Lawsuit Alleges that Laura Loomer Illegally Got Ghislaine Maxwell’s Prosecutor Fired

Fox News has a long article today claiming — albeit with wildly conflicting evidence — that Kash Patel’s job is in jeopardy. One of Kash’s crimes, according to the article, is firing Brian Driscoll and others in such a way that exposes Trump to have to sit for a deposition.

On the same day Kirk was shot, three former high-ranking FBI officials filed a lawsuit accusing Patel, Bondi, and their agencies of unlawfully firing them as part of a political purge directed by the DOJ and the White House – something Patel promised against in Senate confirmation hearings.

The larger concern, according to those familiar with the litigation, is Patel allegedly wielded authority belonging solely to the president, citing Article II of the Constitution in dismissal letters he signed. The misstep, they say, creates a legal minefield for the FBI, DOJ, and Executive Office of the President.

“Either way, it’s bad: Kash cannot exercise the powers of the president, and the president can’t fire these officials,” a source with direct knowledge of the lawsuit said.

The filing reads, “Article II of the Constitution and the laws of the United States do not vest any such authority with the Director of the FBI. Article II provides authority for the President, and the President alone, to appoint principal officers, concomitant with the power to remove them “at will.” None of Plaintiffs are principal officers and, more importantly, the FBI Director is not the President.”

A senior law enforcement official said, “The admin could very well lose in court, and it will be because of Kash’s big mouth, making the president look like an ass.”

I made a similar point about Kash stupidly yapping his mouth, but not about the Article II invocation. If the Article II thing were a problem, I noted, it would mean Pam Bondi would be badly exposed for firing Maurene Comey, among others, on the same basis.

Well, ask and you shall receive Maurene Comey just sued Bondi and DOJ for her firing. And indeed, Ms. Comey does cite that Article II firing in the lawsuit.

52. OPM issued a Standard Form (“SF”) 50, “Notification of Personnel Action,” to Ms. Comey shortly after her receipt of the July 16, 2025 memorandum. (Attached hereto as Exhibit B, the “SF-50,” redacted.) Section 5-D of Ms. Comey’s SF-50 is titled “Legal Authority.” This section states: ART II CONSTITUTION.

53. Section 45 of Ms. Comey’s SF-50 is titled “Remarks.” This section states: REASON(S) FOR REMOVAL: ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION.

54. The July 16 memorandum terminating Ms. Comey indicated twice that she was being “removed from federal service.” This term was not defined in the letter. However, 5 U.S.C. § 2101 defines the “civil service” as “consist[ing] of all appointive positions in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, except positions in the uniformed services.”

One of Ms. Comey’s attorneys, Margaret Donovan, is also among the attorneys representing Driscoll et al. And the lawsuit bears similarities to the FBI lawsuit. Whereas the Driscoll lawsuit focuses on former FBI agent Kyle Seraphin’s role in getting FBI agents, especially Spencer Evans, fired, this lawsuit blames Laura Loomer, dedicating at least eight paragraphs and several pages to Loomer’s interminable rants.

8. On May 18, 2025, Ms. Loomer called for Mr. Comey’s “liberal daughter” and her “Democrat husband” to be “FIRED from the DOJ immediately” “for being a national security risk via their proximity to a criminal [i.e., Mr. Comey] who just committed a felony by threatening to assassinate the President.”5 Ms. Loomer also declared that, “under [Attorney General Pamela] Blondi [sic], every Deep State Operator is being emboldened,” and she “question[ed] the impartiality of Maurene and Lucas [Maurene’s husband] in their prosecutorial roles, especially in high-profile cases, due to the undeniable bias and influence stemming from James Comey’s public criticism of Trump and the ongoing investigation into his Instagram post.”6 After Ms. Comey’s termination, Ms. Loomer boasted that the decision “c[a]me[] 2 months after my pressure campaign on Pam Blondi [sic] to fire Comey’s daughter and Comey’s son-in-law from the DOJ.”7

Ms. Comey alleges that she was fired solely for her association with her father. If this lawsuit were to survive, Ms. Comey might be able to access details of Trump’s witch hunt targeting the former FBI Director.

Of course, that allegation doesn’t match the timeline. As Loomer herself noted (even while claiming credit in a way that is very helpful to this lawsuit), Loomer’s rants were in May, two months before Ms. Comey was fired on July 16, right in the middle of Todd Blanche’s efforts to engage in a sex trafficking coverup. Ms. Comey’s firing was crucial to Blanche’s efforts to be as ignorant as possible when he conducted his so-called proffer with the convicted sexual predator. And sure enough, Ghislaine Maxwell made all sorts of statements in the proffer that obviously conflicted with the known public record.

