The Justice Department is facing intense scrutiny as it insists that the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey was properly approved by a full grand jury—despite court filings and testimony that raise significant doubts about the process. The dispute has now become a central issue in a high-stakes legal battle that could determine whether the indictment survives.
In a new court filing, the DOJ argued that the grand jury did indeed vote on the final two-count indictment against Comey, which includes charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding. Prosecutors submitted a transcript in which the grand jury foreperson reportedly confirms that a vote was taken. According to interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, any confusion stemmed from what she described as a “clerical inconsistency.”
But the government’s position directly contradicts earlier courtroom admissions. During a previous hearing, prosecutors acknowledged that the grand jury never received a copy of the final indictment. Halligan also stated that only two jurors—the foreperson and one additional member—were present when the indictment was officially returned. These unusual circumstances have triggered alarm among legal experts, who note that grand jury procedures are designed to ensure transparency and protect the integrity of criminal prosecutions.
The concerns intensified when Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick sharply criticized how the case was handled. In a ruling ordering the DOJ to turn over grand jury materials to Comey’s defense team, Fitzpatrick cited “profound investigative missteps,” suggesting that the government may have failed to follow fundamental legal standards. His ruling underscored the gravity of the situation: if the indictment was not properly reviewed or voted on by the full grand jury, it could be declared invalid.
Comey’s attorneys have seized on the discrepancies, arguing that the indictment is legally flawed and must be dismissed. They claim the prosecution was rushed, mishandled, and possibly driven by political motives. The defense asserts that the Trump-era Justice Department may have used the case as a tool for retribution, further complicating the already contentious legal landscape.
The DOJ is now under growing pressure to provide a clear and consistent account of what happened behind closed doors. The court-ordered release of grand jury materials is expected to shed light on whether the full panel reviewed the evidence and approved the final indictment—as required by law. If the defense’s suspicions are confirmed, the case could unravel entirely.
The controversy also highlights questions about prosecutorial experience. Halligan, the attorney overseeing the case, reportedly has limited background in criminal law, raising concerns that procedural errors may have occurred due to inexperience rather than intentional wrongdoing.
As the legal fight intensifies, the future of the Comey indictment hangs in the balance. The Justice Department’s insistence that everything was handled properly now faces a direct challenge from court records, judicial criticism, and mounting public scrutiny. The outcome will likely shape public perceptions of DOJ credibility and determine whether the charges against Comey move forward—or collapse under procedural irregularities.
Watch video below :
