The recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey has sent shockwaves through Washington, prompting calls, counterclaims, and intense scrutiny of how political power interacts with the justice system. In the eye of this storm is Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has been urged by supporters—most notably former President Donald Trump—to expand prosecutions of his political adversaries.

But just how far is Bondi willing to go? Has she revealed whether additional charges against Comey—or others—are on the horizon? This investigation traces Bondi’s statements, internal DOJ signals, and the legal framework to assess where things might head next.

The Current State: Comey Indicted

Before exploring what more might come, it’s critical to understand where things stand:

On September 25, 2025, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia indicted Comey on charges that include making a false statement to Congress and obstruction of a congressional investigation.

The indictment followed intense public pressure from Trump, who had earlier demanded that Bondi prosecute Comey, along with other political figures such as Sen. Adam Schiff and New York AG Letitia James.

Bondi publicly echoed the indictment: “No one is above the law … Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable.”

Thus, while charges against Comey are now public, the question remains: did Bondi suggest that more charges are imminent? And if so, under what logic or evidence?

Bondi’s Remarks: Does She Indicate More Charges?

On weaponization, “everything is on the table,” and authority

In a Fox News appearance on Hannity, Bondi made a sweeping statement: that “weaponization has ended” and that under her leadership, “everything is on the table.” She framed this as a reset: under past administrations, the legal system was allegedly used selectively, but now all actors—former FBI heads, intelligence officials, state leaders—may be scrutinized.

That broad phrasing can be interpreted as leaving open the possibility of further indictments—either additional counts for Comey or charges against other targets. But “everything is on the table” is a rhetorical device; it does not equate to specific promises.

On commenting and disclosure: “We can’t comment on that”

When directly asked in a CNN segment whether an indictment was imminent, Bondi responded that she “could not comment” on that. That ambiguity is a customary stance by prosecutors, who usually refrain from public messaging about ongoing or potential indictments.

On reservations and internal DOJ concerns

Sources have reported that Bondi and prosecutors internally have reservations about the strength of the case against Comey.

Attorneys in the Eastern District of Virginia reportedly authored a memo expressing doubt about sufficient probable cause to support an indictment on all counts.

Bondi is said to believe it is still possible to bring charges before the statute of limitations expires—but she is conscious of legal risk if the case doesn’t hold up.

Some sources say Bondi has expressed skepticism publicly or privately about whether perjury charges against Comey can be sustained.

Thus, while Bondi signals openness, she also appears cautious, aware that pushing too far without evidence may backfire.

Legal & Tactical Constraints on Additional Charges

Even if Bondi wants to escalate, she must contend with structural and legal constraints:

Statute of limitations

Any new charges must generally be brought within the statute of limitations. Some reports suggest prosecutors are racing against deadlines.

Probable cause and evidence threshold

Indictments require probable cause; to convict, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Bondi and DOJ staff reportedly doubt whether every element of potential charges (especially perjury) can be proven.

Internal dissent and departmental independence

There is reportedly internal DOJ pushback: some career prosecutors believe the Comey indictment itself is a dangerous precedent or a political stunt. If more charges appear partisan, it could prompt resignations, whistleblowers, or court challenges.

Legal exposure and defamation risk

If additional charges are brought and later dropped or thrown out, critics could argue the DOJ is being weaponized again. Bondi must consider the reputational and legal risks to the Department.

Political optics and backlash

Any further prosecutions—especially of politically connected individuals—will be portrayed as politically motivated, increasing scrutiny from Congress, media, and civil liberties advocates.

Indicators That Could Signal More Charges

If Bondi truly plans to expand prosecutions or add more counts, certain signals may appear:

DOJ filings or memos leaked or published indicating expanded scope.

Appointments or reassignments: e.g. special prosecutors or expanded “strike teams” to handle additional cases.

Public statements adding targets beyond Comey, or hinting at investigations into other officials (e.g. intelligence heads, former officials in 2016 probe). Bondi’s “everything is on the table” remark is often seen in that light.

Grand jury activity: New subpoenas, witness statements, or grand jury expansion in relevant jurisdictions.

Public pressure and media leaks from DOJ insiders or oversight bodies revealing evolving plans.

Assessment: Is Bondi Preparing to Push Further?

Given the evidence and public signals, here’s what seems plausible:

Bondi has left the door open for further prosecutions: her rhetoric suggests she is not limiting the scope to only Comey. Her “everything is on the table” phrase is inclusive and expansive.

However, she also appears cautious: her refusal to comment, reported internal reservations, and acknowledgement of legal risk suggest she won’t rush.

Further charges are possible but not guaranteed: whether they materialize depends heavily on whether the evidence supports them and whether DOJ insiders, courts, and public integrity survive the pressure.

In short: Bondi has revealed thatmore charges are not off the table, but she has not committed to them—and her own internal doubts may temper any aggressive expansion.

Implications & Risks of Expanding Charges

If Bondi does move to bring more charges—whether additional counts against Comey or prosecutions of others—the stakes are high:

Political backlash: Critics will interpret moves as revenge prosecutions. The narrative of weaponized justice will intensify.

Judicial pushback: Defense attorneys may file motions to dismiss, argue selective prosecution, or demand DOJ disclosures.

Institutional strain: DOJ morale could suffer, and internal factions might oppose further escalation.

Precedent risks: If more politically charged figures are indicted, it may damage the perception of DOJ as an impartial arbiter.

Conclusion

Pam Bondi has made some revealing remarks, but not definitive ones, about whether more charges are coming for James Comey. Her stewardship suggests both ambition and restraint. The idea of additional prosecutions aligns with her stated goal to end “weaponization” and hold powerful figures accountable—but the legal and political perils are considerable.