Comey grand jury never saw final indictment
This ‘drove home just how slapdash’ the case is, said The New York Times
What happened
U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff on Wednesday grilled federal prosecutors on irregularities in their indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, forcing acting U.S Attorney Lindsey Halligan to acknowledge she had not shown the full grand jury the final indictment it was supposed to have approved. Another prosecutor, Tyler Lemons, revealed under questioning that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s office had told him not to discuss a memo by his predecessors explaining why they declined to charge Comey.
Who said what
Yesterday’s “extraordinary” revelations emerged during an “excruciatingly awkward hearing” that “drove home just how slapdash” the Comey prosecution “appeared to have been from its inception,” The New York Times said. Nachmanoff seemed “stunned” at how Halligan, an insurance lawyer with no former prosecutorial experience, appeared to have bungled the grand jury process.
Lemons argued that the final indictment was just the two charges the grand jurors had already approved minus one they rejected, so “the new indictment wasn’t a new indictment.” If Halligan did not present the final version to the grand jury, “there is no indictment,” Comey lawyer Michael Dreeben countered. And since the statute of limitations on the alleged perjury ran out on Sept. 30, that “would be tantamount to a bar of further prosecution in this case.”
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
What next?
Nachmanoff declined to issue an immediate decision yesterday, saying the “issues are too weighty and too complex.” But his “intense focus” on the indictment’s validity, Politico said, “suggested he may view it as critical and, perhaps, fatal to the government’s case,” which “appears to be on increasingly flimsy ground” across several courtrooms.
-
What Nick Fuentes and the Groypers wantThe Explainer White supremacism has a new face in the US: a clean-cut 27-year-old with a vast social media following
-
5 highly amusing cartoons about rising health insurance premiumsCartoon Artists take on the ACA, Christmas road hazards, and more
-
Codeword: December 21, 2025The daily codeword puzzle from The Week
-
Inside Minnesota’s extensive fraud schemesThe Explainer The fraud allegedly goes back to the Covid-19 pandemic
-
‘It’s another clarifying moment in our age of moral collapse’Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Trump wants to build out AI with a new ‘Tech Force’The Explainer The administration is looking to add roughly 1,000 jobs
-
How cryptocurrency is changing politicsIn The Spotlight From electoral campaigns to government investments, crypto is everywhere and looks like it’s here to stay
-
‘Consistency at the ballot box isn’t nearly as meaningful to many voters here’Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Constitutional rights are at the center of FBI agents’ lawsuitIn the Spotlight The agents were photographed kneeling during a racial justice protest
-
Trump’s Comey case dealt new setbackspeed read A federal judge ruled that key evidence could not be used in an effort to reindict former FBI Director James Comey
-
The powerful names in the Epstein emailsIn Depth People from a former Harvard president to a noted linguist were mentioned
