DOJ admits not all grand jury members saw the final version of the indictment against James Comey
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Nov. 19, 2025, 9:20 AM EST / Updated Nov. 19, 2025, 5:31 PM ESTBy Gary Grumbach, Owen Hayes and Dareh Gregorian
The Justice Department admitted Wednesday that not every member of the grand jury in former FBI Director James Comey's case saw the final version of the indictment, an error that could get the case thrown out.
The rare admission of fault from the administration came toward the end of a hearing on Comey's arguments that the case should be dismissed because he's the victim of a "selective and vindictive" prosecution.
U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff of the Eastern District of Virginia pressed prosecutor Tyler Lemons about concerns two other judges had raised about information that appeared to be missing from the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings.
The concerns centered on two separate indictments that been drafted — one that showed the grand jury had indicted Comey on two of three counts and a second that had just the two counts.
Lemons acknowledged that a grand jury coordinator had "edited" the first indictment, which was then signed by Lindsey Halligan, the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
"The second indictment is a document that was never shown to the entire grand jury?" Nachmanoff asked. "Yes, that is my understanding," Lemons responded.
Nachmanoff then briefly questioned Halligan, a former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump with no prosecutorial experience.
Halligan — who presented the case to the grand jury on her own just days after she was appointed — said the foreperson and one other grand juror were with her when she presented the second indictment to a magistrate judge.
The indictment was signed by the foreperson but not reviewed by the entire grand jury, as the first one was, Halligan said.
The Comey case 'is dead,' former Trump WH lawyer says after legal misstep20:18
In a court filing later Wednesday, the Justice Department argued there was no practical difference between the two indictments because the charges in the final version "are identical to the second and third charges that were included in the proposed indictment that was provided to the grand jury."
In court, Nachmanoff also pressed Lemons about whether attorneys in Halligan's office had sent her a memo advising against charging Comey because of a lack of sufficient evidence to prove the case. NBC News and other news outlets have reported on the existence of a "declination memo," but Comey's attorneys said they don't have proof of the document.
Lemons repeatedly tried dodging the judge's questions about the issue.
"At this point, my posture would be whether one existed would be privileged," he said.
Nachmanoff said he'd been looking for a yes-or-no response and asked Lemons whether he was "not permitted by someone to answer."
Lemons eventually said he'd been directed by the deputy attorney general's office to keep privileged information close to the vest. He acknowledged to Nachmanoff that there had been a memo from the prosecution team and he had reviewed it, but he didn't go into detail.
Comey was in court for the hearing, where his lawyer argued that Halligan's office was prosecuting him only because the president wanted him to be charged with something.
Trump's dislike of his client "is perhaps justification to fire him from his position," attorney Michael Dreeben told the judge, but "it is not a justification for bringing down the full weight of the Justice Department."
He asked Nachmanoff to dismiss the charges. "This is an extraordinary case, and it merits an extraordinary remedy," he said.
Lemons pushed back against the allegation that Halligan was doing Trump's bidding.
"It was her decision and her decision only," Lemons said, adding, "Ms. Halligan was not a puppet."
Nachmanoff did not rule from bench, saying the issues are "too weighty and too complex" for a quick decision.
Comey was charged in September with making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding, days after Trump publicly urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute him and others. Comey pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Comey's lawyers believe the Trump administration has singled him out because of his protected speech and what they call Trump's "personal animus" toward him. Trump fired Comey as FBI director in 2017 after the two clashed over the Justice Department's investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. Comey had been an outspoken critic of Trump since then.
"The Constitution forbids the government from prosecuting an individual based on his protected speech or based on a government official's animus toward the individual," attorneys for Comey wrote in filings. "Objective evidence establishes that President Trump directed the prosecution of Mr. Comey in retaliation for Mr. Comey's public criticisms and to punish Mr. Comey because of personal spite."
Comey's lawyers want Nachmanoff to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it couldn't be brought for a second time. Such motions rarely succeed in court, but legal experts say that if there were ever a situation in which it would succeed, this case may be the one.
"This is that rarest of all beasts. This is actually a vindictive prosecution," Patrick J. Cotter, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner at UB Greensfelder, told NBC News.
"If there is ever going to be a vindictive prosecution motion that is successful, it will be this motion," he added.
Cotter pointed to the evidence that Trump ordered Bondi to indict Comey and others and his long-standing animus toward Comey.
The Trump administration argues the charges against Comey are legitimate.
