Portrait of Former FBI Director James Comey on April 13, 2018 in Washington, DC, USA.

A series of legal motions aimed at dismissing charges against former FBI Director James Comey could be coming quickly from his defense team. Comey pleaded not guilty in a Virginia federal court Oct. 8 to charges pushed by President Donald Trump.

One of Comey's defense lawyers, former Justice Department senior official Patrick Fitzgerald, announced at the court proceedings that Comey's team plans to challenge the indictment on several different grounds. Those include claims that the prosecutor who secured the charges wasn't legitimately appointed, that the prosecution is selective and vindictive, that the grand jury process was abusive, and that the government has behaved outrageously.

"We hope a trial can be avoided," Fitzgerald said at the court proceedings.

Justice Department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin declined to comment on Comey's legal strategies and what the department anticipates going forward.

A federal grand jury charged Comey Sept. 25 with lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. The charges are tied to testimony Comey gave before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 30, 2020.

According to the indictment, Comey falsely testified that day that he hadn't authorized someone at the FBI to anonymously leak information about an investigation to the media. The names of the alleged anonymous source and of the target of the investigation weren't provided in the indictment. Fitzgerald said at the Oct. 8 hearing that he and Comey still don't know who they are.

Here's a look at the arguments Comey's defense team says it plans to raise and when – if ever – a trial could happen:

Was Trump's appointment of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan valid?

Fitzgerald said Oct. 8 that the defense plans to argue that Trump's appointment of his former personal lawyer, Lindsey Halligan, to a supervisory role over the investigation was invalid. Halligan, who has never before been a prosecutor, was the lone prosecutor to sign the indictment.

Two former Justice Department officials, Ed Whelan and Liz Oyer, told USA TODAY they believe Fitzgerald is probably right. Whelan held a senior role in the Office of Legal Counsel during the George W. Bush administration. Oyer served as the U.S. pardon attorney during the Biden administration and the first couple months of Trump's current term. She was fired after opposing a request to restore actor Mel Gibson's gun rights.

Halligan was appointed to replace Erik Siebert, who was previously appointed by Trump as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. According to Whelan, the Justice Department cannot lawfully appoint a second interim U.S. attorney after appointing a first one whose term has expired. He pointed to a federal statute that authorizes a local district court to appoint a U.S. attorney after an interim U.S. attorney's 120-day term expires.

In Siebert’s case, his term expired 120 days after his Jan. 21 appointment, on or about May 21. After that, he was judicially appointed to contiue serving.

In a 1986 memo, then-Reagan administration Office of Legal Counsel lawyer Samuel Alito, who is now a Supreme Court justice, wrote that it appeared "Congress intended to confer on the Attorney General only the power to make one interim appointment; a subsequent interim appointment would have to be made by the district court.”

Oyer said that if Halligan's appointment wasn't lawful, the indictment is probably invalid "since she's the only person who signed the indictment."

Not everyone agrees with Whelan and Oyer's analyses. Former Justice Department official Trent McCotter wrote on X that the attorney general can appoint a new U.S. attorney even after a judicial appointment. Otherwise “the AG's appointment power would literally never reset once 120 days expire," McCotter said.

It’s possible that the Trump administration appointed Halligan, as “acting” U.S. Attorney rather than interim U.S. Attorney, Whelan and other legal experts say. But the administration has never said so, and DOJ spokesman Gilmartin had no comment.

Is this case a selective or vindictive prosecution?

Fitzgerald also said the defense plans to argue that the case against Comey amounts to a selective or a vindictive prosecution. Those are distinct but related grounds for getting a case thrown out.

"Selective prosecutions" are criminal cases pursued not because of alleged criminal conduct, but instead because of a defendant's protected characteristic or activity, as described by Lawfare, a nonprofit that provides analysis on legal issues. "Vindictive prosecutions" are cases pursued to punish defendants for exercising their legal rights.

It's not easy for defendants to win these types of arguments. Courts generally presume executive officials have properly discharged their duties, and defendants have the burden to show otherwise.

Trump and Hunter Biden both lost motions challenging federal criminal cases they faced in reent years on the grounds of selective and vindictiive prosecution.

Still, Comey's defense team will hope Trump's social media posts calling for and later celebrating Comey's indictment, coupled with any evidence that Trump replaced a top prosecutor with his former personal lawyer to force an attempt to secure the charges, will help them meet that hurdle.

In at least one recent case, the indictment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, federal Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. concluded Oct. 3 that there is a "realistic likelihood of vindictiveness." Abrego Garcia's legal troubles made headlines after the Trump administration wrongly deported him to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S., only to be charged by a federal grand jury with human trafficking.

Crenshaw ordered the government to turn over evidence to Abrego Garcia's defense team ahead of a hearing on the issue.

Was there abuse in the grand jury process?

Fitzgerald said the defense team also plans to argue that there was abuse in the grand jury process that led to Comey's indictment.

Fitzgerald didn't provide specifics about what that argument will look like, but there are various hypothetical ways that abuse can happen. For instance, a prosecutor can violate a defendant's constitutional right to due process by knowingly presenting perjured testimony.

Did law enforcement engage in 'outrageous conduct?'

Fitzgerald also said the defense plans to challenge the case based on the argument that the government has engaged in "outrageous conduct." That would mean the government has done something, or multiple things, so outrageous as to violate Comey's due process rights under the Constitution. Those rights are designed to ensure defendants are treated fairly when the government is seeking to deprive them of life, liberty, or property.

Courts have sometimes concluded the government's conduct was outrageous when police have used brutality against a defendant or government agents entrapped a defendant. For instance, in 2014 California federal Judge Otis D. Wright II dismissed criminal drug and robbery charges for outrageous conduct when he concluded the government had "extensive involvement," including with an undercover agent, in "dreaming up" the criminal scheme.

The outrageous-conduct challenge to charges can be brought in a variety of circumstances. In a 1973 decision, the Supreme Court held that due process violations involve conduct that's "shocking to the universal sense of justice."

Trial in January?

After Fitzgerald said Oct. 8 that the defense will be challenging the indictment, Judge Michael Nachmanoff scheduled two days of hearings, Nov. 19 and Dec. 9, for both sides to make their oral arguments.

Nachmanoff said several times that he wants to keep the process going, and that he wants to stick as closely as possible to a speedy trial schedule. After Fitzgerald suggested Jan. 12 as a trial date, Nachmanoff suggested Jan. 5 and both the defense and prosecution said that would work.

Nachmanoff also instructed prosecutors to make sure the defense gets security clearances so they can review the classified materials prosecutors say they will be using in the case. Comey and Fitzgerald both had top secret security clearances previously, but Fitzgerald said they gave them up when they left government. Several times, Nachmanoff instructed prosecutors to get together with the defnese and start sharing the evidence in the case.

If the case makes it to trial, both sides said they don't see the trial lasting more than three days.

"We see this as a simple case," Fitzgerald said.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: What's next legally for James Comey? His team plans to argue for dismissing the charges.

Reporting by Aysha Bagchi and Josh Meyer, USA TODAY / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect