DOJ Admits Grand Jury Never Saw Final Comey Indictment; Trump's Former Personal Attorney Leading Prosecution

In a stunning courtroom admission during a November 19, 2025 hearing, the Justice Department acknowledged that the full grand jury never reviewed the final indictment against former FBI Director James Comey. Prosecutor Tyler Lemons confirmed that only two grand jurors—the foreperson and one other member—were present when the revised two-count indictment was presented for signing. When Judge Michael Nachmanoff asked directly, “So the grand jury never saw the final version?” Lemons responded, “I was not there, but that is my understanding, your honor.” This revelation came during a critical hearing on Comey’s motion to dismiss the charges as vindictive prosecution.

The procedural irregularity stems from the grand jury’s initial rejection of one count in a three-count indictment. Rather than presenting a revised indictment to the full grand jury as required by standard procedures, interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—Trump’s former personal attorney with no prior prosecutorial experience—simply brought an altered version to the magistrate’s courtroom with only the grand jury foreperson and one other juror present. A grand jury coordinator reportedly “edited” the first indictment to remove the rejected count, creating a second version that only two grand jurors ever reviewed. This represents a significant departure from established grand jury procedures, which require the full panel to review and approve indictments.

Halligan’s appointment itself exemplifies the Trump administration’s weaponization of the Justice Department. She was appointed as acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia on September 22, 2025, replacing veteran prosecutor Erik Siebert, who had resigned under pressure after reportedly declining to indict Comey due to insufficient evidence. Halligan, described in court documents as “a White House aide without prior prosecutorial experience” and “a former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump,” secured the indictment just days after her appointment, as the statute of limitations was expiring. Judge Nachmanoff questioned the rushed timeline, asking, “What independent evaluation could she have done in that time period?” The timing followed Trump’s late September social media post calling Comey “guilty as hell.”

Comey’s attorney, Michael Dreeben, a former Deputy Solicitor General, argued that the procedural admission meant there was effectively no valid indictment against his client and that the statute of limitations had expired, foreclosing any possibility of securing a new one. Dreeben characterized the prosecution as “a blatant use of criminal justice to achieve political ends,” arguing that “the Constitution forbids the government from prosecuting an individual based on his protected speech or based on a government official’s animus toward the individual.” He further stated that “the government cannot use power of criminal prosecutions to attempt to silence a critic,” characterizing Halligan’s actions as following orders: “She did what she was told to do.”

Judge Nachmanoff questioned the grand jury procedure extensively and directed the DOJ to respond by 5 p.m. ET that day, but declined to issue an immediate ruling, stating the issues were “too weighty and too complex” to decide from the bench. The two-count indictment charges Comey with obstructing a congressional investigation and lying to senators while under oath. However, the revelation of such a fundamental procedural violation—that the full grand jury never reviewed the final charges they were supposedly approving—raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the entire prosecution.

The case exemplifies the Trump administration’s systematic weaponization of the Justice Department against political opponents. Trump fired Comey as FBI director in 2017 and has repeatedly attacked him as a “slime ball” and “phony,” accusing him of favoring Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Comey subsequently became a vocal Trump critic, telling ABC News in 2018 that Trump was “morally unfit to be president.” The appointment of Trump’s personal attorney, with no prosecutorial experience, to secure an indictment against one of Trump’s most prominent critics—using procedurally defective grand jury processes—represents a stark departure from the rule of law and the Justice Department’s traditional independence from political influence.