Shattered Shield, Part I: The Hammer
They aren’t coming for James Comey. They are coming for the idea that the law protects you.
You felt it too, didn’t you?
That faint vibration in the floorboards of the Republic. A low, persistent hum of dread that’s been building for years, the kind of tremor that signals a deep and unforgiving shift in the foundations. For a long time, it was just a feeling—a shared, unspoken anxiety around the dinner table, a tightening in the chest while watching the evening news. We told ourselves it was just the noise of politics. We told ourselves the house was still safe.
And then, on September 25, 2025, the sound became a *CRACK*.
The news of the federal indictment of James Comey, the former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was not just another headline in a chaotic news cycle. It was the sound of something vital breaking. It was the groan of support beams that had been strained past their limit, the sharp report of a fracture running through the marble facade of American justice.
This wasn’t about one man’s guilt or innocence, his sins or his virtues. It was about the shattering of a covenant, the fundamental promise that the law is a shield held by the state to protect its citizens. This is the story of how that shield was taken down, melted in the furnace of political vengeance, and reforged into a hammer.
It is the story of a coordinated campaign to turn the Department of Justice into a weapon of personal retribution. The indictment of James Comey was the first, deafening blow from that hammer, a message sent from the powerful to the public.
The message was simple and brutal: no one is safe. The law is no longer here to protect you. It is here to be used against anyone deemed an enemy.
A Doctrine Written in Blood and Ink: Defining the Hammer
To understand what happened to James Comey, you must first understand that it was not a random act of political score-settling. It was the execution of a doctrine. This doctrine, the first prong of a larger strategy called the “Pincer Movement,” is known as “The Hammer”.
The Hammer is the direct, public, and targeted weaponization of the legal system against a high-profile political adversary. Its purpose is not necessarily to secure a conviction, which can be a messy and uncertain affair. Its primary function is to perform a prosecution. It is a demonstration of force, a piece of political theater designed to make an example of one powerful individual to prove that loyalty is the only thing that grants safety, and dissent will be met with the full, crushing weight of the state. The goal is to create a chilling effect that radiates far beyond the immediate target, to instill a fear that silences critics and paralyzes opposition.
This strategy is not subtle. In fact, its power lies in its overtness, not its secrecy. Traditional political corruption hides in back rooms and relies on plausible deniability. The Hammer operates in the open. The command to prosecute is given on a public social media platform. The prosecutor who resists is fired in the light of day. The loyalist who complies is installed with public fanfare. The administration was not trying to hide its influence; it was broadcasting it.
This brazenness is a feature, not a bug. It sends an unmistakable signal to every public servant, every journalist, every citizen: the institutional safeguards are gone. The process itself is the punishment. The rule of law has been replaced by the rule of fear.
This Hammer does not swing in a vacuum. It is the loud, brutal counterpart to a second prong of the Pincer Movement: “The Net”. While the Hammer targets a single, high-profile individual, the Net is cast wide, using vague, pseudo-legal designations like “domestic terrorist” to create a broad category of enemies that can ensnare anyone. The fear created by the Hammer gives teeth to the threat of the Net.
The story of the Net will be told in Part II. First, we must examine the forging of the Hammer.
Anatomy of a Political Takedown: The Indictment of Citizen Comey
The indictment of James Comey was not the result of a lawful, evidence-based investigation. It was the end product of an assembly line of political manufacturing, a process in which each component of impartial justice was systematically stripped out and replaced with an instrument of political will.
The King’s Decree: “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
The process began not with evidence, but with a command. On September 20, 2025, just five days before the indictment was handed down, President Donald Trump issued a direct and public order on his Truth Social platform. He explicitly named Comey and demanded action: “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”.
The causal link is undeniable. This was not a president respecting the independence of his Justice Department; it was a monarch issuing a decree. When the indictment was secured, the celebration was just as public. Trump hailed it as “JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” and ominously replied that he hoped “there will be others,” signaling a broader campaign of retribution. This raw display of political will was wrapped in the thinnest possible veneer of legitimacy. “It’s about justice really,” the President claimed. “It’s not revenge”. But the process that followed this decree reveals the truth. The order had been given, and the machinery of the state was being retooled to obey.
