Judge says government 'missteps' in James Comey's case could result in the dismissal of the charges
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Nov. 17, 2025, 12:28 PM EST / Updated Nov. 17, 2025, 7:07 PM ESTBy Gary Grumbach and Dareh Gregorian
A federal judge in Virginia on Monday warned prosecutors that their case against former FBI Director James Comey could be in jeopardy after he found the government's handling of the case raises "genuine issues of misconduct" that could result in dismissal of the charges.
In his ruling, Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrickgranted a request from Comey's lawyers, who had asked prosecutors to turn over grand jury materials from Comey's indictment. He acknowledged that his order was an unusual step, but that "the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding."
Among the missteps Fitzpatrick had said he found in reviewing the grand jury proceedings in the case were statements to the panel by acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump who had no prosecutorial experience.
Halligan's office and the Justice Department declined to comment. Prosecutors quickly appealed the ruling, asking U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff to put Fitzpatrick's order on hold, arguing that the magistrate judge "may have misinterpreted some facts" in his order, which they said is "contrary to law."
Later Monday, Nachmanoff granted prosecutors' request and asked the government to file its objections to Fitzpatrick's order by 5 p.m. on Wednesday and asked Comey's team to do the same by 5 p.m. on Friday.
In his ruling, Fitzpatrick wrote that the court "identified two statements by the prosecutor to the grand jurors that on their face appear to be fundamental misstatements of the law that could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process."
He further questioned Halligan's claim that the government had already shared all the available grand jury information, pointing to what appeared to be gaps in the transcript.
A different federal judge — Cameron Currie of the District of South Carolina — raised a similar concern last week during a hearing on whether to disqualify Halligan from the case because of questions about the legality of her appointment. Halligan then submitted a sworn declaration asserting that all the information had been turned over.
Judge hears challenge to prosecutor's appointment in James Comey, Letitia James cases03:12
While Currie has yet to rule on the issue, Fitzpatrick was skeptical of Halligan's account, finding the timing she cited in her declaration did not add up.
"If the prosecutor is mistaken about the time she received notification of the grand jury's vote on the original indictment, and this procedure did take place, then the transcript and audio recording provided to the Court are incomplete," Fitzpatrick wrote.
"If this procedure did not take place, then the Court is in uncharted legal territory in that the indictment returned in open court was not the same charging document presented to and deliberated upon by the grand jury," he added.
Fitzpatrick also pointed to the government's handling of potentially privileged attorney-client information.
"The nature and circumstances surrounding the government's potential violations of the Fourth Amendment and court orders establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government's conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law," he wrote.
Trump named Halligan acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in late September, after her predecessor, Erik Siebert, resigned under pressure from the administration to charge Comey and another perceived Trump adversary, New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Halligan presented the case to the grand jury on her own just days after having been appointed — and despite career prosecutors in her office sending her a memo documenting why they believed Comey should not be charged, a senior law enforcement official previously told NBC News.
Fitzpatrick grilled the government on its conduct at a hearing this month, when he said prosecutors had appeared to have taken an "indict first, investigate later" approach to the case.
He noted in his ruling that it's highly unusual for a defendant to gain access to grand jury materials but found that the Comey case is "a rare example of a criminal defendant who can actually make a 'particularized and factually based' showing that grounds exist to support the proposition that irregularities may have occurred in the grand jury proceedings and may justify the dismissal of one or more counts of the indictment."
"That task may lie ahead," Fitzpatrick wrote, but for now, "the Court is finding that the government's actions in this case — whether purposeful, reckless, or negligent — raise genuine issues of misconduct, are inextricably linked to the government's grand jury presentation, and deserve to be fully explored by the defense."
Comey was indicted on two counts, making a false statement and obstruction of a congressional proceeding — both charges stemming from testimony he gave before the Senate in 2020. He pleaded not guilty.
In a court filing Monday, James asked the judge presiding over her case to allow her to see some of the grand jury material in that case. Halligan was the sole prosecutor before the grand jury in that case as well.
James' attorneys want to review Halligan's legal instructions, as well as her answers to any legal questions from members of the grand jury "to ensure they did not include incorrect statements about the law."
