Summary: The Justice Department filed a notice correcting the record, saying the full grand jury reviewed the final indictment in James Comey’s case, citing the Sept. 25 transcript. Earlier testimony by prosecutors suggested only the foreperson and one other juror had seen the revised document, prompting Comey’s defense to move to dismiss the charges as procedurally flawed and vindictive. The dispute intensified after Judge Michael Nachmanoff questioned Acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s role, drawing public criticism from Halligan and a DOJ spokesperson.
DOJ Reverses Position: Full Grand Jury Reviewed Comey Indictment, Prosecutors Say
Summary: The Justice Department filed a notice correcting the record, saying the full grand jury reviewed the final indictment in James Comey’s case, citing the Sept. 25 transcript. Earlier testimony by prosecutors suggested only the foreperson and one other juror had seen the revised document, prompting Comey’s defense to move to dismiss the charges as procedurally flawed and vindictive. The dispute intensified after Judge Michael Nachmanoff questioned Acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s role, drawing public criticism from Halligan and a DOJ spokesperson.
09:18 AM, 11/21/2025Politics
Key development: The Justice Department reversed its earlier courtroom statements and now says the full grand jury reviewed the final indictment in the criminal case against former FBI director James Comey.
Federal prosecutors filed a document titled “Government's Notice Correcting the Record”, citing the official transcript of the Sept. 25 proceedings before Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala to support their assertion that the entire grand jury saw the finalized indictment. That filing directly contradicts testimony given at a recent hearing by Acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan and lead prosecutor Assistant U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons, who had said only the jury foreperson and one other grand juror viewed the revised charging document when jurors returned an indictment on two of three proposed counts.
What was said in court
At a hearing, Halligan — who presented the case to the grand jury on Sept. 25 — testified about apparent procedural irregularities in how the final charging document was handled. Lemons also acknowledged the panel had not reviewed the finalized indictment, according to earlier courtroom statements. The defense seized on those statements and moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the process was procedurally flawed and that the prosecution is vindictive and selectively enforced.
Prosecutors' correction
In the Thursday filing, prosecutors said the official transcript of the magistrate judge’s proceeding conclusively shows the full grand jury reviewed the final indictment, and they asked the court to consider that record in evaluating the defense’s challenge. The correction directly disputes the defense’s contention that the indictment should be voided due to the earlier-described missteps.
Charges and defenses
Comey was indicted in September on two counts alleging he lied to Congress about testimony he gave in 2020; he has pleaded not guilty. The defense argued the prosecution was brought vindictively and selectively, and that confusion about the grand jury process undermines the indictment’s validity.
Tensions in the courtroom
The hearing grew heated after U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff questioned whether Halligan’s role suggested she was acting as a “puppet” or “stalking horse” for political directives. Halligan — a former personal attorney to former President Trump who now serves as acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia — publicly criticized the judge’s remarks, saying personal attacks do not change the facts or the law and invoking judicial canons that require judges to preserve public confidence in impartiality.
DOJ spokesman Chad Gilmartin also condemned the judge’s in-court remarks as an "outrageous and unprofessional personal attack," saying the Justice Department would continue to follow the facts and the law.
Why it matters
The procedural dispute over whether the full grand jury reviewed the final charging document could have important consequences for the indictment’s fate. The case is politically sensitive and involves allegations against a high-profile former official, increasing scrutiny of both legal procedure and prosecutorial conduct. The court will decide whether the corrected record resolves the defense’s objections or whether further remedial action is warranted.