On Wednesday, Judge Michael Nachmanoff raised significant concerns regarding the handling of a grand jury indictment against former FBI Director James Comey. The judge, appointed by President Biden, took issue with the fact that the interim U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan’s staff, had not presented the final version of the indictment to the entire grand jury. Initially, the grand jury had considered a three-count indictment but ended up approving only two counts: false statements within the jurisdiction of Congress and obstruction of a Congressional proceeding.
The case revolves around Comey’s testimony to the Senate in September 2020. He reiterated previous claims made in 2017 that he did not authorize a friend to leak sensitive information related to the investigations into President Trump and Hillary Clinton, a stance that has sparked controversy and scrutiny.
During the hearing, Nachmanoff pressed the prosecution on whether all grand jury members had seen the full indictment. It became clear that only the foreperson and one other member reviewed the adjusted documents after one count was dropped. This procedural question raised eyebrows and suggested a potential flaw in the indictment process. As Politico reported, “Nachmanoff’s intense focus on the issue suggested he may view it as critical and, perhaps, fatal to the government’s case.”
Comey’s legal counsel, Michael Dreeben, capitalized on this procedural misstep, arguing that the five-year statute of limitations had expired on the charges. Dreeben declared, “There is no indictment,” indicating that the failure to properly present the revised indictment could bar any further prosecution.
U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons contended that the changes made were not unlawful. He explained that the grand jury had approved the two remaining charges, and the modifications merely reflected this consensus. Lemons described the situation: “They really had no other way to return it… it was not a new indictment.”
In a court filing, Lemons elaborated on the procedural history, detailing how on September 25, 2025, the grand jury’s foreperson had reported that a sufficient number of jurors did not concur on the removed count. Consequently, the remaining counts were signed off as valid indictments under the endorsement of the grand jury foreperson.
The legal debate surrounding the indictment touches upon broader concerns regarding accountability and transparency in government actions. However, former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy, though critical of the prosecution, stated that the revised indictment should not invalidate the case. He highlighted that there was no evidence of improper execution by the grand jury, asserting, “it indicates that two counts were approved.”
McCarthy further commented, “To repeat what I’ve said before, I believe there are major problems with the Comey charges that should cause the indictment to be dismissed pretrial.” This perspective emphasizes the delicate balance of legal procedure and accountability, particularly in cases involving high-profile individuals such as Comey.
As the case progresses, the potential implications for Comey could extend beyond simple accusations of false testimony. Conversations surrounding the handling of classified information, as referenced by remarks from figures like Catherine Herridge, reveal an intricate web of legal and ethical considerations that define this ongoing saga. The narrative continues to unfold, raising essential questions about integrity, transparency, and the lengths to which legal systems may bend in the pursuit of accountability.
"*" indicates required fields
