Due to Botched Paperwork, Comey May Never Have Been Properly Indicted

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 6: Lindsey Halligan, attorney for U.S. President Donald Trump, holds ceremonial proclamations to be signed by U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictured) in the Oval Office of the White House, o... WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 6: Lindsey Halligan, attorney for U.S. President Donald Trump, holds ceremonial proclamations to be signed by U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictured) in the Oval Office of the White House, on March 6, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images) MORE LESS

Share

Facebook Twitter Email WhatsApp Copy Link

Sky York Journal

ALEXANDRIA, VA—In a stunning admission, prosecutors in the James Comey case conceded that the two-count indictment against the former FBI director was never presented to or voted on by a grand jury. 

The implications of the apparent screw up aren’t immediately clear, but they are potentially catastrophic to the government’s case. The statute of limitations on the charges against Comey expired shortly after the purported indictment was secured. So if the case against Comey is dismissed — or, more precisely, if the case never existed — then the government may not be able to refile charges against him. 

Nachmanoff ordered the parties to brief him immediately on the implications of the revelations that the indictment may not be legitimate. In particular, he pointed them to a 1969 case from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The stunning courtroom disclosure — cinematic in its intensity — came in a hearing ostensibly to hear Comey’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that it is a vindictive and selective prosecution. That portion of the hearing went very poorly for the government, too, but it was overshadowed by the revelation that there may have been no indictment at all.

Instead, Halligan and the grand jury foreman and another grand juror presented both indictments to a magistrate judge, who noted some of the incongruities and tried to clean up the mess. Different ink used on the two indictments was among the early clues that things might be amiss, and Nachmanoff noted the ink disparity in court today.

The implications of the apparent screw up aren’t immediately clear, but they are potentially catastrophic to the government’s case. The statute of limitations on the charges against Comey expired shortly after the purported indictment was secured. So if the case against Comey is dismissed — or, more precisely, if the case never existed — then the government may not be able to refile charges against him. 

Nachmanoff ordered the parties to brief him immediately on the implications of the revelations that the indictment may not be legitimate. In particular, he pointed them to a 1969 case from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The stunning courtroom disclosure — cinematic in its intensity — came in a hearing ostensibly to hear Comey’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that it is a vindictive and selective prosecution. That portion of the hearing went very poorly for the government, too, but it was overshadowed by the revelation that there may have been no indictment at all.

The prosecutors in the case on Wednesday for a time turned into witnesses as the judge pressed them for details on what had happened in the late afternoon of Sept 25, 2025. After extensive back and forth, including hauling Halligan herself to the podium (she has not spoken in any substantive way in open court in the case before today), prosecutors conceded that the draft of the operative two-count second indictment that the case has been proceeding based on was never presented to nor voted on by the grand jury.

Instead, Halligan and the grand jury foreman and another grand juror presented both indictments to a magistrate judge, who noted some of the incongruities and tried to clean up the mess. Different ink used on the two indictments was among the early clues that things might be amiss, and Nachmanoff noted the ink disparity in court today.

The implications of the apparent screw up aren’t immediately clear, but they are potentially catastrophic to the government’s case. The statute of limitations on the charges against Comey expired shortly after the purported indictment was secured. So if the case against Comey is dismissed — or, more precisely, if the case never existed — then the government may not be able to refile charges against him. 

Nachmanoff ordered the parties to brief him immediately on the implications of the revelations that the indictment may not be legitimate. In particular, he pointed them to a 1969 case from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The stunning courtroom disclosure — cinematic in its intensity — came in a hearing ostensibly to hear Comey’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that it is a vindictive and selective prosecution. That portion of the hearing went very poorly for the government, too, but it was overshadowed by the revelation that there may have been no indictment at all.

At issue is whether U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan — an insurance lawyer with no prior prosecutorial experience — followed proper procedure after the grand jury rejected count 1 of the original proposed indictment it was given.

The prosecutors in the case on Wednesday for a time turned into witnesses as the judge pressed them for details on what had happened in the late afternoon of Sept 25, 2025. After extensive back and forth, including hauling Halligan herself to the podium (she has not spoken in any substantive way in open court in the case before today), prosecutors conceded that the draft of the operative two-count second indictment that the case has been proceeding based on was never presented to nor voted on by the grand jury.

