Judge Asserts Misconduct in Comey Case, Grants Temporary Win to U.S. Attorney
The Justice Department scored only a brief procedural win Monday after a federal judge temporarily halted a stunning order that would have forced prosecutors to hand over grand jury materials to former FBI Director James Comey — a move that could expose serious misconduct inside the Biden-era DOJ.
The pause came mere hours after Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick issued a blistering ruling accusing U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan and FBI investigators of committing “profound investigative missteps” that may have tainted the grand jury process. Halligan, appointed earlier this year, has faced internal criticism for her handling of the case.
Fitzpatrick’s opinion did not mince words. He found that the “record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” committed by both prosecutors and the FBI, adding that “these missteps led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”
Calling it an “extraordinary remedy,” Fitzpatrick ordered the DOJ to turn over the full grand jury transcripts and accompanying recordings to Comey’s defense team — a move virtually unheard of outside cases involving clear government misconduct. He blasted prosecutors for pursuing what he labeled a “slapdash indictment,” arguing the Justice Department appeared to “indict first, investigate second.”
Among the most serious findings: Fitzpatrick determined that Halligan provided “misleading” instructions to grand jurors and failed to obtain proper warrants before reviewing evidence seized years earlier. He also identified “two misstatements to the grand jury that may put the case in jeopardy.”
Within hours, the DOJ appealed. Late Monday, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff — a Biden appointee — temporarily froze Fitzpatrick’s order, giving prosecutors until Wednesday to submit formal objections. Comey’s defense will respond on Friday.
Comey was indicted in September on two charges — false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding — stemming from his 2020 Senate testimony regarding his authorization of leaks tied to the FBI’s Trump and Clinton investigations. The magistrate’s opinion also revealed that an earlier grand jury rejected a broader, three-count indictment before the DOJ returned with a narrower case.
According to Reuters, Fitzpatrick’s ruling also noted that at least one FBI agent who testified before the grand jury may have been improperly exposed to material protected by attorney-client privilege.
“The Court finds the record in this case requires the full disclosure of grand jury materials,” Fitzpatrick wrote. “Given the factually based challenges the defense has raised to the government’s conduct and the prospect that misconduct may have tainted the grand jury proceedings, disclosure under these unique circumstances is necessary to fully protect the rights of the accused.”
Comey — who has made a fortune attacking President Trump and portraying himself as a martyr of the “Russia collusion” hoax — has pleaded not guilty. He claims the prosecution is driven by “personal spite,” asserting that it is retaliation for his leadership of the FBI probe into alleged Russian interference.
Comey is one of several high-profile Trump critics charged in recent months, alongside former National Security Adviser John Bolton and New York Attorney General Letitia James. All have attempted to frame the indictments as political revenge despite mounting evidence of wrongdoing.
A DOJ spokesperson refused to address the specific accusations but insisted the department would “vigorously defend the integrity of the proceedings.”
Legal analysts say Fitzpatrick’s ruling represents one of the rare times a court has pierced grand jury secrecy — a sign of how seriously the judge views potential misconduct.
“This is highly unusual,” a former federal prosecutor said. “Grand jury secrecy is sacrosanct — when a court orders disclosure, it means the judge believes the government crossed a serious line.”
The fight now heads to a higher court, but one thing is clear: the DOJ’s handling of the Comey case is facing more scrutiny than ever, and Fitzpatrick’s findings could trigger political, legal, and institutional fallout far beyond this single indictment.