ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Lindsey Halligan, the interim US attorney who secured the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, admitted to the trial judge Wednesday that the full grand jury never saw the final version of the charges against the former top lawman.
Despite claims that the revelation could damn the criminal case, lawyers for Halligan’s office fired back in filings later in the day — saying that proper procedures were in fact followed and that the charges against Comey remain legally valid.
“Personal attacks — like Judge Nachmanoff referring to me as a ‘puppet’ — don’t change the facts or the law,” Halligan told The Post.
Ex-FBI boss James Comey was in court while his lawyers argued the indictment against him should be tossed out on the grounds of selective prosecution. Getty Images“The Judicial Canons require judges to be ‘patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity’ … and to ‘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.”
The hearing on Wednesday was meant to address Comey’s request to turn over grand jury documents so the defense could review them — alleging that Halligan acted as a puppet for President Trump and “botched” the grand jury indictment.
But federal prosecutors argued that Comey’s defense team still had no “basis for ordering disclosure of the grand jury material” — despite the judge implying the procedural errors on the part of the US Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia.
“The transcript is complete. The procedure was proper,” wrote Assistant US Attorney Gabriel Diaz in the 25-page filing, calling on the court to “set aside” the judge’s order.
Assistant US Attorney N. Tyler Lemons added in a seven-page, follow-up filing that “the government course of conduct here was permissible and proper.”
“The Grand Jury foreperson, as the representative of the Grand Jury, endorsed the revised two count Indictment by signing it and explaining on the record in open Court that the Indictment reflected the vote of the Grand Jury,” Lemons said.
In response to Halligan’s revelation in court Wednesday, defense attorney Michael Dreeben called for the case to be thrown out, claiming the indictment had not been properly secured before the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations Sept. 30.
The charges against Comey stem from his claim to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 30, 2020, that he never authorized leaks about high-profile FBI investigations to the press.
He is slated to go on trial on Jan. 5, 2026, but has sought to get the case tossed out on multiple grounds, claiming both vindictive prosecution and the unlawful appointment of Halligan.
Earlier during Wednesday’s hour-and-a-half hearing, Dreeben claimed that there was a clear “pattern” of Comey speaking out against the president, followed by fiery “retaliatory” social media responses by Trump.
On Sept. 20, 2025, Trump posted on Truth Social that Comey was “guilty as hell” and “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” — further evidence that the former FBI director was unlawfully targeted by the Trump administration, Dreeben argued.
Lindsey Halligan admitted Wednesday that the full grand jury never saw the final charges presented against Comey. APDreeben also highlighted media reports that Halligan’s predecessor as interim US Attorney, Erik Siebert, wrote a memo declining to bring charges against Comey.
Halligan, a former beauty queen and insurance lawyer, was appointed by US Attorney General Pam Bondi at Trump’s behest after Siebert resigned as the interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after the president accused him of deliberately refusing to charge Comey and another of Trump’s political enemies, New York Attorney General Letitia James.
“It is effectively an admission that this is a political prosecution,” Dreeben said of Siebert’s memo.”We have never before seen in this country a blatant use of criminal justice to achieve political ends,” the attorney concluded. “This has to stop.”
But prosecutor Lemons responded that Comey wasn’t being prosecuted for his criticisms of Trump but rather for his comments to Congress. Lemons also denied that Halligan was a “puppet” of the White House, insisting she independently decided to prosecute Comey.
“Ms. Halligan was not directed to seek this prosecution. It was her decision and her decision only,” Lemons said. “Ms. Halligan was not a puppet. … She made independent decisions.”
As to the Siebert memo, Lemons admitted under questioning by Nachmanoff that he was “aware of a written correspondence” and “draft memorandums [sic],” but US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche had instructed him not to divulge any privileged information.
Comey is charged with lying to Congress when he claimed he didn’t authorize leaks to the press about an FBI probe. APToward the end of the hearing, Nachmanoff pressed Lemons about the fact that Halligan was installed to the post on Sept. 22 and had already secured the Comey indictment just three days later.
“What independent evaluation [of the case] could she have done in that time period?” asked the judge, before indicating that he would rule at a later date.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani called the grand jury debacle “amateur hour” by the US Attorney’s office.
He explained that 12 of 23 grand jurors are needed to agree on charges to return an indictment and the deliberation process is typically no longer than five minutes.