Instead, Halligan and the grand jury foreman and another grand juror presented both indictments to a magistrate judge, who noted some of the incongruities and tried to clean up the mess. Different ink used on the two indictments was among the early clues that things might be amiss, and Nachmanoff noted the ink disparity in court today.

The implications of the apparent screw up aren’t immediately clear, but they are potentially catastrophic to the government’s case. The statute of limitations on the charges against Comey expired shortly after the purported indictment was secured. So if the case against Comey is dismissed — or, more precisely, if the case never existed — then the government may not be able to refile charges against him. 

Nachmanoff ordered the parties to brief him immediately on the implications of the revelations that the indictment may not be legitimate. In particular, he pointed them to a 1969 case from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The stunning courtroom disclosure — cinematic in its intensity — came in a hearing ostensibly to hear Comey’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that it is a vindictive and selective prosecution. That portion of the hearing went very poorly for the government, too, but it was overshadowed by the revelation that there may have been no indictment at all.

The paperwork snafu that has bedeviled the case from the beginning came into much sharper focus after persistent questioning from U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff in federal court Wednesday in Alexandria, Virginia.

At issue is whether U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan — an insurance lawyer with no prior prosecutorial experience — followed proper procedure after the grand jury rejected count 1 of the original proposed indictment it was given.

The prosecutors in the case on Wednesday for a time turned into witnesses as the judge pressed them for details on what had happened in the late afternoon of Sept 25, 2025. After extensive back and forth, including hauling Halligan herself to the podium (she has not spoken in any substantive way in open court in the case before today), prosecutors conceded that the draft of the operative two-count second indictment that the case has been proceeding based on was never presented to nor voted on by the grand jury.

Instead, Halligan and the grand jury foreman and another grand juror presented both indictments to a magistrate judge, who noted some of the incongruities and tried to clean up the mess. Different ink used on the two indictments was among the early clues that things might be amiss, and Nachmanoff noted the ink disparity in court today.

The implications of the apparent screw up aren’t immediately clear, but they are potentially catastrophic to the government’s case. The statute of limitations on the charges against Comey expired shortly after the purported indictment was secured. So if the case against Comey is dismissed — or, more precisely, if the case never existed — then the government may not be able to refile charges against him. 

Nachmanoff ordered the parties to brief him immediately on the implications of the revelations that the indictment may not be legitimate. In particular, he pointed them to a 1969 case from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The stunning courtroom disclosure — cinematic in its intensity — came in a hearing ostensibly to hear Comey’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that it is a vindictive and selective prosecution. That portion of the hearing went very poorly for the government, too, but it was overshadowed by the revelation that there may have been no indictment at all.

The paperwork snafu that has bedeviled the case from the beginning came into much sharper focus after persistent questioning from U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff in federal court Wednesday in Alexandria, Virginia.

At issue is whether U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan — an insurance lawyer with no prior prosecutorial experience — followed proper procedure after the grand jury rejected count 1 of the original proposed indictment it was given.

The prosecutors in the case on Wednesday for a time turned into witnesses as the judge pressed them for details on what had happened in the late afternoon of Sept 25, 2025. After extensive back and forth, including hauling Halligan herself to the podium (she has not spoken in any substantive way in open court in the case before today), prosecutors conceded that the draft of the operative two-count second indictment that the case has been proceeding based on was never presented to nor voted on by the grand jury.

Instead, Halligan and the grand jury foreman and another grand juror presented both indictments to a magistrate judge, who noted some of the incongruities and tried to clean up the mess. Different ink used on the two indictments was among the early clues that things might be amiss, and Nachmanoff noted the ink disparity in court today.

The implications of the apparent screw up aren’t immediately clear, but they are potentially catastrophic to the government’s case. The statute of limitations on the charges against Comey expired shortly after the purported indictment was secured. So if the case against Comey is dismissed — or, more precisely, if the case never existed — then the government may not be able to refile charges against him. 

Nachmanoff ordered the parties to brief him immediately on the implications of the revelations that the indictment may not be legitimate. In particular, he pointed them to a 1969 case from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The stunning courtroom disclosure — cinematic in its intensity — came in a hearing ostensibly to hear Comey’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that it is a vindictive and selective prosecution. That portion of the hearing went very poorly for the government, too, but it was overshadowed by the revelation that there may have been no indictment at all.