"The societal interests in this prosecution are readily apparent and overwhelming. The defendant is a former FBI Director who lied to Congress about his conduct while at the helm of the Nation's primary federal law-enforcement agency. His prosecution implicates societal interests of the highest order," the Justice Department wrote in a filing.
Comey, it says, "asks the Court to take the extraordinary step of dismissing his indictment because—he says—he is being vindictively and selectively prosecuted. Given the deep-seated separation-of-powers principles at stake, his request can be granted only if 'the Constitution requires it.'"
Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, whom a federal grand jury indicted in October, separately filed motions to disqualify Halligan from her post on the grounds that her appointment was unlawful.
Trump named Halligan to the post after her predecessor resigned under pressure to indict Comey and James.
A separate judge, Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick, accused the Justice Department this month of taking an "indict first, investigate later" approach to Comey's case.
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
He only hires the best.
*the most incompetent brown-nosers that are deluded loyalists ...
Well-- that's the good news!
The bad news would be if he hired competant brown-nosers!
(We should be grateful for that!!!
)
I will direct anyone here to say that this procedure doesn't matter to the FBI lawyer who lost his job in the Durham investigation. Halligan should be censured and lose her law licence for a year too.
Most likely will. Apparently it has come out that she falsified info for the grand jury and revealed lawyer/client privileged info to the as well. Not to mention refusing to allow the grand jury to leave without the indictments, and stopping all transcribing for the 2 hours after they were supposed to leave for the day. So nobody knows what she told them to get the indictments she presented.
Only if we continue to follow the rule of law here. Trump & Co are already talking about removing judges that don't fall in line under this regime.... so...
It's what authoritarian regimes have always done. When the law defines their actions as crimes, they replace those in charge of making that determination with their own partisans, the judges, so that they can claim they didn't break the law and everything is fine all while they shred our constitution and destroy our nation right before our eyes.
Do you know why then Speaker Pelosi liked Adam Schiff and gave him so many roles as committee chair?
It was because Schiff had a unique history of impeaching judges.
And while we're discussing the past-- what do people think of the actions of President Polk's Attorney General?
And of course Jefferson?
The recent past is most relevant. Obama had two of the worst: Eric Holder who defied subpoenas and was later replaced with Loretta Lynch who got caught red-handed meeting with Bill Clinton when Hillary Clinton was supposedly under investigation. She got to slide away, and James Comey made a decision on prosecution that was only Lynch's to make.
Both of those gems were only surpassed by Biden's AG: Merrick Garland who was without a doubt the most ideologically corrupt and partisan AG of all time.
Will we ever get to the merit of the case?
The judge is determined to derail this case
Weren't you one of the people cheering when Kevin Clinesmith lost his job for fucking with FISA paperwork? You don't think that applies here too?
Clinesmith confessed yet the judge in the case, Judge Boasberg (who keeps getting case related to Trump, only sentence Clinesmith to 12 months' probation.
Later Boasberg blocked Trump'd deportation flights.
And Halligan face the same.
Irrelevant.
It isn't irrelevant. He is clearly biased, yet he keeps getting these cases:
"Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has repeatedly been assigned cases to do with President Donald Trump's second term, as Townhall has been covering. Congress has taken notice, and the House last month passed a bill to rein in rogue judges like Boasberg and others. Questions still remain, though, and on Monday, Townhall obtained a letter from Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Chip Roy (R-TX) regarding such concerns. The letter was sent to Angela D. Caesar, the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
As the letter begins in part by mentioning, the second Trump term has been hit with over 30 nationwide injunctions, with the term having started just over 100 days ago.
"Many of these nationwide injunctions have raised concerns that Article III judges are exceeding their constitutional authority by replacing the policy decisions of the duly elected President with their own preferences, eroding public trust in the integrity and fairness of our judicial system. Many high-profile cases challenging policy decisions of the Trump Administration have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (District Court)," the letter mentions early on, referencing a key concern as well as previewing how Congress may look to be doing more. "As Congress considers potential legislative reforms to address the abuse of nationwide injunctions and adjust the national distribution and local assignment of cases challenging Executive Branch policy decisions, we write to request information about the District Court’s assignment of cases."
Among the cases that Boasberg has been assigned include not only the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for deportations, but also to do with administration officials' handling of the Signal app . The letter notes that Boasberg was assigned such "high-profile" cases less than two weeks apart. He was also assigned cases to do with the Department of Government of Efficiency and federal funding for programs that violate civil rights laws. While the latter was dismissed, this was due to the plaintiff's request."
Judge Boasberg Keeps Getting Assigned Trump Cases. Lawmakers Want to Know Why. | House Judiciary Committee Republicans
Have you ever thought that maybe you are biased and projecting?
