Trump DOJ prosecutors 'appear to be shaky' about what words mean

On Wednesday, the Justice Department filed an argument attempting to “salvage” President Donald Trump’s case against former FBI Director James Comey, who stands accused of threatening Trump’s assassination by posting an image of seashells spelling “86-47” on social media. But according to some experts, the prosecutors doing Trump’s bidding don’t seem to understand what words mean.

As All Rise News editor-in-chief Adam Klasfeld noted, “Trump DOJ prosecutors appear to be shaky on the concept of what ‘actual malice’ means.” He made this assertion along with a screenshot from the DOJ’s motion, which claims that Comey’s defense team “fails to show actual malice,” arguing that “a defendant must prove with direct evidence ‘that the prosecutor charging him’ ‘harbored vindictive animus’ and that he pursued the prosecution ‘solely to punish’ the defendant for exercising his protected rights.”

This comes in response to the defense’s argument that Comey was illegally surveilled and that the case should be dismissed due to “vindictive and selective prosecution.” As his attorneys argued, “The ensuing indictment is not based on a good-faith application of the law to the facts; instead, it effectuates a years-long campaign by the president to use the criminal process to punish Mr Comey for his protected speech and because of the president’s deep-seated animosity.”

Now the prosecution is arguing that the defense provided no evidence of malice on Trump’s part, but here’s the thing: “actual malice” is a legal term with an actual legal definition. According to Slate – defining the term, ironically, in a different case involving Trump’s attacks on Comey way back in 2017 – “actual malice” occurs when a party either knows a statement is false or acts “in reckless disregard” as to whether it was true. And with that in mind, the Comey defense team has provided plenty of evidence to support its assertion of the president’s vindictiveness.

According to the distinguished First Amendment law scholar Clay Calvert, “Trump has posted that Comey is a: ‘proven LEAKER & LIAR,’ ‘weak and untruthful slimeball,’ ‘total SLIMEBALL,’ ‘DIRTY COP’ and ‘corrupt piece of garbage.’ Trump’s posts have branded Comey as: ‘Shadey [sic],’ ‘very sick or very dumb,’ ‘crooked as hell’ and ‘[o]ne of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to.’ Beyond such expressions of animus and bias against Comey, Trump has posted about his desire for Comey to face criminal charges, bluntly stating on X in 2018 that Comey ‘should be prosecuted.’ Even more significant is a September 2025 Truth Social post directed at then-Attorney General Pamela Bondi.”

“Pam,” posted Trump at the time. “Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia [James]??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done ... We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW! President DJT.”

It’s difficult to read assertions like “corrupt piece of garbage” and not interpret it as vindictive, and Comey’s lawyers agree, arguing that all of this was “a direct admission that the decision to prosecute was not based on the DOJ’s good-faith application of law to facts. Instead, it was based on President Trump’s personal antipathy,” toward Comey, therefore proving selective prosecution.

As Calvert concludes, “If Trump’s posts ultimately lead to the indictment’s dismissal, it will provide a cautionary tale about the dangers of running one’s vengeance-filled mouth on social media.”