In a stunning courtroom revelation, Justice Department lawyers admitted Wednesday that the grand jury convened to consider charges against former FBI Director James Comey never reviewed a complete copy of the final indictment against him.
Courtroom Disclosure Raises Legal Questions
The disclosure came during a motion hearing at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, where Comey is seeking to have charges of lying to Congress and obstructing justice dismissed. Interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan had convened the grand jury to seek charges against the former FBI director.
According to federal prosecutors who spoke before Judge Michael Nachmanoff, after the grand jury initially failed to approve all counts against Comey, Halligan brought grand jurors an altered version of the indictment rather than presenting a new one. This procedural irregularity forms the basis of Comey's challenge to the legitimacy of the entire prosecution.
Comey's Claims of Selective Prosecution
Comey contends he's facing vindictive and selective prosecution driven by President Trump's longstanding and very public animosity toward him. The former FBI director argues that Attorney General Pam Bondi and other Justice Department officials are acting as "yes-men" for the administration in pursuing what he characterizes as a politically motivated case.
Adding another layer to the legal battle, Comey further claims that Halligan was never lawfully appointed to the attorney role that enabled her to convene the grand jury in the first place. This challenge to the fundamental authority behind the prosecution could potentially undermine the entire case.
Statute of Limitations Concerns
Michael Dreeben, an attorney representing James Comey, told Judge Nachmanoff that the prosecution's admission indicates "no indictment was returned" through proper legal channels. Dreeben argued this procedural failure means the statute of limitations to charge Comey had already expired before the flawed indictment process began.
The judge responded to these revelations by giving federal prosecutors until 5 p.m. to enter a formal response on the court docket. They must explain why Halligan failed to present the grand jury with complete and full charges against the former FBI director.
This developing legal drama represents another chapter in the ongoing tension between the Trump administration and former officials who have become targets of presidential ire. The outcome could have significant implications for how prosecutorial discretion is exercised in politically sensitive cases.