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
oh this is gonna make the MAGA crowd unhappy
Anyone who can read would know that Trump doesn't surround himself with sound legal minds, just sycophants with law degrees.
Trump surrounds himself with hot babes who go to their knees in front of him and swear to be loyal. He picks them for their looks and not their intelligence.
Imagine being Karoline Leavitt spending every day having to lie in front of the WH press who are much smarter than she is.
Imagine being the AG Pam Bondi and knowing nothing about the law. Being blond and cute is all Trump cares about. He just wants everybody to want to fuck them so they believe them.
Trump operates under the bassist instincts just like Fox news does. Trump just picked an ex beauty pageant loser to prosecute Comey. She is cute but incompetent.
Every judgement that Trump makes is insane!
the defenders of the constitution, the party of law and order, the guardians of traditional american values ...
Why do we INDULGE these SICK in the head republicans in general? They make it plain as day that they wish us ill and do not support our liberties, freedoms, or prosperity on any terms but theirs! GAG!
Trump and all of his minions are the personification of evil.
Toward liberals for sure. They persist in demonizing us, and then project that it is us demonizing them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Frankly (that is, honestly) I would prefer to let conservatives be and live their 'truths' - but, that requires reciprocation towards people like me and Others.
Why do we INDULGE these SICK in the head republicans in general? They make it plain as day that they wish us ill and do not support our liberties, freedoms, or prosperity on any terms but theirs! GAG!
You can say that again . . .
DITTO.
The first thing that happened here was that Comey drew, by chance / S, a Biden judge.
No the 1st thing that happened her is the very stable genius went on truth social and publicly ordered his DOJ to indict Comey despite the DOJ stating there was nothing to indict him for.
Wrong again.
The first thing that always happens in these cases is that a partisan activist judge is miraculously assigned to the case. And right now this judge would prefer to throw out the case over procedure than letting it be judged on the merits.
Funny. Miracles come around and go around I guess. Judge Canon was a 'godsend' to Donald—just when he needed it. No complaints from the conservative 'stand' about miracles. For real, judges should really drop the 'hack' treatment and tying themselves to an ideology that is not suitable to delivering fairness and justice under the rule of law. If judges, and justices, can not make people's lives better. . . through their opinions and rulings. . . WHAT DO WE HAVE THEM FOR? Clearly, we can do BAD ALL BY OURSELVES without added 'help.'
Do you have ANY proof of partisanship?
Very good job, CB
Sure. He is fair and reasonable and well-versed in the law. For magas those are terrible, awful things. They hate that.
Just the simple truth that an activist judge winning the coin toss in every case involving Trump in a blue jurisdiction
You proved that out in California, haven't you.
Judge Cannon wasn't in a blue district was she?
Instead of taunting, or trying to censor people, maybe you could try and make an argument
Perhaps if you start backing up your claims with an argument others would make arguments in the same thread. ((shudder)) What would this place be if actually had a debate?
Courts are obligated to toss cases, or sent them back, if procedure is not followed. Why? Because of order. If cases are allowed to enter the system in varying states of 'chaos' then merit can not be properly determined.
MAGA supporters want 'special consideration' for ineptness. BTW, these are the same set of 'hardliners' that demean liberals for failing to walk the line as it is in proceedings when it suits their purposes to make a wave. Additionally, Trump, his staff, and constituent party 'promised' they were hiring the best people and we can demonstratively state that is not the case as we see 'amateur' mistakes occurring across the systems of the federal government—especially in areas of the court!
Please. Do you say this about 'coin tosses' in Sporting events. ("The fix is in"?) Let's understand that a 'coin toss' is a 50/50 proposition and based on the entries involved. Don't like the entries-do something about THEM before the 'toss'!
You should be telling me what her politics encompass, because she has defined herself as "team Trump." Go ahead if you can; tell us about her "district."
(Whatever that means. Anyone have any ideas?)
Well, I guess so, yes.
The question is how we keep drawing judge Boesberg on cases for or against Trump?
I await your explanation.
???
(What is "a Biden judge"?)