The prosecution of the former FBI director hit a stunning snag when prosecutors admitted the full grand jury never approved the indictment
The criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey took a dramatic turn Wednesday when prosecutors made a stunning admission in federal court. Interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan acknowledged that the full grand jury never actually reviewed the indictment it supposedly handed up against Comey, a revelation that could prove fatal to the entire prosecution.
Instead of presenting a revised indictment to the complete grand jury after it declined to approve one of the original counts, Halligan simply brought an altered version to the magistrate’s courtroom for the grand jury’s foreperson to sign. Only two grand jurors total ever saw the final charges that Comey now faces.
Comey’s attorney Michael Dreeben immediately seized on this disclosure, arguing to Judge Michael Nachmanoff that given the prosecutor’s testimony, no valid indictment was actually returned against his client. He went further, stating flatly that there is no indictment and noting that the statute of limitations has now elapsed on charges of lying to Congress.
The uncomfortable exchange in court
The moment played out awkwardly before the Alexandria, Virginia federal judge. When Nachmanoff sought confirmation about whether the entire grand jury had seen the altered indictment, Halligan interrupted him mid-question. She insisted there had been one additional grand juror present in the magistrate’s courtroom beyond the foreperson.
The judge made clear he was already familiar with the transcript she was referencing and told her to sit down. He then turned to prosecutor Tyler Lemons and asked directly whether the new document was ever presented to the full grand jury for approval. Lemons carefully responded that while he was not personally present, his understanding was that it had not been.
Trump’s involvement hangs over proceedings
The grand jury issue represents just one of multiple problems plaguing the prosecution. The hearing focused heavily on whether President Donald Trump improperly directed the case out of personal animosity toward Comey, making it a vindictive and selective prosecution that should be dismissed.
Comey’s legal team has submitted more than 60 pages documenting years of public statements showing Trump and Comey attacking each other. The vast majority of social media posts come from Trump, including his September directive to Attorney General Pam Bondi calling for Comey’s prosecution alongside other perceived political enemies like Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Dreeben argued that Trump‘s September social media post represents a crystal clear example of the president using the full weight of the criminal justice system against someone based purely on personal dislike. He compared the post to the famous line from King Henry II asking who would rid him of a meddlesome priest, prompting the judge to joke that Henry the Second cannot be binding precedent in his courtroom.
Questions about the prosecutor’s independence
The Justice Department attempted to push back against claims that Halligan acted as Trump’s puppet. Prosecutor Lemons insisted that Halligan was not simply following orders and that the case was based on Comey’s alleged lie to Congress during a 2020 Senate hearing about whether he ever authorized leaks to the press.
However, Judge Nachmanoff questioned what independent examination Halligan could possibly have conducted in the mere days between her appointment and the charges being brought against Comey. The timeline suggests extraordinary speed in a case that other prosecutors had reportedly declined to pursue.
Adding to the intrigue, Lemons declined to say whether prosecutors had previously submitted a memo recommending against prosecuting Comey. He told the judge that someone in Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s office instructed him not to disclose what they considered privileged information. Under questioning, Lemons conceded he had reviewed draft memorandums but refused to provide additional details.
Multiple paths to dismissal
The Comey case faces potential collapse from several different angles beyond the grand jury revelation and vindictive prosecution claims. His defense team is attacking the case on numerous fronts, arguing that evidence was improperly obtained or too old to use, that Halligan abused the grand jury process by incorrectly advising jurors on the law, and that the question Senator Ted Cruz asked Comey in 2020 was far too ambiguous to base criminal charges around.
A magistrate judge previously identified multiple concerning issues with how Halligan presented the case to the grand jury, including suggestions that she misled grand jurors about the law and implied Comey would need to testify to win at trial. There are also questions about whether several minutes of discussion with the grand jury went unrecorded.
The judge weighs heavy issues
Nachmanoff made clear he would not rule immediately on whether to dismiss the case, calling the issues too weighty and complex for a same-day decision. He directed the Justice Department to file a response by 5 p.m. Wednesday addressing the revelations about the grand jury process.
The hearing highlighted how entrenched Trump appears to be in what critics characterize as a retaliatory presidency. Meanwhile, a separate South Carolina-based federal judge is expected to rule soon on whether Halligan, serving as an interim US attorney without Senate confirmation, even had the legal authority to prosecute Comey in the first place.
Comey attended the hearing in person as his legal team fought to dismantle the case against him before it ever reaches trial.
Source: CNN legal team coverage