A federal judge has just thrown a major wrench into the criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, suggesting the prosecution might be more holey than a slice of Swiss cheese.
Politico reported that in a stunning development, Federal Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick has raised serious concerns about possible government misconduct and procedural errors tainting the charges of making false statements and obstructing Congress against Comey in a Virginia federal court.
This saga kicked off with Comey’s indictment on September 25, signed by lead prosecutor Lindsey Halligan, who was personally selected by President Donald Trump and appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi after other prosecutors hesitated to take the case.
Fast forward to Monday, when Judge Fitzpatrick, after reviewing grand jury records himself, ordered prosecutors to hand over these secretive documents to Comey’s defense team as they push to dismiss the charges.
The judge didn’t mince words, pointing to what he called a “disturbing pattern” of investigative missteps that could undermine the integrity of the entire grand jury process.
And who’s in the hot seat? None other than Halligan, a prosecutor with zero prior case experience, now facing potential disqualification over questions about how she even got the gig.
Fitzpatrick’s findings are a laundry list of head-scratchers, including Halligan’s alleged misstatements to the grand jury, like implying Comey might need to testify to clear his name—a legal no-no if there ever was one.
Then there’s the timeline fiasco: Halligan claimed her last grand jury contact on indictment day was at 4:28 p.m., yet the judge questioned how a rejected charge and a new indictment could be hashed out in such a tight window.
As Fitzpatrick put it, “The short time span between the moment the prosecutor learned that the grand jury rejected one count in the original indictment and the time the prosecutor appeared in court to return the second indictment could not have been sufficient to draft the second indictment, sign the second indictment, present it to the grand jury, provide legal instructions to the grand jury, and give them an opportunity to deliberate and render a decision on the new indictment.”
Adding fuel to the fire, Fitzpatrick criticized the prosecution’s reliance on a single FBI agent’s testimony, who may have improperly reviewed materials tied to Comey’s attorney-client privilege with an associate, Daniel Richman.
The judge called this move “highly irregular” and a sharp break from standard Justice Department practices, slamming the government’s “cavalier attitude” toward protecting privileged information.
Here’s Fitzpatrick again: “The government’s decision to allow an agent who was exposed to potentially privileged information to testify before a grand jury is highly irregular and a radical departure from past DOJ practice.”
Another eyebrow-raiser? Prosecutors neglected to secure a new search warrant for old evidence in a fresh investigation, a blunder Fitzpatrick found inexplicable, possibly driven by a rush to beat a looming statute-of-limitations deadline last month.
While prosecutors argue a federal law could extend that deadline by six months if the indictment is tossed, Comey’s legal team isn’t buying it, setting the stage for more courtroom clashes.
