Justice Department says full grand jury in James Comey case didn't review copy of final indictment

[In It to Win It]

Lindsay Halligan, President Donald Trump's handpicked U.S. attorney who brought charges against former FBI Director James Comey, told a judge Wednesday that the full grand jury that indicted Comey did not see the indictment -- only the foreperson and another grand juror did.

Halligan's testimony came in a hearing Monday in which Comey is seeking to have the indictment thrown out on the grounds that it's the product of a vindictive prosecution.

Halligan said the grand jury saw the original indictment that was presented, but that the charges against Comey that are currently on the court docket were not reviewed by the full grand jury.

A Justice Department attorney also refused to answer whether a memo prepared by career prosecutors in the U.S. attorney's office prior to Halligan's appointment recommended against bringing charges against Comey.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/comey-seeks-indictment-dismissed-due-101302595.html

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. Lindsey Halligan says full grand jury never saw final indictment it handed up against Comey

This is a fraud on the court. This indictment will be dismissed and Halligan should be sanctioned/disbarred

University of Miami School of Law: Lindsey Halligan says Full Grand Jury Never saw Final Indictment It Handed Up against Comey www.cnn.com/politics/liv...

— ljconrad (@ljconrad.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T17:04:31.920Z

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/james-comey-doj-case-hearing-11-19-25

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,” prosecutor Tyler 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.....

Comey’s attorney Michael Dreeben then argued to the judge that, given the testimony of the prosecutor, “no indictment was returned.”

“There is no indictment,” he said, adding that the statute of limitations has now elapsed against Comey on charges of lying to Congress.

[Jersey Devil]

2. This case is going to be tossed, with prejudice

How can someone be indicted by a Grand Jury that doesn't even see the indictment? Plus the refusal to disclose if prosecutors recommended against charges, plus all other kinds of bad faith like selective and vindictive prosecution.

[newdeal2]

4. Do you think this was done on purpose by Bondi?

She knew the case had no merit but had to show Trump she tried. They got the headline they wanted (Comet indicted) and move on.

[peggysue2]

3. That alone should be . . .

Grounds for dismissal. Along with the dumping of Halligan.

The Justice (hahaha) Department overplayed their hand here. Sometime in the future, post-Trump, all these complicit lawyers should lose their law licenses. They've openly broken their oath to the law, the Constitution and the American people.

Bondi needs to be at the top of the list!

[Jersey Devil]

5. A "true bill" on an indictment that didn't even exist for the Grand Jury

brought by a prosecutor who was never really appointed for vindictive reasons and a refusal to state whether there was a declination letter (recommendation not to indict.

There are maybe a half dozen different reasons the judge could give for tossing this case.

[oregonjen]

6. Having sat on a county grand jury for a month, I don't understand how the foreperson signed the false indictment

Was the foreperson bamboozled or in on it?

[Jersey Devil]

8. I wouldn't fault the foreperson

They were simply doing what the prosecutor told them to do. Grand jurors are not expected to know the proper procedures for returning an indictment.

[onenote]

9. I don't think the foreperson viewed it as a "false" indictment

The full grand jury reviewed and approved two of the three counts on the indictment put in front of them, confirming that by attaching the standard "non concurrence" form marked to indicate non concurrence only with respect to count 1. The second version of the indictment repeated counts 2 and 3, albeit renumbered to reflect the deletion of count one, without any changes in those counts. It was a procedural error for Halligan not to present the corrected indictment or to file a motion to have the court correct it, but it wasn't a substantive error and I would be shocked if the judged treats it as grounds for dismissing the indictment. There are a number of precedents establishing that a change to an indictment that narrows the defendant's liability is permissible, so long as the remaining allegations state an offense and give the defendant notice of the charges he must be prepared to meet. Because counts 2 and 3, albeit renumbered, are identical to those counts as presented in the 3 count indictment that the full grand jury voted on, the court seems likely, I believe, to treat this as a harmless, correctable error.

Just trying to prepare folks not to be shocked or disappointed. For what its worth, I think the judge can and should dismiss the indictment on grounds that are not correctable and less likely to be reversed on appeal -- specifically Halligan misleading the grand jury regarding Comey's rights and also for malicious and vindictive prosecution.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. 'Unreal incompetence': Lindsey Halligan makes stunning 'admission' about James Comey case

Halligan needs to be sanctioned and this indictment dismissed

'Unreal incompetence': Lindsey Halligan makes stunning 'admission' about James Comey case

— #TuckFrump (@realtuckfrumper.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T17:23:53.000Z

https://www.rawstory.com/lindsay-halligan-grand-jury-comey/

President Donald Trump's hand-picked interim U.S. attorney delivered bombshell testimony that may have destroyed her case against former FBI Director James Comey.

Lindsay Halligan, who was tapped as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, admitted during brief testimony Wednesday that the indictment in the case against the Trump foe was never shown to or voted on by a full grand jury before it was presented in open court, reported CNN.

"HUGE development IN hearing for Comey selective prosecution motion," posted former federal prosecutor Harry Litman. "It turns out that the grand jury NEVER saw the operative indictment. Whole separate basis for dismissal."

Comey's defense team argued that development should prevent further prosecution in the case, saying "there is no indictment," and Judge Michael Nachmanoff gave the Department of Justice until 5 p.m. to respond to the revelations.

"This is almost unreal incompetence," posted Chris Geidner, author of the "Lawdork" blog.

Defense attorney Michael Dreeben argued in the hearing the case was brought at Trump's direction and based on his animosity to the former FBI director, and federal prosecutor Tyler Lemons responded by arguing that Halligan was “not a puppet."