended that an employment arbitration board – where Comey has also filed a complaint – should be the first place to weigh her allegations of unjust termination. The judge overseeing Comey’s civil lawsuit said he was inclined to postpone discovery until deciding whether federal court, or the arbitration board, was the appropriate place to weigh her allegations.

Comey’s lawyers insisted that evidence should be provided right away. And, they said, it was the same evidence in both the arbitration board and federal cases.

“She has faced significant reputational harm,” said Nicole Gueron, one of Comey’s attorneys. “Termination effective immediately implies some kind of wrongdoing, some kind of misconduct, some kind of incompetence.”

Gueron suggested that government attorneys could start providing “extremely limited” information, such as documents laying out “who made the decision to fire Ms Comey, why, and on what basis”.

Comey is not only seeking reinstatement and back pay in her lawsuit. She is also asking a court to declare that defendants, who include the Department of Justice and Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, among others, violated the separation of powers and numerous constitutional rights, by firing her.

Comey senior worked as the FBI director from 2013 until Trump fired him in 2017. The president has slammed Comey in hundreds of social media missives calling him, for example, the “worst” FBI head in agency history.

Tensions intensified further in May after Comey made a mysterious post with seashells that stated “8647”. Trump viewed this seashell arrangement as an assassination threat.

The elder Comey was indicted in September for allegedly lying to Congress during his 2020 testimony about the Russia investigation. A federal judge tossed the indictment against Comey in November after finding the prosecutor handling his case – as well as the proceeding against another Trump foe, the New York state attorney general, Letitia James – was unlawfully appointed.

Trump had appointed Lindsey Halligan to serve as interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia in September. Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Siebert, was booted from his job reportedly after determining that there was not enough evidence to charge James.

The Trump administration contended that the attorney general could keep installing interim US attorneys every 120 days. The judge disagreed, finding that Halligan had “no lawful authority to present the indictment” against Comey or James and that the justice department couldn’t keep appointing US attorneys on an interim basis.

Both Comey and James, who maintained their innocence, had insisted that their prosecution was politically motivated.

“I’m grateful that the court ended the case against me which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence,” Comey said in a recorded video following the judge’s decision. “This case mattered to me personally, obviously, but it matters most because a message has to be sent that the president of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies.

“I know that Donald Trump will probably come after me again and my attitude is gonna be the same. I’m innocent, I am not afraid, and I believe in an independent federal judiciary,” he also said.