A courtroom drama unfolded Wednesday as a federal judge relentlessly questioned the Department of Justice regarding the handling of the indictment against former FBI Director James Comey. Judge Michael Nachmanoff directly challenged whether the case was compromised, even asking if the lead prosecutor was acting on orders from former President Donald Trump.
The core of the issue lies in a signed indictment containing two charges against Comey that, remarkably, was never presented to the full grand jury. This stunning revelation casts a long shadow over the case, potentially invalidating the entire proceeding if the judge deems it a fatal flaw.
Nachmanoff called interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan to the stand, scrutinizing her role in the process. Halligan, appointed to lead the Eastern District of Virginia by Trump just months prior, had limited prior experience as a prosecutor, a fact that fueled the judge’s pointed inquiries.
Halligan testified that an earlier indictment with three charges *was* presented to the grand jury, but jurors rejected one of them. The Department of Justice, represented by prosecutor Tyler Lemons, attempted to minimize the significance, claiming the subsequent indictment was simply a revised version reflecting the grand jury’s decision.
However, Judge Nachmanoff remained unconvinced, refraining from any immediate ruling on the indictment’s validity. He instead requested further legal arguments from both sides, signaling the gravity of the situation and the need for careful consideration.
The hearing centered on Comey’s defense: that the charges were motivated by political retribution and the case should be dismissed entirely. Comey himself was present, observing as his attorney, Michael Dreeben, passionately argued his case.
In a particularly striking moment, Nachmanoff, a Biden appointee, directly questioned Dreeben, asking if Halligan was merely a “puppet” or “stalking horse” carrying out Trump’s personal vendetta. The question cut to the heart of the matter – the potential for undue influence in a high-profile case.
Dreeben, while avoiding those exact terms, asserted that his team believes Halligan was indeed operating under the direction of Trump, who had publicly and repeatedly expressed animosity towards Comey for years. The implications are profound, suggesting a politically charged prosecution.
The case remains unresolved, with Judge Nachmanoff promising further deliberation. The outcome will not only determine Comey’s legal fate but also raise critical questions about the independence of the Department of Justice and the potential for political interference in criminal proceedings.
