The “totality of events” surrounding James Comey’s indictment, involving President Donald Trump’s own statements, provides the ex-FBI director’s defense with substantial material for a motion to dismiss on vindictive or selective prosecution grounds. New reports indicate that the defense may have additional strategies if they argue, as anticipated, that the indictment served as retribution.

According to an ABC News report on Monday, the investigation into a potential criminal case against Comey is not recent, as three prosecutors’ offices previously determined there was insufficient evidence for false statement or obstruction charges related to Comey’s 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony on media leaks.

The prosecutors’ offices included the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, special counsel John Durham’s Russiagate origins office, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), the jurisdiction where Comey now faces charges.

Comey was indicted in late September shortly before the statute of limitations was to expire, after Trump appointed Lindsey Halligan, previously his Mar-a-Lago case lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, to lead the EDVA USAO, replacing Erik Siebert, who reportedly had concerns about pursuing a case against Democratic NY Attorney General Letitia James related to mortgage fraud.

The indictment, allegedly secured by Halligan alone and reportedly without top DOJ endorsement, claims that Comey denied, when questioned by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that he had authorized anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source in reports concerning an investigation involving Person 1 — reportedly Hillary Clinton.

The apparent rush to prosecute, on the heels of the president’s public missive to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, in which he stated “[w]e can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility” and “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”, ran in stark contrast to the reported years of unsuccessful attempts by prosecutors to build a solid Comey case.

According to ABC News, the USAO in D.C. investigated Comey and “call[ed] him to testify before a grand jury in 2021,” but that went nowhere. And Durham, whose million-dollar special counsel probe memorably secured a lone guilty plea and suffered two acquittals at trial, reportedly discussed with EDVA prosecutors his reasoning for never bringing a Comey case.

Halligan, reportedly aware the EDVA USAO had produced a memo citing Durham’s and the D.C. USAO’s reasoning to recommend against charging Comey, pushed ahead anyway.

All of this raises questions — including as to why a Trump loyalist was the one to finally bring the case, why previous memoranda rejecting criminal prosecution appear to have been ignored, and the timing of the case itself — which Comey’s longtime friend and current defense lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald might also raise to blow up the whole case.