DOJ Files Notice Saying Grand Jury Approved Comey Indictment, Seeks to Repair Record

A day after prosecutors told a federal judge that the full grand jury had not seen the final indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, the Justice Department filed a notice asserting the grand jury did, in fact, approve the two-count operative indictment. The filing — signed by interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan — included a transcript of the September session and called earlier discrepancies a "clerical inconsistency."

What happened

The dispute centers on a revised indictment. Prosecutors initially presented a three-count indictment; the grand jury rejected one count and approved two counts alleging a false statement and obstruction of Congress. At a Wednesday hearing, a prosecutor, Tyler Lemons, told U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff that his understanding was the full grand jury had not been shown the final charging document.

"Let me be clear that the second indictment, 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?" the judge asked.

Lemons replied, "Standing here in front of you, Your Honor, yes, that is my understanding." Halligan then told the court that only the grand jury foreperson and another juror were present when the second indictment was handled. Later the same evening, the Justice Department said the grand jury coordinator returned to the grand jury room and presented the corrected indictment to the foreperson and deputy foreperson.

Correction and the fallout

In Thursday's five-page filing titled "Government's Notice Correcting the Record," Halligan sought to clarify the record and emphasized that the full grand jury had voted on the two-count indictment. The filing included a short transcript in which the magistrate judge asks the foreperson, "So you voted on the one that has the two counts?" and the foreperson answers, "Yes." Halligan described the episode as a clerical inconsistency rather than a substantive procedural defect.

Still, the contrasting statements highlighted the disorganized appearance of the presentation and raised questions about oversight. Critics note the unusual choice to entrust a politically sensitive case to an interim appointee with no prior prosecutorial experience who was appointed days before the indictment. Halligan replaced a more experienced prosecutor who resigned amid reports of pressure from the administration to pursue charges against high-profile critics, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has also been charged by Halligan.

Why this matters

Grand jury procedure is a foundational safeguard in federal prosecutions. Discrepancies over whether the full panel saw and voted on a final indictment can give defense lawyers grounds to challenge the charging process and could complicate the government's case. Beyond any single prosecution, the episode has fueled concern about political influence and the Justice Department's handling of cases involving prominent political figures.