Which is why I’m actually more interested in the references to Ms. Comey’s role on the Epstein and Maxwell prosecution teams than Loomer’s rants. Her role in the Maxwell prosecution appears throughout the complaint, most notably where she describes receiving the Director’s Award for her work on the trial (an important detail in case Todd Blanche tries to claim that poor Ghislaine Maxwell was treated poorly by Jim Comey’s daughter).

38. In addition, in May 2023, the Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys awarded Ms. Comey and her team the prestigious Director’s Award for “Superior Performance by a Litigative Team” with respect to the Maxwell trial.

Descriptions of the Epstein and Maxwell cases appear among a long line of other cases she worked (including supervising the Robert Menendez prosecution). In these sections (and elsewhere in the complaint), Ms. Comey notes that she was closely supervised on the cases, including by Trump US Attorney Geoffrey Berman and his successor, Audrey Strauss.

32. With her significant experience prosecuting matters involving violence and sexual exploitation, her SDNY supervisors assigned Ms. Comey to work on the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein in the spring of 2019. She was part of the team that conducted grand jury proceedings and secured an indictment against Mr. Epstein for sex trafficking and conspiracy; Mr. Epstein was arrested on July 6, 2019.10 Ms. Comey was one of three prosecutors who then represented the United States in Mr. Epstein’s criminal case, successfully defeating his request for bail pending trial. Mr. Epstein died in federal jail on August 10, 2019, while awaiting trial; as a result, the charges against him were ultimately dismissed. Geoffrey Berman—then-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, serving in the first Trump Administration— supervised Ms. Comey’s work on the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Epstein at all times.

33. At the direction and under the supervision of SDNY leadership, Ms. Comey and her team continued to investigate Mr. Epstein’s criminal operation after Mr. Epstein died. They uncovered details that implicated Mr. Epstein’s former girlfriend and collaborator, Ghislaine Maxwell. On or about July 2, 2020, the SDNY, through Ms. Comey and her team, obtained an indictment charging Ms. Maxwell with enticing a minor to travel to engage in criminal sexual activity, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, conspiracy to commit both of those offenses, and perjury in connection with two sworn depositions.11 Ms. Comey and her team subsequently obtained a superseding indictment additionally charging Ms. Maxwell with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor and sex trafficking of a minor.

34. At the direction and under the supervision of SDNY leadership, Ms. Comey successfully led the investigation and prosecution of Ms. Maxwell, including serving as one of the lead trial lawyers in a month-long trial, and secured justice for many victims of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. On December 29, 2021, a jury convicted Ms. Maxwell on five counts, including sex trafficking of a minor, conspiracy, and transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity. Ms. Maxwell was sentenced in June 2022 to 20 years in prison for her role in the sex trafficking scheme.12 U.S Attorney Berman and later Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss— both serving in the first Trump Administration—were deeply involved in supervising the investigation and prosecution of Ms. Maxwell during their tenures.

10 See https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1180481/dl

11 See https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1291491/dl?inline

12 See https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ghislaine-maxwell-sentenced-20-years-prisonconspiring-jeffrey-epstein-sexually-abuse

Note that Ms. Comey doesn’t describe that Epstein killed himself; she describes that he died in custody.

The complaint disclaims the import of her role in the Maxwell prosecution to explain her firing by noting that none of the other AUSAs on the prosecution team have been fired.

Nor could the explanation plausibly be that she mishandled her high-profile cases; she received accolades related to her work on some of those high-profile cases, and, on information and belief, among the at least fourteen AUSAs who participated in the prosecutions of Epstein, Maxwell, Hadden, and Combs, Ms. Comey was the only one who was terminated.

Except some of the Epstein and Maxwell prosecutors were already gone. One left at the end of the Biden Administration, at least one more was part of the Eric Adams purge.

All that said, the hypothesis that Loomer got Maurene fired because of who her father is, which has a better chance of surviving a motion to dismiss, might give DOJ a choice: explain, instead, that Todd Blanche had a sex trafficking cover-up to carry out, a cover-up which Ms. Comey’s continued presence at SDNY might threaten.

