DOJ: Grand Jury in Comey Case Lacked Final Indictment Copy

The prosecution against former FBI Director James Comey faces a significant obstacle, as the Justice Department acknowledged issues regarding the indictment process presented to a federal grand jury. This disclosure raises concerns about the integrity of a case already clouded by challenges and calls for dismissal.

Complications in the Comey Case

A hearing revealed that Comey’s lawyers requested U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff to dismiss the case, citing government vindictiveness. Comey’s predicament stems from his dismissal by President Donald Trump in May 2017 amid the FBI’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Grand Jury Indictment Issues

Key revelations indicate that the complete grand jury did not have access to the finalized indictment. This information emerged during judicial discussions involving U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick, who articulated concerns about potential legal missteps and breaches of attorney-client privilege.

• Initial indictment request: Three-count indictment against Comey.
• Final indictment: Two counts of making a false statement and obstructing Congress.
• Comey’s response: Pleaded not guilty and denied all allegations.

The two counts against Comey relate to accusations of misleading Congress about authorizing an FBI colleague as an anonymous media source. During the hearing, after discussions with prosecutor Lindsey Halligan, it became evident that not all grand jurors reviewed the updated indictment.

Arguments for Dismissal

Comey’s attorney, Michael Dreeben, argues that failing to present the indictment to the entire grand jury warrants case dismissal. He also noted that the statute of limitations for the charged offenses may have lapsed without a valid indictment.

Judge Nachmanoff refrained from immediate ruling, citing the complex nature of the issues presented. Dreeben further contended that the prosecution is politically motivated, linking it to Trump’s desire for retribution against critics.

Political Context and Reactions

Trump has actively called for Comey’s prosecution, recently expressing frustration over inaction against his political adversaries in a social media post. This post led to the appointment of Halligan as acting U.S. attorney, who rapidly secured the indictment against Comey.

During the court proceedings, Lemons, representing the Justice Department, maintained that the indictment was the result of legitimate findings rather than political pressure from Trump. However, the speed of Halligan’s appointment and subsequent actions raises questions about independent evaluation in the case.

As the legal battle unfolds, issues surrounding the prosecution’s integrity and potential political influences continue to resonate. The outcome may have far-reaching implications for both Comey and the Justice Department.