A major legal and political storm erupted this week after the Justice Department admitted that the federal grand jury overseeing the James Comey case never reviewed or voted on the final revised indictment. The revelation has triggered intense criticism from legal experts, lawmakers, and the defense team for the former FBI director, who now argues that the entire prosecution may be invalid.
According to courtroom testimony, the original indictment presented to the grand jury included three charges. While the grand jury declined to approve the third count, prosecutors subsequently revised the indictment, removing the rejected charge. However, instead of submitting this updated version to the full grand jury—as required under standard federal procedure—the DOJ allowed only the foreperson and one additional juror to sign off on the modified document before filing it with the court.
This disclosure stunned Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who pressed prosecutors to clarify why the complete panel had been bypassed. The admission raised immediate questions about whether the indictment still qualifies as a legitimate action of the grand jury, which must approve all charges through a collective vote.
Comey’s defense attorneys seized the moment, filing motions to dismiss the indictment entirely. They argue that the DOJ violated long-standing constitutional protections by altering the charges without resubmission, citing the historic Supreme Court case Ex parte Bain, which held that a materially modified indictment not reviewed by the grand jury is invalid. The defense further warned that the statute of limitations may have already run out, meaning the government could be legally barred from retrying the case even if the indictment were thrown out.
Critics have also highlighted concerns about the prosecutors handling the case. Lindsey Halligan, the newly installed acting federal prosecutor appointed by the Trump administration, has been accused of lacking experience in complex federal criminal proceedings. Observers note that the missteps in handling witnesses, evidentiary rules, and grand jury procedures have already been flagged by earlier judicial reviews.
Political tension surrounding the case continues to rise. Supporters of Comey claim that the flawed indictment process reflects a politically motivated prosecution rather than a legitimate legal action. Meanwhile, DOJ officials insist the revisions were minor and did not require a full vote of the grand jury, attempting to downplay the significance of the procedural lapse.
As the court prepares to rule on the defense’s motion to dismiss, the consequences could be profound. If the indictment is deemed invalid, it would represent a severe setback for the Justice Department and may fuel further political debate over the handling of high-profile federal cases.
The controversy now stands at a critical point, with both the legal and political worlds watching closely. The outcome may reshape the boundaries of grand jury authority, prosecutorial responsibility, and the broader public perception of justice in America.
Watch video below :