Nope, One thing I'll never be is a democrat.
Several actual, experienced prosecutors already did. They concluded there was no merit to it.
If there were any merit to it, this hack wouldn’t have had to bullshit her way past a grand jury to get an indictment.
What happened to "due process?"
That is a hilarious question coming from anybody who continually defends this debacle of a prosecution.
I believe due process has been served
Why is it a debacle?
Should Comey have been leaking information to third parties?
Shouldn't he have been truthful with congress? He told congress that he never authorized anyone to leak.
He immediately got a Biden judge who is questioning the legitimacy of the prosecutor and if the case was properly brought before the grand jury. The case itself will be tried in the very partisan confines of the DC / NY corridor. There is an excellent chance that such a jury will simply nullify justice as they have in past cases involving all things Trump. But now it seems like Comey will avoid the merits of the case altogether.
Is this what you stand for, Sandy?
I'm not surprised.
Why do you think it’s lacking?
Even if this were an entirely legitimate prosecution, the fact that the prosecutor can't seem to find her ass with both hands and a mirror would make it a debacle. Of course the judge is questioning the legitimacy of the prosecutor. Because she's a moron who was hired for looks and loyalty, and very obviously does not know what she's doing. You should be questioning it, too. But questioning Trump's decisions is MAGA sacrilege.
Because the suspect getting due process isn't working out like he wants it to.
we have selective due process now. thanks to the criminal pardoning, xenophobic, fraud, traitor, convicted felon, sexual predator, child molester, and darling of christo-fascism in the white house ...
Because it is not only about a defendant's right to a trial, but the trial providing justice.
If the prosecutor is incompetent, it will be reflected at trial and may cost the prosecution its case. The question of whether Comey lied under oath needs to be answered.
It is you who is resisting due process.
Afraid he will be convicted of lying?
Let it go to trial.
The prosecutor's incompetence can prevent this ever going to trial. And it seems that in this case, it will. If you really cared about this issue, you'd want a competent prosecutor. You defend the incompetence, leaving our readers to conclude that you don't care about the trial at all, but only about Trump winning.
I don't care one way or another about Comey in particular. But due process has to include, at the very least, the grand jury having full knowledge of what the indictment contains. If you don't understand that, you don't understand due process at all, and are only reflexively and emotionally insisting that it apply in a way that benefits Trump. You might want to examine why you insist on that, but I doubt that will happen.
I think you do.
But due process has to include, at the very least, the grand jury having full knowledge of what the indictment contains.
You mean they were deceived?
Please explain.
That should never happen.
Then you should demand competent prosecutors. The fact that you don't indicates you don't care about this trial, because you don't mind the prosecutor's incompetence tanking it. You'll only deflect blame elsewhere.
What do you say to this:
"In a court filing later Wednesday, the Justice Department argued there was no practical difference between the two indictments because the charges in the final version "are identical to the second and third charges that were included in the proposed indictment that was provided to the grand jury."
Throwing out cases because of incompetence really is bad law.
Comey already has advantages which I have pointed to. Although any reasonable person would likely conclude that he lied under oath, he is likely to be acquitted. I'm only asking that he goes to trial though justice may not be served.
I mean that Comey was not given due process.
The jury foreman can't sign off on an indictment that the entire grand jury hasn't even seen.
The grand jury can't in good faith sign off on an indictment that is edited after they have issued it.
These concepts seem self-evident to me, but I'm not slavishly defending anybody.
I'd say that the Justice Department has already been caught in a lie, and has therefore made itself an unreliable narrator.
The DOJ says that the charges in the final version are identical to the second and third charges that were included in the proposed indictment that was provided to the grand jury.
The courts are not required to indulge Trump's sycophants' incompetence and dishonesty. Maybe your guy should hire for skill rather than misplaced loyalty.
The Justice Department admitted Wednesday that not every member of the grand jury in former FBI Director James Comey's case saw the final version of the indictment
I don't see any lying there.
Then they shouldn't have had a problem getting the entire grand jury, rather than just the foreman, to sign off on it. Halligan skipped steps. Those steps are in place to ensure due process. You are the one resisting due process by excusing Halligan for sidestepping it.
You know why Senate leader Harry Reid changed the Senate rules on lower court judicial appointments, right?
It was so the activist judges like Michael Nachmanoff could get appointed with a simple majority. Otherwise the country wouldn't be going through this.
No, as always, I want fair play.
This is not it.
But they turned around and said
That article was from The Hill, BTW.
The DOJ contradicts itself. Both statements can't be true, so one must be a lie.
