The hearing on Wednesday morning in the case against former FBI Director James Comey revealed that prosecutors had altered an indictment without presenting it to a full grand jury, raising questions about whether the charges are valid. Interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan admitted that she presented an altered version of the indictment to the magistrate’s courtroom instead of presenting a new one after the grand jury declined to approve it.
The issue sparked shockwaves in the courtroom and led Judge Michael Nachmanoff to ask the Justice Department for their interpretation of what happened with the grand jury. The defense attorneys had argued that the case was brought at the direction of President Donald Trump, who has a history of targeting perceived enemies. However, prosecutors maintained that Halligan acted independently.
The revelation is likely to play into another ongoing fight in the case where defense attorneys have asserted that federal investigators and top prosecutor Halligan mishandled the case. The Justice Department defended Halligan’s work, arguing that she did not misstate the law and that the grand jury was presented with a fair process.
However, Comey’s attorney Michael Dreeben argued that no indictment was returned, as only the foreperson and one other juror saw the final document. This raises questions about whether the charges are valid and whether Halligan’s actions were procedural or fatal errors.
The hearing has left many wondering what will happen to the criminal case, and whether it can be cured through an indictment that was dismissed over legal issues. The outcome of this development is still unclear.
Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/19/politics/comey-vindictive-prosecution-hearing-lindsey-halligan-grand-jury-takeaways