FILE PHOTO: James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Former FBI Director James Comey's legal team filed a motion on Monday arguing that key charges against him should be dismissed because of what they call “smoking gun evidence” of improper political influence.

Comey is charged with one count of making a false statement to Congress and another of obstructing a congressional proceeding.

But in the filings, his attorneys accuse President Donald Trump of directing the Department of Justice to prosecute Comey because of longstanding animus — and they point to the ex‑President’s public and social‑media attacks on Comey as evidence.

“The indictment in this case arises from multiple glaring constitutional violations and an egregious abuse of power by the federal government," the filing said.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz reported that a centerpiece of the defense’s argument is a collection of 60 pages of social media posts attributed to Trump, in which he repeatedly criticized Comey and called for him to be prosecuted.

The defense posits that those posts demonstrate that had Trump not ordered the Justice Department to act, Comey would not have been charged.

Comey’s attorneys argue that the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, which led the indictment, was unlawful. They say career prosecutors had declined the case and that Halligan, who previously worked for Trump, was installed in order to secure charges at the statute‑of‑limitations deadline.

The indictment against Comey stems from his 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, during which he said he had never authorized anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source in a media leak. Prosecutors claim he did.

Legal experts note that motions to dismiss on the basis of selective or vindictive prosecution are very rarely successful — the burden is high. The question for the judge will be whether the evidence of Trump’s statements and the circumstances of the prosecutor’s appointment rise to the level of unconstitutional prosecutorial misconduct.

A trial is scheduled for January 5.