US Justice Department Reverses Course on Comey Indictment Process
In a dramatic legal reversal, the US Justice Department has insisted that a grand jury properly approved the final indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, just one day after prosecutors acknowledged the full panel had not reviewed the charging document. The abrupt about-face from Lindsey Halligan, the Trump-appointed interim US attorney overseeing the case, represents a frantic effort to contain the fallout from earlier court statements that risked imperilling the entire prosecution.
Contradictory Accounts Emerge in Court
The confusion stems from a federal court hearing on Wednesday, where prosecutors admitted under persistent questioning from US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff that the full grand jury had not seen the final, two-count indictment filed against Comey. "Let me be clear that the second indictment, the operative indictment in this case that Mr. Comey faces, is a document that was never shown to the entire grand jury or presented in the grand jury room; is that correct?" Judge Nachmanoff asked directly. Prosecutor Tyler Lemons confirmed this understanding, stating he was not present but believed that to be the case.
Halligan, who was summoned to the lectern during Wednesday's hearing, further complicated matters by telling the judge that only the grand jury foreperson and another grand juror were present for the second indictment. This admission highlighted the seemingly jumbled process behind the return of the indictment accusing Comey of making a false statement and obstructing Congress.
Attempt to 'Correct the Record'
On Thursday 20 November 2025, Halligan filed a five-page document titled "Government's Notice Correcting the Record" in an attempt to backtrack on the prosecution team's earlier comments. She described the situation as a mere "clerical inconsistency" and insisted it was not true that the full grand jury never voted on the second indictment. The filing was supplemented by a transcript from the September evening the indictment was returned, showing a conversation between Halligan, the grand jury foreperson, and the magistrate judge overseeing the process.
According to the transcript, the magistrate judge asked, "So you voted on the one that has the two counts?" to which the foreperson replied, "Yes." This new evidence was presented to undo any public perception that the grand jury presentation was botched.
Broader Implications of an Irregular Prosecution
The duelling accounts underscore the highly irregular nature of the prosecution against one of former President Donald Trump's prominent political opponents. They also reveal the consequences of the Justice Department's decision to entrust such a consequential case to Lindsey Halligan, a lawyer with no prior experience as a prosecutor who was appointed to the job just days before the indictment. Halligan had replaced an experienced prosecutor who resigned amid Trump administration pressure to indict both Comey and another Trump foe, New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has also since been charged.
The core issue began when the Justice Department initially sought a three-count indictment. The grand jury rejected one count but approved the two others. Prosecutors then placed the two remaining charges into a revised indictment, leading to the confusion over whether the full panel had approved this final version. It remains unclear why the points raised in Thursday's corrective filing were not communicated during Wednesday's hearing, when the prosecution's statements suggested significant procedural flaws.