Comey is scheduled to go on trial on Jan. 5. Getty Images“If the grand jurors didn’t see the correct indictment and they left the jury room, you can’t assign your voting rights to a proxy,” Rahmani said. “That’s not how it works. They all have to be present, they all have to review the indictment and they all have to agree there is probable cause.”
Normally, if you have a problematic indictment you would go back and get a new one. But in Comey’s case, the five-year statute of limitations has now lapsed, Rahmani said.
“This never happens. An experienced prosecutor would not find themselves in this situation,” Rahmani said. “There is a chance that [Halligan] botched this in a way she may not be able to recover from.”
Following Comey’s indictment Sept. 25, Rahmani said he’d personally secured indictments against roughly 100 people and he’d “never” seen a grand jury not return an indictment on all counts.
“I have never dealt with this situation ever in my entire life,” he explained. “They say a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.
“It’s a one-sided presentation of the evidence. You just need a slight majority to not get an indictment. This is very, very, very rare.”
Comey scored a major win in the case Monday when Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick ordered Halligan’s office to turn over their grand jury materials to Comey, finding evidence of “a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that … potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”
Nachmanoff paused Fitzpatrick’s order until he could complete a review of the feds’ arguments seeking to overturn Fitzpatrick’s ruling.
The DOJ’s objection to Fitzpatrick’s order argued that the magistrate judge overstepped his authority when he ordered Halligan to turn over grand jury materials to Comey.
The order was “contrary to law” and the judge “clearly erred” in assuming Fourth Amendment and privilege concerns over materials reviewed from the Arctic Haze investigation may be valid grounds to disclose grand-jury materials or dismiss an indictment.
The prosecutor’s objection further contended that the magistrate judge’s analysis rested on quotes taken out of context and incomplete statements, changing the meaning of what Halligan actually said.
“When the U.S. Attorney’s comments are read fairly, fully, and in context – as the Code of Conduct requires – the conclusion is unavoidable: there was no misstatement of law, no misleading of the grand jury, and no impropriety whatsoever,” the filing stated. “The magistrate judge’s contrary finding rests on a misreading of the transcript and cannot support disclosure.”
Prosecutors also filed a contemporaneous email from the grand jury court reporter seemingly refuting the magistrate judge’s concerns about an “incomplete” transcript allegedly provided to the court.
“[W]e went back through the audio and transcript for the [Comey] case again and can confirm that no audio was missed and no testimony was left out,” read the court reporter’s email. “There was one instance where the prosector had technical issues with ELMO and some of the jurors assisted and came in to assist as well. That is detailed out in the transcript.”
The filing continued: “The U.S. Attorney’s declaration confirms the events that occurred following the grand-jury proceeding. The court reporter’s contemporaneous email confirms it. The grand-jury foreperson’s open-court statements confirm it. And the transcript itself confirms it.”
“The confusion arises solely from the magistrate judge’s misinterpretation of the administrative correction removing Count One from the indictment after the grand jury returned a true bill on Counts Two and Three. That adjustment simply reflected the grand jury’s vote; it was neither unusual nor improper,” the government argued.
In a separate filing, prosecutors responded to Nachmanoff’s oral order to present briefs on a 1969 district court case, Gaither v. United States, in which a district court’s indictment procedure was determined to have violated federal court rules.
Prosecutors argued that the case does not support dismissing the indictment against Comey because “in Gaither, the grand jury never saw any version of the eventual indictment,” whereas the Comey grand jury was “provided the proposed Indictment, deliberated, and determined that probable cause existed to believe that the defendant had committed the crimes charged in two counts.”
The government argued removing the unapproved count against Comey narrowed the indictment and did not alter or broaden the offenses, which is permissible under court rules and backed by precedent.
Both Comey and James — who is charged with bank fraud — claim Bondi used up her one-time 120-day temporary appointment on Siebert and therefore, Halligan is unlawfully in the position without the consent of Congress.
Halligan’s office claims the AG has the power to use multiple 120-day appointments, if the Senate is unable to confirm an appointee within that period.
Comey and James have both pleaded not guilty to the charges and claim they were targeted by the 47th president in retaliation for being outspoken critics of him.
James is accused of lying on mortgage papers claiming she would be the primary resident of a second home she bought in 2020 in Norfolk, Va. Instead, the feds say, she allowed her grandniece to move in and collected rent from her.
Additional reporting by Victor Nava.
