Listen to the article
The prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey faced another setback Wednesday as Justice Department officials admitted in court that the full grand jury never reviewed the final indictment against him, raising serious questions about the case’s legitimacy.
This revelation emerged during a hearing where Comey’s legal team asked U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff to dismiss the case on grounds of vindictive prosecution. The development threatens to further undermine a politically sensitive case already facing multiple challenges.
Under questioning from Judge Nachmanoff, prosecutor Tyler Lemons acknowledged that the revised two-count indictment was not shown to the entire grand jury. When pressed further, Lindsey Halligan, the special prosecutor who secured the indictment, confirmed that only two grand jurors, including the foreperson, were present when the final document was presented to a magistrate.
Comey’s attorney, Michael Dreeben, immediately seized on this admission, arguing it constituted grounds for dismissal. “That would be tantamount to a bar of further prosecution in this case,” Dreeben told the court, adding that the statute of limitations for the charged crimes has now expired without a valid indictment.
The Justice Department later filed court documents downplaying the significance of the revelation, arguing that the two charges in the final indictment were identical to counts the grand jury had previously approved. “Given that the grand jury was presented with the two counts on which it voted to return an indictment and in fact voted upon those counts,” prosecutors wrote, dismissal is unnecessary.
The case’s procedural irregularities had already drawn judicial scrutiny earlier this week when U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick issued a blistering ruling highlighting what he called “profound investigative missteps,” including misstatements of law to the grand jury.
Comey, fired by then-President Trump in May 2017 while overseeing the FBI investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign, has pleaded not guilty to charges of making a false statement and obstructing Congress. The allegations stem from testimony regarding whether Comey authorized an FBI colleague to serve as an anonymous source to news media.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Dreeben also argued that the prosecution itself is unconstitutionally vindictive, rooted in President Trump’s well-documented animosity toward Comey. “The president’s use of the Department of Justice to bring a criminal prosecution against a vocal and prominent critic in order to punish and deter those who would speak out against him violates the Constitution,” Dreeben told the court.
Comey’s legal team pointed to numerous public attacks by Trump, who has called the former FBI director “a weak and untruthful slime ball” and repeatedly called for his prosecution. They highlighted a September social media post where Trump complained to Attorney General Pam Bondi about inaction against political opponents, writing that “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
“If this is not a direction to prosecute,” Dreeben argued, “I’d really be at a loss to say what is.”
The night of that post, Trump appointed Halligan, a White House aide without prior prosecutorial experience, as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. She replaced a veteran prosecutor who was effectively removed after declining to charge Comey or New York Attorney General Letitia James, another Trump critic. Days later, as the statute of limitations was about to expire, Halligan secured Comey’s indictment.
Justice Department prosecutor Lemons rejected the characterization that the case was politically motivated, insisting that Comey was indicted because he broke the law. “The defendant is not being put on trial for anything he said about the president,” Lemons stated, adding that nobody directed Halligan to prosecute Comey. “It was her decision and her decision only.”
Judge Nachmanoff, however, noted the timing of Halligan’s appointment just days before she presented the case to the grand jury. “What independent evaluation could she have done in that time period?” he asked.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Nachmanoff declined to issue an immediate ruling, saying “the issues are too weighty and too complex” for a bench decision. His forthcoming ruling could determine whether the case proceeds or is dismissed entirely.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
Interesting development in the Comey case. Seems the Justice Department has some explaining to do about their grand jury process. This could potentially undermine the whole prosecution if the indictment wasn’t properly reviewed.
You’re right, this revelation raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the case. I wonder how the judge will rule on the dismissal motion.
This development really undermines the credibility of the case against Comey. If the full grand jury didn’t review the final charges, that’s a major flaw that casts doubt on the entire process. The judge will have to weigh this carefully.
The Justice Department’s handling of this case is starting to look quite messy. Cutting corners on the grand jury process is a serious misstep that could unravel the whole prosecution. This bears watching closely.
Absolutely. The prosecutors need to provide a very convincing explanation for this apparent lapse, or the judge may have no choice but to dismiss the indictment.
This is a pretty damning admission by the prosecutors. If the full grand jury didn’t review the final indictment, that’s a glaring flaw in the process. Comey’s lawyers will undoubtedly use this to argue the case should be thrown out.
The Justice Department’s handling of this case is starting to look increasingly sloppy and problematic. Cutting corners on the grand jury process is a major misstep that casts doubt on the whole prosecution. Comey’s team has solid grounds to push for dismissal here.
Wow, this is a huge problem for the prosecutors. Failing to properly present the indictment to the full grand jury seems like a critical error that could derail the entire case. Comey’s lawyers will surely seize on this.
Absolutely. This revelation throws the legitimacy of the indictment into serious question. The judge will have a tough decision on whether to dismiss the charges based on this.
This is a troubling sign for the prosecution. If the full grand jury didn’t review the final indictment, that seems like a major flaw in the process. Comey’s team will likely press hard on this issue.
Agreed, the admission that only two grand jurors saw the final indictment is very concerning. It could give Comey’s lawyers strong grounds to get the case dismissed.