The Purge of the Unwilling: The Ousting of Erik Siebert
The first obstacle to the President’s command was the law itself. The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert, was a career prosecutor who had been overseeing a months-long investigation into the allegations against Comey. After reviewing the evidence, his office came to a professional conclusion: there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.
In a functioning republic, that would have been the end of it. But in this new reality, a prosecutor’s adherence to the facts is seen as an act of insubordination. Siebert resisted the pressure to manufacture a case where none existed. For this, he was ousted. The professional was purged to make way for the political.
The Installation of the Willing: The Unqualified Executioner
To carry out the President’s order, the administration needed an executioner, not a prosecutor. They found one in Lindsey Halligan. Halligan was installed as the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Her qualifications for one of the most important prosecutorial jobs in the country were not in law enforcement; they were in loyalty. Halligan had zero prior prosecutorial experience. Her career was built on serving Donald Trump personally, as an insurance and defamation lawyer whose fees were paid by his Save America PAC. Her appointment was not an act of governance; it was the insertion of a political operative into the heart of the justice system with a single, explicit task: secure the indictment of James Comey.
The Memo They Ignored: The Ghost of the Law
The most damning evidence of this political subversion came from within the U.S. Attorney’s office itself. The career prosecutors who had worked under Erik Siebert drafted a formal “do not prosecute” memo, a detailed document advising against an indictment due to the lack of sufficient evidence.
This memo represents the ghost of the law—the institution’s own documented, evidence-based judgment. It was presented to the newly installed Lindsey Halligan upon her arrival. Her decision to ignore this formal recommendation and proceed with the indictment anyway was the final, definitive act of corruption. It proves that the indictment was not merely influenced by politics; it was an outcome that had to be forced upon the Department of Justice against its own formal, written conclusion.
A Case Built on Sand: The Grand Jury’s Warning
Having purged the unwilling and installed the willing, the administration got its indictment on September 25, 2025. Comey was charged with two felony counts: Making a False Statement to Congress and Obstruction of a Congressional Proceeding.
But even at this stage, the weakness of the manufactured case was glaring. A federal grand jury hears only from the prosecution and almost always acts as a rubber stamp. Yet in this case, in a highly unusual rebuke, the grand jury rejected a third felony count that prosecutors sought to include.
The goal of the Hammer is not a conviction. The goal is the indictment itself—the headline, the financial and personal cost of a legal defense, the public branding of an enemy as a criminal. The process is the punishment. A weak, partial, embarrassing indictment serves that purpose just as well as a strong one.
The Silence Where the Shield Used to Be
The true victim in this affair is not James Comey. The true victim is the rule of law. The strategic goal of the Hammer was never just to break one man, but to shatter the shield for everyone.
And in this, it has been a resounding success.
The campaign has successfully destroyed the Department of Justice’s credibility as a neutral arbiter of law. Polling data reveals a catastrophic collapse of public trust, with a 45-point swing in the partisan gap in favorable views of the DOJ in just the past year. The administration has successfully transformed the department in the eyes of its supporters into a trusted political instrument, while simultaneously delegitimizing it among its opponents. This institutional paralysis is the true prize.
A dangerous new playbook has been established, one that normalizes the use of federal prosecution for political retribution. This precedent threatens to unleash a cycle of escalating retaliation by future administrations, a cycle that could destroy the norm of the peaceful transfer of power. When losing an election means facing potential prosecution by your successor, the stakes are raised to an existential level.
The tremor has become a crack. The shield lies shattered on the ground. In its place is a hammer.
And we, the citizens, are left standing in the open, vulnerable, listening to the silence where the promise of the law’s protection used to be.
Read Part II now.
https://buymeacoffee.com/commonsenserebel
Having recently discovered your substack, I enjoy reading your work. Your writing has provided me with another lens to view the facts on the ground. Sadly, however, I agree with your assessment as much as I wish otherwise.
The cult lives on and on and on………….