The country wouldn't be going through this if we didn't have an overgrown toddler with anger issues in the White House. This is what you voted for.
The judge insisting on adherence to court procedure isn't activism. It's due process. It's a shame you choose not to see the difference.
You think that the DOJ knew every detail of that case.
You bet I voted for him (3 times) that includes the great mail in election where the old man in the basement got an incredible 80 million votes.
Tell Barack that his plans for America are dead.
The judge insisting on adherence to court procedure isn't activism.
Yes, it is. This judge showed bias from the get-go.
You seriously think that, in such a high profile case, the DOJ didn't have access to such simple information as whether or not the entire grand jury had reviewed the indictment?
You're twisting in the wind here, Vic.
Certainly not the Garland DOJ, which carefully coordinated cases against a Presidential opponent, but this DOJ isn't out following every prosecutor.
Then you voted for this. You knew, or should have known, that he hires incompetent people based on their loyalty to him. He did it during his first term, and he's done it again. Your vote for a wannabe dictator who can't control his baser impulses put us here.
The thing is, most of us don't care about Comey personally. It will not ruffle my feathers if he's convicted, and it won't ruffle them if he's not. It will have absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever. So I'm not getting my panties in a twist over it.
But then, I don't worship Trump and feel bound to hate everybody he hates, so there's that.
If Comey's prosecution matters so much to you, you should have voted for a more competent POTUS who chooses prosecutors with actual prosecutorial experience. But you got what you voted for. Enjoy!
Twisting in the wind, Vic. We're talking about Trump's incompetent DOJ, that you voted for.
I feel like you’re misunderstanding the process - perhaps because politics has made you have personal feelings about the defendant in this case.
The government cannot just drag people into court and put them on trial without properly establishing probable cause.
The burden is on the government to establish probable cause, and it is the government that is in control of the process. However, the government is obligated to establish probable cause while following the law and not violating the rights of the accused.
Here, the government has not followed the law and is violating rights of the accused. In such circumstances, the case will not be allowed to proceed and that is entirely in keeping with our standards for due process. No one is cheating the government out of a legal pursuit of justice.
If the government has a legitimate case, they should be able to establish that without violating the law.
Mmmmhmmm.
I can hardly wait for AI fake trump to convince the maga simpletons to gather with their weapons somewhere for the battle to save their christo-fascism, and then they can be eradicated in defense of the constitution. /s
It is not a question of probable cause.
It is the question of the prosecutor in question having the proper authority to bring the case. The judge throwing out the two cases in RI left open the door for a properly appointed prosecutor to bring charges.
In no way does this mean those charged are innocent.
Yes. “Bringing the case” requires properly establishing probably cause, and only a legally appointed prosecutor is allowed to do that. Part of the process is that evidence of probable cause is presented to the grand jury for each and every charge of the indictments. So not only was she not a legal prosecutor, she also didn’t do the job of establishing probable cause according to the law. From legal prosecutor to presenting evidence, it’s all part of the same process.
If a legally appointed prosecutor is the all-important issue, why did these same judges allow Jack Smith to bring charges?
We know why but you won't get a coherent answer.
but, but, but, what about ...
... just another hilarious example of spectacular incompetence demonstrated by "only the best people".
You keep swinging at different things to try and defend the indefensible.
One of the TV experts said that if the original approved indictment and the subsequent indictment contain identical language it would probably not be stricken, which makes sense.
The Deportment of Jokes overseeing the James Comedy indictments now says all of the jurors DID see it, maybe, it was dark, the room was crowded, no one had a pen, etc.
take our word on it...
It was written in Latin
Then someone should be charged with perjury?
My diplomas are written in Latin. Reading it out loud sounds like a Catholic Mass to me. /s
damn those commie lib elitist college professors. those diplomas should be written in american ...
Like using American numbers in American schools? /s
... yeah, none of that radical muslim math bullshit. /s
trump is throwing maga trollops under the bus 2 at a time now ...
The key part to this is that this DOJ admitted to it. The previous administration and Democrats would have denied it to the end despite the proof. Just as we've already seen them do.
And, as they continue to do on this site.
they had to admit to it, since they were caught in multiple lies to the judge.
And unlike the previous administration and Democrats they admitted to it.
then I'm sure the maga cult leader will soon have them indicted in his lawless campaign of retribution.
That administration was voted out in the last Presidential election.
I'm going to have way too much fun with maga-vets and thumper scum when the GOP civil war goes national.
I see you are now trying deflect. Have a good day.
please feel free to deny that it's happening ...