(LOOTPRESS) – The Justice Department’s case against former FBI Director James Comey faced major setbacks Wednesday as a federal judge repeatedly challenged prosecutors over how the indictment was handled and whether it was ever properly approved by a grand jury.
During a hearing in Alexandria, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff scrutinized the September 25 grand jury proceedings that led to Comey’s two-count indictment for allegedly lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding related to 2020 testimony. Comey has pleaded not guilty and is seeking to have the charges dismissed, arguing the prosecution is politically motivated and improperly conducted.
Grand Jury Process Under Fire
Prosecutors told the court that after interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan presented the case to the grand jury, jurors deliberated for about two hours. Halligan said she was informed the panel rejected one charge but approved two others.
Federal prosecutor Tyler Lemons said the indictment was then edited to remove the rejected count, leaving only the two charges that jurors supported. But Judge Nachmanoff questioned whether this revised indictment was ever presented to the full grand jury. Lemons acknowledged it was not, and that the edited version was taken directly to a magistrate judge, Lindsey Vaala, who expressed confusion after receiving both the two-count indictment and a separate report listing three original charges.
Halligan later told the judge that only the foreperson and one grand juror were present when the indictment was returned to the magistrate.
Comey attorney Michael Dreeben seized on that admission, arguing it meant the indictment was never legally returned. “There is no indictment that Mr. Comey is facing,” Dreeben told the court, urging the charges be dismissed with prejudice, noting the statute of limitations has since expired.
Multiple Judges Flag Irregularities
Wednesday’s hearing is the latest in a series of courtroom moments that have called the Justice Department’s handling of the case into question.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie raised concerns about a missing segment of the transcript from Halligan’s grand jury presentation. Halligan insisted the gap reflected the jury’s closed-door deliberations, not a transcription failure.
But on Monday, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick expressed doubts of his own, saying it appeared the second indictment — the two-count version — was never actually presented to the grand jury. He noted that only about seven minutes passed between the time Halligan supposedly learned of the jury’s vote and when she appeared in court to return the edited indictment.
Fitzpatrick wrote that the timeline “could not have been sufficient” for drafting, signing, presenting, and deliberating on a revised indictment. If it was presented, he said, the transcript is incomplete. If it wasn’t, prosecutors may have returned an indictment the grand jury never approved — placing the case in “uncharted legal territory.”
The judge also ordered prosecutors to hand over all grand jury materials to Comey’s legal team and criticized what he described as a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps,” warning that government misconduct may have compromised the proceedings.
What’s Next
Judge Nachmanoff has not yet ruled on Comey’s motion to dismiss. But after Wednesday’s hearing, the foundation of the prosecution appears increasingly unstable, with multiple judges openly questioning whether the indictment is valid at all.
If the court finds the grand jury process was mishandled, the charges could be thrown out permanently.
