Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan is in the hot seat over a grand jury process that snagged a two-count indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, and she’s not backing down despite a magistrate judge’s sharp rebukes, as Just the News reports.
The controversy swirls around Halligan’s handling of grand jury proceedings in northern Virginia, resulting in charges against Comey for allegedly lying to Congress and obstructing a Senate probe, all while facing accusations of procedural missteps from a magistrate judge and scrutiny from a presiding federal judge.
Let’s rewind to 2017, when President Trump fired Comey as FBI director, a move that shook Washington, given Comey’s oversight of high-stakes investigations into Hillary Clinton’s email server and the Trump-Russia probe.
Fast forward to late September 2020, when Comey testified before the Senate, denying he authorized leaks to the media about investigations tied to Clinton or Trump-Russia matters. It claims the Department of Justice now calls falsehoods.
The DOJ alleges Comey greenlit his friend, Dan Richman, to spill details about the Clinton probe to the press, a breach they say he later obstructed Congress by concealing during testimony.
Halligan, sworn in as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in September after being selected by Trump, spearheaded the push for charges, securing a grand jury’s approval for two counts: false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.
On Sept. 25, the grand jury rejected a third charge related to Comey’s memory of a CIA referral about a Clinton plan to link Trump to Russia, prompting Halligan to revise the indictment to reflect only the two approved counts.
Here’s where it gets sticky. Halligan presented the revised document to just the grand jury foreperson and one other juror, not the full panel, before handing it to a magistrate judge, raising eyebrows about whether proper protocol was followed.
Halligan insists everything was above board, stating, “The grand jury was provided the proposed indictment, deliberated, and determined that probable cause existed to believe that the defendant had committed the crimes charged in two counts.”
But Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick isn’t buying it, issuing a scathing opinion this week accusing Halligan of misleading grand jurors and ordering all grand jury materials turned over to Comey’s defense team -- a rare move that signals serious concern.
Fitzpatrick didn’t mince words, noting, “The Court has identified two statements by the prosecutor to the grand jurors that on their face appear to be fundamental misstatements of the law that could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process.” With all due respect to the magistrate, isn’t it a bit premature to cry foul without the full context of Halligan’s instructions to the jury?
Halligan fired back in a court filing, arguing that the magistrate cherry-picked her words, ignoring key explanations that clarified the grand jury’s role and refuting any notion of impropriety in the process.
Presiding Judge Michael Nachmanoff, nominated by then-President Joe Biden and confirmed in 2021, isn’t sitting idly by either, demanding answers from the DOJ about the indictment’s handling and questioning why only two grand jurors reviewed the revised document.
Halligan and her team maintain the foreperson’s signature on the two-count indictment reflects the grand jury’s will, and they’ve objected to Fitzpatrick’s order, urging it be set aside to protect the integrity of grand jury secrecy.
While the left may paint this as a political witch hunt, given Halligan’s past as a Trump lawyer and White House aide, conservatives might argue it’s high time accountability catches up with Comey for years of questionable conduct at the FBI -- though let’s keep the focus on facts, not vendettas, as this legal drama unfolds.
