Halligan: Full Grand Jury Never Saw Final Indictment against Comey/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Justice Department says the grand jury that charged former FBI Director James Comey was not presented with a copy of the final indictment. Prosecutors made the acknowledgment under questioning Wednesday from the judge overseeing the case. Comey’s lawyers said that lapse was grounds for dismissal of the case. There was no immediate decision from the judge. Comey’s attorneys argued in court that the criminal case against him is vindictive and politically motivated by Donald Trump. They allege the prosecution stems from Trump’s personal vendetta and violates Comey’s constitutional rights. The DOJ denies these claims, but recent judicial criticism casts doubt on the case’s future.
Comey Legal Battle Quick Looks
- Comey’s team says case is Trump-driven political revenge.
- Defense claims prosecution violates First Amendment rights.
- Judge hears arguments on dismissal motion in Virginia court.
- Trump criticized DOJ for not prosecuting political opponents.
- Interim U.S. attorney appointed after Trump’s public pressure.
- Comey accused of obstruction and false statements.
- DOJ denies case is selective or vindictive.
- Magistrate judge flagged “disturbing” missteps by prosecution.
- Prosecution led by Trump aide with no prior experience.
- Case risks collapse as legal scrutiny intensifies.
Deep Look: Comey’s Lawyers Say Trump-Led Prosecution Is Vindictive, Seek Dismissal
ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — Former FBI Director James Comey is once again seeking dismissal of the criminal charges brought against him, with his legal team alleging that the prosecution is a politically motivated act of vengeance orchestrated by President Donald Trump.
During a court hearing on Wednesday, Comey’s attorney Michael Dreeben told U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff that the case is a constitutional violation, claiming it stems directly from Trump’s personal hostility toward Comey, whom he fired in 2017.
“The president’s use of the Department of Justice to bring a criminal prosecution against a vocal and prominent critic… violates the Constitution,” Dreeben said in court.
Charges and Political Backdrop
Comey faces charges of making false statements and obstructing Congress, but he has pleaded not guilty and maintains his innocence. His attorneys argue the charges are retaliatory, pushed forward as part of Trump’s long-standing feud with the former FBI director.
Trump fired Comey while he was leading an FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and potential connections to Trump’s campaign. Since then, the two have been in open conflict, with Trump publicly branding Comey as “a weak and untruthful slime ball” and frequently calling for his prosecution.
DOJ and Interim Prosecutor Under Fire
In court filings and statements, the Justice Department has rejected claims of vindictive prosecution, maintaining that the case is based on factual evidence and that proper legal processes were followed.
However, scrutiny of the DOJ’s actions has intensified, particularly after the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan, a Trump White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, was appointed on the same night Trump posted on social media demanding that his political opponents be prosecuted.
“JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” Trump wrote in a September post to Attorney General Pam Bondi, criticizing DOJ inaction and demanding immediate indictments.
Shortly after Halligan replaced a veteran federal prosecutor—who had declined to charge Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James—she secured the indictment against Comey, just days before the statute of limitations was set to expire.
“If this is not a direction to prosecute,” Dreeben said of Trump’s post, “I’d really be at a loss to say what is.”
He further accused Halligan of simply doing “what she was told to do,” arguing that the case amounts to using criminal prosecution as a tool to silence critics—a violation of First Amendment protections.
Lindsey Halligan says full grand jury never saw final indictment it handed up against Comey
The full grand jury never reviewed the indictment it handed up against former FBI Director James Comey, interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan conceded Wednesday.
In a shocking back and forth, prosecutors said that instead of presenting a new indictment to the grand jury after it declined to approve one of the counts, Halligan simply brought an altered version to the magistrate’s courtroom for the grand jury’s foreperson to sign.
“The new indictment wasn’t a new indictment,” Lemons said, attempting to justify that it was only reviewed by the foreperson.
Judge Michael Nachmanoff quickly called Halligan, who was the only prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, to the lectern, asking her to confirm that the entire grand jury was never presented the altered indictment.
The judge started, “Am I correct -”
“No, you’re not,” Halligan interrupted. She said that there was one additional grand juror in the magistrate’s courtroom and quoted her back-and-forth with that judge.
“I’m familiar with the transcript,” Nachmanoff said. He then told her to sit down.
Judicial Scrutiny: Missteps and Legal Misconduct
The case suffered another blow earlier in the week when U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick harshly criticized the prosecution’s handling of the indictment. Fitzpatrick pointed to a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps,” including what he described as misstatements of law made to the grand jury by DOJ officials.
It remains unclear whether these procedural failures will lead to a formal dismissal of the indictment, but they significantly undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
A Rare Claim of Vindictive Prosecution
Legal experts note that claims of vindictive or selective prosecution are difficult to prove and rarely succeed. Yet, Comey’s legal team believes the public evidence of Trump’s pressure campaign and the timing of Halligan’s appointment and subsequent indictment present a compelling case for dismissal.
The motion filed on Wednesday is one of several attempts by Comey to have the charges thrown out. The outcome could have implications not only for his legal fate but for public trust in the Department of Justice, especially regarding how it handles politically sensitive cases.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.