Or give Ms. Comey a whole bunch of discovery on Trump’s longtime targeting of Maurene’s father.

image_print
Share this entry
31 replies
  1. SteveBev says:

    I believe I am correct that Comey’s firing on 16 July 25 occurred 2 days after Sauer filed the DOJ opposition to Maxwell’s petition for cert to SCOTUS, after what I recall was a couple of extensions for the Govt lasting a good few weeks (? 40 days for the second extension).

    So that causes me to wonder whether Comey was kept around while that was going on; possibly either because her knowledge base might be needed in some way, or because Sauer/the Trump Regime didn’t want any fuss to erupt until that paperwork was sorted, or both and/or further obscure reasons.

    It may simply be a coincidence of course. But I get nervous and itchy about coincidences.

    • Amateur Lawyer at Work says:

      Funny, I read the firing and Sauter’s reply in the opposite way: DoJ decided that her expertise WOULD interfere with how the DoJ wanted to misconstrue facts before SCOTUS, in order to uphold the power to exclude collateral crimes & criminals from overarching plea deals but argue that Maxwell was directly covered by this Epstein’s original deal with Acosta under Bush II. The last thing that Trump would want then is for a highly-respected FBI agent to dispute “facts” his attorney and his Justices used in a cover-up.

      • SteveBev says:

        The timeline is this
        Comey fired 16 July 25*

        Filings in SCOTUS re Maxwell cert petition
        https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1073.html

        10Apr25 app for cert (response due 14May)
        7 May25 1st app for extension for response granted on
        8May25 to 13 June25
        6Jun25 2nd app for extension granted on
        9Jun25 to 14Jul25
        14 July 25 brief Respondent filed
        *
        28Jul 25 reply Petitioner

        But meanwhile in and about the second week of July, Maxwell through her family pressured the Trump Regime with the Epstein Birthday book Trump letter.

        17 July 2025 WSJ publishes the article. The publication was preceded by requests for comment, and Trump Regime threats to WSJ.

        So my thesis is that there was back channelling. The Birthday Book was Maxwells Ace in the Hole.

        Trump Regime dithered about how to play their hand and probably calculated that doing any sort of deal with Maxwell would require being rid of Comey, but they didn’t want her to issue a blistering denunciation in resignation, and they wanted to keep her cooling her heels until they were good and ready.

        They probably miscalculated as to what cards Maxwell had ie the Birthday Book, because that has turned out to be about as bad as it could be. Maybe they did know about it, but under estimated how damaging it would be, or over estimated their ability to ride out the storm.

        But I think it’s pretty clear that however the backchanneling went, they ended up forcing Maxwell into playing her Ace, and Trump Regime was scrambling in consequence. The decision to sack Comey appears to have occurred within that scrambling to regain control of the situation.

    • emptywheel says:

      Here’s one of my posts w/a timeline:

      https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/07/23/doj-denied-jeffrey-epstein-blackmail-but-not-ghislaine-maxwell-blackmail/

      This is part of it:

      January 15, 2025: Maxwell delays appeal.

      February 10, 2025: Dan Bongino promises he’ll never let Epstein story go.

      February 21, 2025: Pam Bondi claims Epstein client list is on her desk.

      February 27, 2025: Bondi orchestrates re-release of previously released Epstein files.

      March 4, 2025: James Dennehy forced to retire.

      March 14, 2025: Pam Bondi conducts emergency review of Epstein and Maxwell documents.

      April 10, 2025: Maxwell files cert petition.

      April 25, 2025: Virginia Giuffre dies by suicide.

      Sometime in May: Bondi tells Trump he’s in the Epstein files.

      May 7, 2025: John Sauer delays response; Bondi claims there are thousands of videos.

      May 18, 2025: Kash Patel and Dan Bongino affirm that Epstein killed himself.

      May 22, 2025: Epstein prison video created.

      June 5, 2025: Elon Musk claims Trump is in the Epstein files.

      June 6, 2025: John Sauer delays response.

      July 7, 2025: Pam Bondi claims there’s no there there.

      July 8, 2025: Trump loses it over questions about Epstein.

      July 9, 2025: Undefined ABC query about Epstein leads to spat at DOJ.

      July 12, 2025: Trump attempts to claim Epstein is a Democratic plot.

      July 14, 2025: DOJ defends Maxwell prosecution; David Markus suggests Trump is reneging on a deal.

      July 15, 2025: WSJ interviews Trump about Epstein book; Trump falsely tells ABC he has not been told.

      July 16, 2025: Pam Bondi fires Maurene Comey, on Trump’s personal authority.

      July 17, 2025: Trump yells at supporters who won’t move on from Epstein. WSJ publishes story.

