The indictment of a former FBI director on charges of lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation has already set off a political firestorm, but legal experts caution that early efforts to dismiss the case are unlikely to succeed.

The case, scheduled to open formally with an arraignment in Alexandria, Virginia, on October 9, is drawing attention not only for its political implications but also for the rare legal challenges it presents.

MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos weighed in Friday on the strength of the defense’s early strategy and delivered a blunt assessment: dismissal motions based on claims of selective prosecution or overwhelming pretrial publicity stand very little chance of prevailing.

His comments reflect a broader consensus among legal observers that trials of this magnitude typically proceed to the evidence stage, even when defense attorneys file aggressive motions to derail them beforehand.

At the center of the case is the defendant’s sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2020. Prosecutors allege that he misled lawmakers when asked about authorizing an FBI official to serve as an anonymous source and about the weight of the Steele Dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment of 2017.

According to the indictment, his testimony was “materially inaccurate” and obstructed Congress’s oversight of the FBI’s handling of its Trump–Russia probe.

The investigation culminated with a grand jury indictment announced Thursday, the culmination of years of partisan tension surrounding the former FBI director’s role during the 2016 election and its aftermath.

While he has long defended his decisions as principled, opponents have accused him of politicizing federal law enforcement and misleading the public.

The arraignment is set for October 9 at 10 a.m. in federal court in Alexandria. A summons has been issued requiring his presence, though no arrest warrant has been filed. Court officials initially anticipated a surrender on Friday, but records confirmed that the process will instead begin at the arraignment itself.

During an appearance on Ana Cabrera Reports, Danny Cevallos outlined why motions to dismiss rarely succeed. “The problem with these motions is that they have a 0 to 1 percent chance of succeeding,” he said.

Although he acknowledged that if any case seemed ripe for a selective prosecution argument this might be it, he stressed that such claims are virtually impossible to win.

Cevallos explained that all federal prosecutions are, by definition, selective. “The federal government is one of limited jurisdiction. They can’t possibly prosecute everything that’s a federal crime.

So in essence, part of being a federal prosecutor is being selective.” This reality means that defense claims of selective prosecution almost always falter in court.

He further emphasized that federal judges prefer to let cases proceed to trial rather than cutting them off at the preliminary stage. “Judges do not like to deny prosecutors their opportunity to try the case,” he said.

“So as much as Comey would want to knock it out in the beginning, realistically the case may proceed beyond the motions.”

The indictment references discrepancies between testimony and documents released later, including a CIA memorandum from July.

That memorandum suggested that both the FBI and CIA leadership may have provided inaccurate sworn statements when they downplayed the role of the Steele Dossier in shaping the Intelligence Community’s conclusions about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Prosecutors allege that by denying authorization of an FBI official’s use as an anonymous source, and by minimizing the dossier’s role, the former FBI director obstructed oversight efforts.

The charges of making false statements and obstruction carry significant penalties if proven, though sentencing would depend on the precise findings of the jury and the court.

The indictment has reignited long-standing political feuds. Former President Donald Trump wasted no time in responding, celebrating the development on his Truth Social platform.

“Whether you like Corrupt James Comey or not, and I can’t imagine too many people liking him, HE LIED!” Trump wrote. “It is not a complex lie, it’s a very simple, but IMPORTANT one. There is no way he can explain his way out of it.”

For Trump, the indictment is a vindication of years of criticism directed at the former FBI director, whom he has accused of participating in a “deep state” conspiracy to undermine his presidency.

Trump’s allies have echoed his sentiment, framing the charges as proof that high-ranking officials cannot act with impunity.

Meanwhile, supporters of the defendant argue that the charges are politically motivated, stemming from his clashes with Trump and his role in defending the FBI’s conduct. They point to his firing in 2017 and his subsequent public criticism of Trump as evidence of the partisan context that surrounds the case.

Despite the legal jeopardy, the former FBI director has been defiant in his public statements. In a video posted to Instagram, he asserted his innocence and framed the case as part of the broader cost of standing up to Trump.

“My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way,” he said. “We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either. Somebody that I love dearly recently said that fear is the tool of a tyrant, and she’s right. But I’m not afraid.”

He added that while his “heart is broken for the Department of Justice,” he retains confidence in the federal judicial system. “I’m innocent. So let’s have a trial and keep the faith.”

The roots of the indictment stretch back to the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into potential links between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Critics of the bureau’s handling of the probe have long focused on the use of the Steele Dossier, a collection of opposition research documents later found to contain unverified claims.

Congressional Republicans accused the FBI of exaggerating or misrepresenting the dossier’s role in shaping the Intelligence Community’s conclusions about Russian election interference.

The July CIA memorandum gave fresh ammunition to those claims, suggesting that testimony delivered under oath by both FBI and CIA leaders may have mischaracterized the facts.

The grand jury’s decision to indict reflects the Justice Department’s determination that the discrepancies were material enough to warrant criminal charges. Whether prosecutors can convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt remains the central question as the trial approaches.

The arraignment on October 9 will mark the official beginning of the trial process. At that hearing, the defendant will enter his plea, and the court will set a schedule for motions, hearings, and eventually jury selection.

Legal experts expect defense attorneys to file aggressive motions challenging the indictment, seeking dismissal on grounds of selective prosecution, improper political influence, or prejudicial pretrial publicity. But as Cevallos emphasized, the odds of success are slim.

Instead, the case is likely to proceed to trial, where prosecutors will present documents, testimony, and other evidence to support their allegations. The defense, led by experienced legal counsel, will attempt to cast doubt on the government’s case and argue that discrepancies in testimony were either immaterial or unintentional.

Beyond the courtroom, the trial will unfold in the court of public opinion. For Trump supporters, the indictment confirms years of allegations that top law enforcement officials abused their power. For Trump critics, it represents a continuation of partisan warfare that seeks to criminalize controversial but lawful decisions.

The outcome of the trial could have lasting implications for how Americans view both the FBI and the Justice Department. If the charges are proven, it may reinforce arguments that federal law enforcement needs greater accountability and oversight. If the charges collapse, it may embolden critics who see the case as politically motivated.

Either way, the judge’s rulings and the jury’s verdict will shape the broader narrative about truth, accountability, and politics in the age of hyper-partisanship.

Ultimately, this case highlights the delicate balance between law and politics in American governance. While the courtroom is designed to be a place where evidence, not ideology, prevails, the political stakes are unavoidable. Every development will be scrutinized not only for its legal merit but also for its political consequences.

The defendant’s insistence on his innocence, Trump’s celebration of the indictment, and the legal analyst’s sobering assessment of the odds for early dismissal all combine to underscore the complexity of what lies ahead.

When the trial begins, it will not just be the credibility of one man on the line, but also the integrity of the institutions charged with upholding the law. The world will be watching as the case unfolds, and history may judge it as a defining moment in the relationship between law enforcement, politics, and democracy itself.