Judge Grills Government Over Apparent Lapses in Comey Indictment: Potential ‘Government Misconduct’ Threatens Case
By Elena Vasquez, Justice Department Reporter
November 20, 2025
A federal judge in Virginia delivered a blistering assessment of the Justice Department’s handling of the criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday, grilling prosecutors over procedural irregularities that could unravel the indictment accusing him of lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff’s pointed questioning—coupled with a prior ruling from Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick flagging “fundamental misstatements of law” and possible tainted grand jury proceedings—has placed the Trump administration’s politically charged prosecution on increasingly shaky ground. Comey’s defense team seized the moment, arguing the lapses amount to no valid indictment at all, as the statute of limitations expired in September.
Nachmanoff’s Hearing: Indictment Validity Under Fire
The drama unfolded during a tense hearing in Alexandria federal court, where Judge Nachmanoff zeroed in on admissions from lead prosecutor Lindsey Lemons, who revealed that the full grand jury never reviewed the final two-count indictment filed against Comey on September 25. Instead, only the foreperson and one other juror signed off on the revised document after the panel initially rejected one of three proposed charges, according to testimony from interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan.
“This is no indictment,” Comey’s attorney Michael Dreeben declared, emphasizing that the procedural shortcut occurred just days before the five-year statute of limitations lapsed on the alleged 2020 offenses. Nachmanoff, while declining an immediate ruling on Comey’s separate motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution, appeared sympathetic, probing why the government deviated from standard practice and whether Trump’s public calls for Comey’s prosecution influenced the rushed timeline.
The judge also pressed on a memo from career prosecutors advising against charges—a document Halligan, Trump’s handpicked appointee with no prior trial experience, overrode. Lemons cited attorney-client privilege in refusing to confirm its contents, drawing Nachmanoff’s skepticism: “The court is puzzled,” he remarked, underscoring the opacity in a case already rife with political undertones.
Fitzpatrick’s Scathing Ruling: Misstatements and Privilege Concerns
The hearing built on Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick’s 24-page order issued November 17, which ordered the full disclosure of grand jury materials to Comey’s team—an “extraordinary remedy” reserved for cases of suspected misconduct. In it, Fitzpatrick lambasted Halligan for at least two “fundamental and highly prejudicial” misstatements of law during her solo September presentation to the grand jury.
First, Halligan allegedly implied Comey might need to testify at trial to prove his innocence, inverting the government’s burden to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—a basic tenet of criminal procedure. Second, she suggested jurors could indict based on the government’s assurance of “more evidence” to come at trial, rather than the record before them, potentially biasing the vote.
Fitzpatrick further flagged the reliance on testimony from a single FBI agent who may have accessed privileged communications between Comey and his longtime associate, Columbia Law professor Daniel Richman—who also advised Comey during his FBI tenure. The agent, aware of the potential breach on indictment day, testified anyway, a move the judge deemed a “radical departure from past DOJ practice.” Fitzpatrick noted the grand jury transcripts provided appeared incomplete, “likely do[ing] not reflect the full proceedings,” and warned that such “profound investigative missteps” could warrant dismissal.
Prosecutors have until Friday to object to the disclosure order, with Comey’s reply due shortly after.
Halligan’s Role: From Novice to Lightning Rod
At the epicenter is Lindsey Halligan, appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia by Attorney General Pam Bondi after career officials balked at pursuing Comey. A former federal prosecutor with a background in national security, Halligan’s inexperience in leading trials—coupled with her alignment to Trump’s agenda—has fueled accusations of politicization. The indictment, secured just before the limitations deadline, stems from Comey’s 2020 Senate testimony denying leaks to Richman about the Clinton email probe.
A parallel challenge questions Halligan’s authority to prosecute, as she lacks Senate confirmation—a motion pending before Judge Nachmanoff. Her testimony Wednesday—that the grand jury’s vote on the original indictment sufficed for the revised version—drew sharp rebuttals from Dreeben, who called it a “fundamental flaw.”
This isn’t isolated: Similar scrutiny dogs indictments against Trump’s critics, including ex-National Security Adviser John Bolton and New York AG Letitia James, with James seeking access to Comey’s grand jury materials for her own defense.
- Key Lapses Highlighted by Judges:
- Misstatements of Law: Halligan allegedly shifted burden of proof and suggested reliance on unpresented evidence.
- Indictment Irregularity: Full grand jury never saw final two-count document; only foreperson approved.
- Privilege Breach: FBI agent testified after potential exposure to Comey-Richman communications.
- Incomplete Records: Transcripts may omit full proceedings; disclosure ordered.
- Timeline Pressure: Indictment rushed before September 25 statute expiration.
Broader Implications: Vindictive Prosecution Claims Gain Traction
Comey’s motion to dismiss as vindictive—citing Trump’s repeated vows to “lock up” him and other foes—looms large, with Nachmanoff referencing the ex-president’s statements during questioning. Legal experts, including former DOJ officials, argue the lapses compound perceptions of retribution, especially after career prosecutors’ memo against charges.
The case, set for trial post-New Year’s, could set precedents on grand jury secrecy and prosecutorial authority. If dismissed, it might embolden challenges in Bolton and James cases, eroding the administration’s high-profile pursuits. Comey, who pleaded not guilty in October, has maintained silence beyond court filings, but allies decry it as “lawfare.”
On social media, #ComeyIndictment trended with over 45,000 mentions, blending defenses of judicial oversight and criticisms of “weaponized DOJ.”
The unfolding scrutiny in Comey’s case exposes raw fault lines in the Justice Department’s post-2024 reboot, where political appointees like Halligan navigate uncharted terrain. As judges demand transparency on grand jury secrets and prosecutorial missteps, the administration faces a reckoning: Proceed with a potentially flawed indictment, or risk broader fallout. For Comey, once the bureau’s top cop, the irony is poignant—now, the law may shield him from its overreach. With deadlines ticking toward a ruling, this saga could redefine accountability at the highest levels.