Federal prosecutors on Thursday filed documents asserting that the full grand jury did vote on and approve the indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, reversing a position stated by prosecutors in court proceedings on Wednesday.
During a hearing on Wednesday, Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan and Assistant U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons confirmed to U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff that the final, operative two-count indictment was not presented to the full grand jury.
Halligan stated that the grand jury initially voted to indict Comey on two of the three counts presented in the original proposed indictment. However, she testified that the revised two-count indictment, reflecting the charges ultimately filed, was only reviewed and signed by the grand jury foreperson and one other grand juror.
Judge Nachmanoff had sought clarification from Lemons: “The operative indictment in this case that Mr. Comey faces, is a document that was never shown to the entire grand jury or presented in the grand jury room; is that correct?”
RELATED: Comey Slams Indictment As “Vindictive,” Blames Trump’s “Personal Animus”
Lemons responded: “Standing here in front of you, Your Honor, yes, that is my understanding.”
DOJ Files New Claim Citing Transcript
Following Wednesday’s testimony, Comey’s attorney, Michael Dreeben, argued that the issue regarding the grand jury’s process required the judge to dismiss the case.
However, in court filings submitted on Thursday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) contradicted the in-court statements.
Prosecutors wrote that the “official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively refutes that claim and establishes that the grand jury voted on—and true-billed—the two-count indictment.”
Defense Arguments and Political Context
The defense has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which were filed in September. They argue that the indictment should be dismissed on the grounds of vindictive prosecution.
The defense position centers on the timeline of Halligan’s appointment—a former White House staffer who replaced the previous U.S. Attorney—and President Donald Trump’s public calls for Comey to be prosecuted. Dreeben asserted in court that these actions amounted to “manipulating the machinery of prosecution” and violated constitutional principles.
Public Statements Regarding Judicial Comments
Following the hearing, U.S. Attorney Halligan and DOJ spokesperson Chad Gilmartin released public statements regarding Judge Nachmanoff, claiming he had personally attacked Halligan.
RELATED: Lindsey Halligan May Have Made A Crucial Error In Comey Case “There Is No Indictment”
“Personal attacks—like Judge Nachmanoff referring to me as a ‘puppet’—don’t change the facts or the law,” Halligan said in a statement. Gilmartin similarly stated that the judge “launched an outrageous and unprofessional personal attack.”
However, the court transcript reflects that Judge Nachmanoff raised the term during an exchange with the defense attorney regarding the theory of the case: “So your view is that Ms. Halligan is a stalking horse or a puppet, for want of a better word, doing the president’s bidding?” Nachmanoff asked Dreeben.
Dreeben responded that he did not wish to use language about Halligan that suggested anything other than she was following orders.
READ: Trump’s Proposed $2,000 Working-Class Checks Face Steep GOP Resistance On Capitol Hill
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
