The federal indictment against former FBI Director James Comey has been controversial from the start.
Then, during the initial hearings, things got even dicier after prosecutors told the presiding judge that the grand jury in the case had never reviewed the final indictment document.
The judge is now calling out the new prosecutor in the case, U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who was hand-picked by Donald Trump, suggesting that she is the president’s “puppet.”
This case was always going to be tough to win, and it just got significantly tougher after a gross misstep on Halligan's part. Halligan took over the case from Erik Seibert, who was relieved of his duties after he refused to prosecute the matter.
Within weeks of Halligan taking over, a grand jury indictment was secured. Now, however, it looks like prosecutors may have been playing games with that process.
Last week, Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff made the rare move of grilling prosecutors on how the indictment came to be, and the only thing more stunning than that was the statements made in court.
Halligan and another prosecutor working the case, Tyler Lemons, told the judge that the grand jury had never reviewed the second indictment against Comey. The judge had asked Lemons, “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?" Lemons responded, "Standing here in front of you, Your Honor, yes, that is my understanding.”
That all took place on Wednesday. Then, on Thursday, the DOJ reversed course on the matter entirely.
In a filing submitted by prosecutors, prosecutors stated, "The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively refutes that claim and establishes that the grand jury voted on -- and true-billed -- the two-count indictment.”
Comey’s attorney is now trying to have the case dismissed, claiming that Trump was "manipulating the machinery of prosecution" and committing an "egregious violation of bedrock constitutional values."
At best, this is sloppy work, and at worst, this is the DOJ trying to cover its tracks after a massive error. Either way, it is a black eye for Attorney General Pam Bondi and for Trump, as the Democrats are going to pounce on this to support their claims of political prosecutions against Trump’s enemies.
In what is being deemed a clear act of bias on the part of the judge, he asked Comey's lawyer, Michael Dreeben, if Halligan was a "puppet" or a "stalking horse" who was doing Trump’s bidding in the case.
The DOJ was furious over the question, responding, "A federal judge should be neutral and impartial. Instead, this judge launched an outrageous and unprofessional personal attack yesterday in open court against US Attorney Lindsey Halligan. DOJ will continue to follow the facts and the law.”
This was my concern in this case, and it now appears to have become reality.
The case was already going to be difficult to win, impossible if a left-leaning judge was assigned to hear it. That question, framed in that specific manner, tells me that this is a worst-case scenario for the DOJ. Honestly, I would not be surprised in the least to see the judge dismiss the natter with prejudice, ending any hope Trump had of ever seeing Comey held accountable for his actions while serving as the director of the FBI.
