Which tenured academic will be the first to defend the second Comey indictment?

Ken White observes that one of the most depressing things about Trump’s sub-sub-sub-sub-frivolous lawfare is the number of people in the Republican extend universe who have to pretend that it’s all totally legitimate:

As a lawyer commenting on the Trump administration’s legal arguments, I face a challenge: how do I convey to non-lawyers, or even lawyers in different fields, the shameless fatuity of some of the Trump Justice Department’s arguments? Words fail. This case is overtly, obviously, on its face, ridiculous and premised on a foolish and unconstitutional theory. I know it as confidently that those of you who work with numbers know that 2 + 2 = 5 is not a plausible argument. I know it as confidently that those of you in the arts know that “John Wayne Gacy is the most respected American painter” is wrong.

Yet we live under a Department of Justice that will commit this travesty and argue it’s valid. Even now, members of Congress — nominally sworn to defend the Constitution — are defending it. And soon enough, some puerile throne-sniffer of the legal academy — some Wurman, some Barnett, some Turley — will emerge to argue that it’s plausible, so thoroughly has Trumpism corrupted us.

It’s hard not to see Barnett as the opening line favorite at this point. But somebody will step up, whether it’s an affirmative defense, a “maybe it’s not 100% on the level but something Biden did is a million times worse,” or some kind of hybrid.

It’s also true that the point here is not to secure a conviction per se — the sheer idiocy of the indictment is precisely what makes clear that the DOJ is now Trump’s personal stable of Roy Cohns:

I believe it is unlikely the indictment will survive. You can’t attack a federal indictment by arguing that the government doesn’t have enough evidence, but you can challenge defects that appear on its face. Comey’s attorneys will attack the indictment as invalid on its face — that is, argue that on the face of the indictment, seashells spelling out “86 47” are protected by the First Amendment, without need to assess the strength of evidence. Moreover, I expect Comey will repeat his motion for selective prosecution, previously brought in the now-dismissed false statements case in Virginia. The extreme weakness and facial ludicrousness of this indictment will strengthen that motion. The assigned judge was appointed by a Republican but is not a lunatic.

But that’s not the point, is it? The point of the indictment is to demonstrate that the United States Department of Justice is wholly an instrument of Donald Trump’s senescent pique, no more independent of him than a boil on his ass. The point is to show that the administration can, and will, use the Department’s mechanisms to punish enemies. The point is to show that the Department can, and will, punish protected speech. The point is to show that the Department is staffed by committed fanatics willing to do anything, however unethical and unconstitutional, to promote Trump.

The point is to show that in the war between Donald Trump and the U.S. Department of Justice, Trump has won. Now they’re on the field slitting the throats of the wounded and looting bodies.

The road back to credibility for the Department will be long and arduous. I do not expect it to recoup its presumption of regularity or respect within a generation.

This will be true of many individuals and institutions. But as the report Erik mentioned earlier makes clear, at least we can be reassured that marginal voters did this all for rational and well-informed reasons.

Me: I voted for Donald Trump because I had him confused with that other guy. Donald Duck. NYT reporter: Are you sure you want me to print that next to your real name and a drawing of you? Me: Yes.— pixelatedboat aka “mr bluesky” (@pixelatedboat.bsky.social) Apr 28, 2026 at 3:23 PM