President Trump’s handpicked prosecutor is under sharp scrutiny after acknowledging Wednesday that the full grand jury in the case against former FBI Director James Comey never reviewed the final version of the indictment. Only the foreperson and a deputy signed off on the revised charges, a departure from standard procedure that has already drawn a rebuke from the bench.
Comey faces two charges — making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding tied to his Sept. 30, 2020 testimony. Prosecutors allege he misled lawmakers about his role in the unauthorized disclosure of information and what he knew at the time. A grand jury initially rejected a three-count indictment, prompting prosecutors to draft a pared-down, two-count version.
That second version was never shown to the full grand jury, interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan admitted under oath in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Instead, the indictment advanced with signatures from only two jurors, raising immediate questions about whether prosecutors followed basic legal safeguards.
Comey’s attorney argued Halligan’s testimony suggests “there is no indictment” at all.
U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick has already highlighted what he called “government misconduct” in how the case was presented — concerns involving both the grand jury process and the accuracy of the prosecution’s explanations.
Halligan’s limited experience has now become part of the story. Her handling of the matter is under scrutiny as the court weighs the irregularities.
Halligan was appointed at the urging of Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi to ensure the prosecution of Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Her predecessor, interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert, resigned in September 2025 after facing pressure from the Trump administration to bring charges against both Comey and James. Prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia supposedly found insufficient evidence to proceed.
Comey could face up to five years in prison per count if convicted, though sentencing guidelines would likely result in a lower penalty.
However, Federal law requires the entire grand jury to sign off on an indictment — not just a couple of members. Breaking that rule gives the defense ammunition to argue that the case is tainted and could lead to the whole indictment being tossed.
U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff is expected to decide whether the defects justify dismissing the indictment or narrowing it, a ruling that will decisively shape the next phase of the case.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
READ NEXT: Soros-Backed Operation Aims To Mislead GOP Stronghold Into Voting Democrat
Are these “mistakes” deliberate?