During a recent court session that lasted just seven minutes, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala expressed both confusion and surprise regarding the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. This indictment, returned by a federal grand jury impaneled in Alexandria, Virginia, marks a significant moment in U.S. legal history. According to a transcript obtained by CBS News, Judge Vaala questioned Lindsey Halligan, the newly appointed interim U.S. Attorney and a former personal lawyer for Donald Trump, about the existence of two conflicting versions of the indictment.
The grand jury's decision revealed that a majority voted not to charge Comey on one of the three counts presented by prosecutors. This information was documented in a form signed by the grand jury's foreperson and filed in court. Ultimately, Comey was indicted on two counts—making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding—after 14 out of 23 jurors voted in favor of these charges. The foreperson provided clarity to Judge Vaala during the proceedings.
Judge Vaala expressed her bewilderment regarding the two versions of the indictment that appeared on the case docket: one included the dropped third count, while the other did not. “This has never happened before. I've been handed two documents that are inconsistent with one another,” Vaala stated, indicating a significant discrepancy. She emphasized that one of the documents failed to clearly indicate the grand jury's decision, stating, “It looks like they failed to concur across all three counts.”
In response, Halligan claimed she had only reviewed the version of the indictment that included the two counts that were "true billed." “I did not see the other one. I don't know where that came from,” she told the judge. This response only added to the confusion as Judge Vaala noted that the version with three counts bore Halligan's signature, prompting her to reiterate her surprise.
Adding to the oddities of the evening, Judge Vaala remarked that the court session began unusually late, at 6:47 p.m., saying, “I don't think we've ever met this late.” She took a moment to thank the grand jurors for their service, highlighting the unconventional circumstances surrounding the case.
The charges against Comey, which allege that he lied during testimony before the Senate in 2020, represent an unprecedented action by the Justice Department. This indictment follows public calls from President Trump for prosecutors to investigate Comey, whom he fired in 2017 and has clashed with multiple times since. Interestingly, the indictment was personally signed by Halligan, rather than a typical federal prosecutor, which further underscores the unusual nature of this case.
Halligan's appointment came amid significant turmoil within the U.S. Attorney's Office in Alexandria. Just days before the indictment, former office head Erik Siebert announced his resignation, reportedly due to concerns that he could be dismissed for not charging another Trump adversary, New York Attorney General Letitia James. The day after Siebert's resignation, Trump publicly announced that Siebert had been fired and suggested that Attorney General Pam Bondi should investigate Comey, James, and Senator Adam Schiff of California.
Prior to Comey's indictment, it was reported that staff within the U.S. Attorney's Office circulated a memo arguing against bringing charges against him. This internal dissent adds another layer of complexity to an already controversial case. In a post on X, Attorney General Pam Bondi praised Halligan for her efforts, stating that she had done an “outstanding job.”
The unfolding situation surrounding the indictment of James Comey raises significant questions about legal processes and political influence within the Justice Department, making it a topic of intense public interest and scrutiny.