      July 18, 2025: Todd Blanche files to unseal grand jury materials; Trump sues WSJ.

  2. Savage Librarian says:

    Meanwhile, the discharge petition is inching along. Maybe we’ll see some positive action by the end of September.

    Together with Maurene Comey’s lawsuit, we might be learning some interesting things in the next couple of months.

    • emptywheel says:

      If and when Adelita Grijalva wins the special to replace her father the discharge petition should have 218.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        TV people keep saying “But it’s just a discharge petition.” Meaning it won’t mean much. Are they wrong?

        • Savage Librarian says:

          The name is confusing. But what it really means is that it allows a bill to get out of committee when it is being blocked procedurally. That allows it to be voted on by the full House. So, the committee is being discharged.

          And, if there are enough representatives to get it out of committee, then hopefully, there are the same number (or more) who would pass the bill. So, it’s a big deal. If TV people don’t know that, bad on them.

  3. Molly Pitcher says:

    I am looking for the trifecta,when Mehtab Syed, the head of the Salt Lake City FBI office whom Keystone Kash fired, files her lawsuit.

  4. greenbird says:

    p26 Doc01 Comey:
    “it was arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory (based on her connection to her father, or her perceived political affiliation and beliefs, or both), and the result of “personal favoritism” towards her critics.”
    – or both –

    • Rayne says:

      Associated Press report also adds:

      The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Florida names several articles and one book written by two of the publication’s journalists and published in the lead up to the 2024 election, saying they are “part of a decades-long pattern by the New York Times of intentional and malicious defamation against President Trump.”

      IIRC, NY has some of the best anti-SLAPP laws.

      Does Team Trump think this suit will be immune from the Streisand effect?

      • Rayne says:

        NYT published a response today: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/business/media/trump-lawsuit-new-york-times.html

        According to the complaint, the articles and the book were published with “actual malice” toward Mr. Trump and caused “enormous” economic losses and damage to his “professional and occupational interests.” The lawsuit asked for damages of at least $15 billion.

        The defendants named in the suit were The New York Times Company and Susanne Craig, Russ Buettner, Peter Baker and Michael S. Schmidt. The complaint also named Penguin Random House, which published a book about Mr. Trump written by Ms. Craig and Mr. Buettner, as a defendant.

        The complaint claims that the defendants timed the publication of the articles and books “at the height of election season to inflict maximum electoral damage against President Trump.”

        Huh. He didn’t sue Maggie Kneepads Haberman for her book, Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America, published one month before mid-term elections. How odd. *eye roll*

        • chocolateislove says:

          WTF? The man is the actual president. So it didn’t do that much damage there. And Trump has made billions of dollars since Jan. 20. So not much damage there either. What a whiny, petty jackass. I believe the phrase that the MAGAverse likes to invoke is “Fuck Your Feelings”.

          The President’s salary is $400K. Very interesting that Trump thinks he is owed $15B. Is that how much he thinks he can grift from his second term?

          Jeebus, I hope NYT doesn’t cave like the other media companies.

        • Scott_in_MI says:

          Which could also be attributed to the fact that if Trump’s not on the ballot, he doesn’t care. (To be clear, I don’t think those are mutually-exclusive explanations.)

        • xyxyxyxy says:

          re-chocolateislove September 16, 2025 12:30 pm
          Isn’t he supposedly donating his $400K salary, probably somehow to the closed Trump Foundation?

        • Reader 21 says:

          Mags be like, hey I wrote over 90 articles about “her emails” and/or Benghazi—basically every time I even mentioned Hillary, and wrote exactly zero (as in—none) articles about Individual 1’s well-documented, longstanding, and financial ties to figures suspected, indicted or convicted of being associates of transnational and Eurasian (read: Russian) organized crime—Not.one.word. >90:0. That is quite the ratio.

      • Memory hole says:

        Why would this lawsuit be filed in Florida? Wouldn’t New York be the base that the Times publishes out of?

        Or is he possibly trying to shop for a loose Cannon for judge?

        • Rayne says:

          Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps he’s going to argue he’s a resident of FL and that’s where his income and assets have been most “damaged” (hah).

          We could just be looking at somebody throwing ketchup at the walls, too, demonstrating about as much sense.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Does no one have the courage to tell him that the Times is *not* owned by a major conglomerate with future business before his administration?

      It makes a difference.

      • Reader 21 says:

        Yes—I honestly think he believes that “hate speech” should encompass anything critical of him. Such an idiot.

Comments are closed.