In a stunning court admission, prosecutors revealed that the full grand jury never reviewed the final indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, raising serious doubts about the case’s validity amid allegations of political interference. The hearing on November 19, 2025, took an unexpected turn when interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan conceded that only the grand jury foreperson and one other juror saw the revised indictment, which omitted a count previously rejected by the panel.
Judge Michael Nachmanoff expressed deep concern, pausing for several seconds in silence before questioning prosecutors sharply on the procedural lapse. He did not issue an immediate ruling, noting the issues were too weighty for a quick decision, and ordered the Justice Department to provide a legal interpretation of the grand jury process. The admission sent shockwaves through the courtroom, where attorneys had gathered to argue whether the prosecution was vindictive.
Comey’s defense team, led by attorney Michael Dreeben, argued that the prosecution was driven by President Donald Trump’s animus, citing social media posts where Trump called for action against political enemies. Dreeben asserted that Halligan, appointed by Trump after he forced out the previous U.S. attorney, acted to carry out presidential directives rather than exercise independent legal judgment. This claim was central to the vindictive prosecution motion, which seeks dismissal of the charges.
Prosecutors, including Tyler Lemons, pushed back, insisting there was no proof of vindictive intent and that the case addressed serious societal interests related to Comey’s 2020 congressional testimony. However, Lemons faced intense scrutiny when he admitted under oath that he knew whether career prosecutors had recommended against charging Comey but was instructed by political leadership not to disclose it. This revelation highlighted potential politicization within the Justice Department.
The grand jury issue compounded existing concerns, including a magistrate judge’s earlier finding of ‘profound investigative missteps’ that could undermine the proceeding’s integrity. Judge Nachmanoff grilled Halligan directly, who appeared frustrated as she confirmed the full panel did not see the final indictment. Prosecutors later defended her actions in a brief, arguing the grand jury had voted on the counts and the foreperson’s signature validated the document.
Legal experts noted that the admission ventures into uncharted territory, as typical procedures require the full grand jury to review indictments. The defense contended that the flaw could be fatal to the case, while prosecutors suggested it might be a correctable error. The judge’s decision on both the vindictive prosecution claim and the grand jury issue will have significant implications for the rule of law and presidential power.
As the legal battle continues, the case has become a flashpoint for debates over prosecutorial independence and political accountability. Observers are watching closely for the judge’s eventual ruling, which could range from dismissal of charges to orders for procedural fixes. The outcome may also influence similar cases involving allegations of political manipulation in the justice system.
In summary, the hearing exposed critical vulnerabilities in the prosecution, with the grand jury revelation and muted responses from DOJ officials painting a picture of a case potentially compromised by external pressures. The next steps will determine whether the charges against Comey proceed or are dismissed, shaping precedents for high-profile political prosecutions.
