Glitch In Comey Case Could Result In Dismissal of Charges
The Justice Department scrambled on Thursday to correct its own courtroom statements, insisting that the full grand jury did, in fact, review the final indictment against former FBI Director James Comey. The abrupt reversal came less than 24 hours after lead prosecutor Lindsey Halligan told a federal judge that only two jurors — the foreperson and one additional member — had seen the revised charging document.
In a new filing, prosecutors sought to “correct the record,” asserting that the complete panel reviewed and voted on the two counts Comey now faces. The department’s clarification appeared aimed at stabilizing a prosecution already facing procedural turbulence and growing scrutiny.
Halligan wrote that “any assertion that the grand jury ‘never voted on the two-count indictment,’ is contradicted by the official transcript,” adding that the documentation leaves “no room for ambiguity.” She described the conflict as nothing more than a “clerical inconsistency” related to the dismissed first count while maintaining that the remaining indictment is sound.
But that explanation clashed sharply with what Halligan and Assistant U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons told the court just one day earlier. According to their earlier testimony, after jurors rejected one of the initial charges, prosecutors never returned the newly revised indictment to the full panel. Instead, they said the foreperson and a single juror reviewed and signed the updated version on behalf of the group, The Hill reported.
Comey was indicted September 25 on two federal counts — one for making false statements to Congress and another for obstruction of justice, CNN reported.
Prosecutors allege Comey obstructed a congressional investigation into the FBI’s handling of sensitive information under 18 USC 1505. They also claim he lied to lawmakers when he denied authorizing an FBI subordinate to leak classified information to outlets including the New York Times. The indictment asserts Comey approved the leaks during the politically charged height of the Russia investigation — a period that has remained contentious years after his removal from office.
The case has drawn even more attention because the indictment was filed only days after President Trump announced he would appoint Halligan as the district’s top prosecutor.
In a tense hearing, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff pressed prosecutors on the contradictory accounts. When asked whether the final indictment was a document “never shown” to the full grand jury, Lemons responded that he had not been present but said, “yes, that is my understanding.”
The procedural misstep could threaten the entire prosecution. Comey has pleaded not guilty, and his attorneys argue the indictment is invalid and the statute of limitations on the alleged offenses has already expired. In a Thursday filing, the defense said the discrepancies would anchor a forthcoming motion to dismiss.
The Hill noted that Halligan has never previously led a criminal prosecution — a point that surfaced during earlier proceedings, where Judge Nachmanoff, a Biden appointee, took the unusual step of questioning whether she was operating as a “puppet” or “stalking horse” for former President Trump.
In comments to NBC News, Halligan pushed back forcefully.
“Personal attacks — like Judge Nachmanoff referring to me as a ‘puppet’ — don’t change the facts or the law,” she said.
She referenced the Judicial Canons, saying judges must be “patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity” and must “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
“My focus remains on the record and the law, and I will continue to fulfill my responsibilities with professionalism,” she added.