Judge Grills Halligan on Grand Jury Lapses in Comey Case, Exposing Potential Flaws in Indictment Process

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge overseeing the indictment of former FBI Director James B. Comey expressed profound skepticism Friday about the legitimacy of the charges after Acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan conceded that the full grand jury never reviewed the final version of the document — a stunning admission that has ignited a legal scandal and prompted calls for her disqualification amid accusations of prosecutorial incompetence.

The revelation came during a contentious hearing in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, where Judge Michael Nachmanoff grilled Ms. Halligan on procedural irregularities in the September 25 indictment, which accuses Mr. Comey of two counts of making false statements to Congress. Ms. Halligan, a Trump appointee with no prior criminal prosecutorial experience, testified that after grand jurors rejected one of three proposed charges, she prepared a revised two-count indictment that was reviewed only by the foreperson and one other juror, then signed in a magistrate’s courtroom without resubmission to the panel.

“This is not how grand jury proceedings work,” Judge Nachmanoff said, his tone laced with incredulity. “An indictment is the product of the collective judgment of 16 to 23 citizens, not a unilateral revision by the prosecutor.” He directed the Justice Department to file a brief by 5 p.m. ET Friday explaining the lapse and ordered transcripts of the grand jury sessions released to Mr. Comey’s defense team — a rare move that could expose further missteps, including allegations that Ms. Halligan misstated the law to jurors on two occasions.

The hearing, attended by a packed gallery of reporters and legal observers, devolved into a tense standoff as Ms. Halligan, seated at the government’s table, struggled to defend the process. When pressed on whether the full grand jury had voted on the operative indictment, she replied: “The foreperson and another grand juror were present, and it was explained on the record that it reflected the grand jury’s vote.” Assistant U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons, who handled much of the argument, added that the revision was “necessary due to the statute of limitations expiring within hours,” but Judge Nachmanoff interjected: “Necessity does not trump procedure. This raises serious questions about the indictment’s validity.”

Mr. Comey’s attorney, Michael Dreeben, seized the moment, arguing: “There is no indictment. What we have is a document signed by two people, not the grand jury’s collective action.” The former director, who pleaded not guilty last month, has long contended the charges stem from “vindictive prosecution” orchestrated by the Trump administration to punish him for the Russia investigation. The hearing, part of a broader motion to dismiss, also touched on Ms. Halligan’s solo presentation to the grand jury — an irregularity, as federal rules typically require a career prosecutor — and gaps in the transcripts suggesting no court reporter was present during key moments.

The fallout has been swift and severe. Legal experts expressed shock at the procedural blunders. “In nearly 30 years of practice, I’ve never heard of this level of incompetence,” tweeted former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade. George Conway, an anti-Trump attorney, posted: “Please remember to give thanks that Trump and his people are so unbelievably incompetent.” Representative Ted Lieu, Democrat of California, called for Ms. Halligan’s immediate termination: “If this doesn’t warrant disbarment, what does?”

Ms. Halligan, appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in August after Mr. Trump ousted her predecessor, Erik Siebert — who resisted charging Mr. Comey — presented the case to the grand jury just days into her tenure, less than a week before the statute of limitations expired. Critics, including a November 18 magistrate judge ruling by William Fitzpatrick, have flagged a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps,” including Ms. Halligan’s alleged misstatements of law and the involvement of an FBI agent exposed to potentially privileged information. On Thursday, Ms. Halligan released a statement lambasting Judge Nachmanoff for calling her a “puppet,” invoking judicial canons on dignity and vowing to “fulfill my responsibilities with professionalism.”

The Justice Department, reversing course Friday, filed a brief asserting that the full grand jury had implicitly approved the revised indictment through its foreperson’s signature, but legal analysts dismissed it as “desperate damage control.” “This isn’t a paperwork error; it’s a fundamental violation of grand jury secrecy and authority,” said Jed Rakoff, a senior federal judge in New York. The episode echoes broader concerns about politicization under Attorney General Pam Bondi, who installed Ms. Halligan amid Trump’s public calls to prosecute Mr. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Politically, the scandal has amplified Democratic attacks on the administration’s “weaponization of justice.” House Oversight Ranking Member Jamie Raskin demanded a full inquiry: “Halligan’s fumble isn’t incompetence; it’s interference. If the indictment crumbles, so does their vendetta.” Republicans rallied to Ms. Halligan’s defense, with House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan tweeting: “Deep-state judge attacks Trump’s fighter — Comey’s hoax unravels!” But even allies like Senator Lindsey Graham expressed unease on Fox News: “Procedure matters — fix this before it embarrasses us all.”

Mr. Comey, 65, who has maintained his innocence since pleading not guilty in October, called the hearing “a farce from the start.” In a statement through his lawyer, he said: “This isn’t about justice; it’s about payback. The judge’s questions expose the rot at the core.” The case, charging false statements over Mr. Comey’s 2017 congressional testimony on the Clinton email probe, risks dismissal if the grand jury flaws prove fatal — a potential embarrassment for the administration amid the Epstein files scrutiny and government shutdown.

As Judge Nachmanoff weighs dismissal motions, the scandal underscores the perils of Trump-era prosecutions: Hastily appointed loyalists fumbling the basics, turning vendettas into vulnerabilities. For Ms. Halligan, once hailed as a “Trump warrior,” the courtroom crumble may mark the end of a brief, turbulent tenure. In a system built on procedure, one fumbled indictment could unravel an entire narrative of retribution.