Former FBI Director James Comey is actively pursuing the dismissal of the criminal charges against him, citing significant errors in the grand jury process as well as the handling of the indictment by interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan. Comey’s legal team submitted this request to the federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, on Friday, following revelations from a court hearing earlier this week. During this session, federal prosecutors acknowledged that the grand jury which indicted Comey on two counts did not actually vote on the indictment presented to them.
Defense attorneys argued that the grand jury had rejected the only indictment proposed by Halligan, asserting that the government's attempts to prosecute Comey without a valid indictment infringe upon his Fifth Amendment rights. The indictment in question charges Comey with one count of lying to Congress and another count of obstructing a congressional proceeding. Furthermore, Comey's lawyers have raised concerns about alleged misconduct by Halligan during the grand jury proceedings.
Halligan, appointed as interim U.S. attorney just days before Comey's indictment, was the sole prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury and was the only one to sign the indictment. Comey has pleaded not guilty to both charges. In their motion to dismiss, Comey's legal team emphasized the reckless nature of this prosecution, claiming that a president determined to prosecute him before the statute of limitations expired directed Halligan's appointment. They argue that she hurriedly sought an indictment while violating fundamental grand jury rules.
Questions surrounding the grand jury proceedings intensified when U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick identified a troubling pattern of investigative errors. Fitzpatrick noted that Halligan made statements during her presentation that could undermine the integrity of the grand jury process. Specifically, he pointed out that one statement suggested Comey lacked a constitutional right to refrain from testifying at trial, while another implied that the grand jury could consider evidence beyond what was presented to them.
Although grand jury transcripts are typically kept confidential, Judge Fitzpatrick reviewed them during a separate hearing regarding the disclosure of grand jury materials in Comey's case. He concluded that the evidence used by the Justice Department in the grand jury presentation was problematic. Much of this material stemmed from an earlier investigation into Daniel Richman, a law professor and friend of Comey's, who was previously investigated for allegedly leaking information to the media during the Trump administration. This earlier investigation found no charges were warranted.
Fitzpatrick expressed concern that the Justice Department may have utilized information collected outside the scope of the initial search warrants and possibly privileged information during the grand jury proceedings against Comey. He criticized the FBI for revisiting materials seized over five years ago without securing a new warrant for the investigation that was focused on different offenses.
A Justice Department official defended the integrity of the grand jury process, asserting that Halligan's statements, when considered in full context, were appropriate. The official argued that selective quoting cannot establish impropriety. However, Fitzpatrick’s findings raised significant doubts about the evidence presented against Comey.
During a recent hearing presided over by U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, the judge repeatedly scrutinized the validity of the indictment and the circumstances surrounding the grand jury proceedings on September 25. Documents revealed that the grand jury was initially presented with a three-count indictment but rejected one count, ultimately voting to indict on the remaining two counts.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons informed the judge that a new indictment was drafted after the grand jury's vote to reflect only the counts they approved. However, this prompted questions from the judge regarding whether the grand jury had ever actually voted on the edited two-count indictment. Lemons conceded that the revised indictment was not presented to the entire grand jury.
Comey’s attorneys argue that without a valid indictment, the charges against him should be dropped. They contend that the lack of a formal presentation to the grand jury signifies that there is no legitimate indictment currently against Comey. As the legal battle continues, both sides are poised for further scrutiny of the grand jury process, which could have significant implications for Comey’s case and the broader legal landscape.