SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan attorney looks on during an executive order signing in the Oval Office of the White House, on March 31, 2025 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)
'Should Be Immediately Disbarred': Trump-Picked Prosecutor's Blunder in Comey Case Leaves Experts Stunned
"I honestly didn't even know this was a mistake you could make," said one observer.
Nov 19, 2025
Legal experts and reporters reacted with shock on Wednesday after Trump-appointed interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan acknowledged that a grand jury never voted on the operative indictment filed against former FBI Director James Comey.
Politico reports that the admission appears to have put the Comey prosecution "in serious jeopardy," as Halligan told US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff the grand jury never saw the final indictment that was handed down in September that charged Comey with one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding.
The final indictment was a revised version of an originally proposed three-count indictment that needed to be changed after the grand jury rejected one of the proposed charges against Comey.
Former federal prosecutor Ken White attempted to piece together exactly what Halligan did in a post on Bluesky.
"So here’s what apparently happened: they tried to indict Comey on the last day of the statute with a three-count indictment," he explained. "The grand jury rejected one. Rather than cross it out or indicate on the indictment that only two of the three counts were voted upon, Halligan creates a new indictment, which shows only the two counts they true billed, and has the foreperson sign it without presenting it to the grand jury."
Assistant US Attorney Tyler Lemons told Nachmanoff that it was necessary to revise the indictment on short notice after grand jurors no-billed one of the charges since the statute of limitations for Comey's alleged crimes was set to expire within mere hours.
"They really had no other way to return it," he told the court.
Nonetheless, many observers expressed shock that Halligan could make such an elementary error that could singlehandedly get the entire case against Comey dismissed.
"Lindsey Halligan should be immediately disbarred," wrote Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at the Georgia State College School of Law, in a post on X.
Political and leadership consultant Elizabeth Cronise McLaughlin, a former human rights attorney, also believed that Hallingan should face severe consequences for pushing forward with an indictment that had not been voted on by a full grand jury.
"This should result in the interim US Attorney losing her bar license," she wrote on Bluesky. "Never, in almost 30 years as an attorney, have I heard of this big of an intentional fuck up before a grand jury."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) argued that Halligan's actions were enough to justify her termination as interim US attorney.
"In a normal Department of Justice not run by hacks and sycophants and malicious clowns," he wrote, "Lindsey Halligan would resign and the indictment against James Comey would be dismissed."
Quinta Jurecic, a longtime legal journalist who writes for The Atlantic, said that she found Halligan's error to be "impressive" because "I honestly didn't even know this was a mistake you could make."
Anti-Trump attorney George Conway, meanwhile, encouraged his followers on X to "please remember to give thanks to the Lord that Trump and his people are so unbelievably incompetent."
Maya Sen, a political scientist at the Harvard Kennedy School, drew a line between the quality of legal competence in the Comey case and a three-judge panel in Texas shooting down the administration's efforts to redraw Texas' congressional map as part of a mid-decade gerrymandering scheme.
"High levels of incompetence between this and the DOJ-TX gerrymandering situation," she wrote on X. "It's hard to find people with high levels of competence and expertise when maximizing on ideological and personal loyalty, and this is a problem for [Republicans] in the age of educational polarization."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Legal experts and reporters reacted with shock on Wednesday after Trump-appointed interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan acknowledged that a grand jury never voted on the operative indictment filed against former FBI Director James Comey.
Politico reports that the admission appears to have put the Comey prosecution "in serious jeopardy," as Halligan told US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff the grand jury never saw the final indictment that was handed down in September that charged Comey with one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding.
The final indictment was a revised version of an originally proposed three-count indictment that needed to be changed after the grand jury rejected one of the proposed charges against Comey.
Former federal prosecutor Ken White attempted to piece together exactly what Halligan did in a post on Bluesky.
"So here’s what apparently happened: they tried to indict Comey on the last day of the statute with a three-count indictment," he explained. "The grand jury rejected one. Rather than cross it out or indicate on the indictment that only two of the three counts were voted upon, Halligan creates a new indictment, which shows only the two counts they true billed, and has the foreperson sign it without presenting it to the grand jury."
Assistant US Attorney Tyler Lemons told Nachmanoff that it was necessary to revise the indictment on short notice after grand jurors no-billed one of the charges since the statute of limitations for Comey's alleged crimes was set to expire within mere hours.
"They really had no other way to return it," he told the court.
Nonetheless, many observers expressed shock that Halligan could make such an elementary error that could singlehandedly get the entire case against Comey dismissed.
"Lindsey Halligan should be immediately disbarred," wrote Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at the Georgia State College School of Law, in a post on X.
Political and leadership consultant Elizabeth Cronise McLaughlin, a former human rights attorney, also believed that Hallingan should face severe consequences for pushing forward with an indictment that had not been voted on by a full grand jury.
"This should result in the interim US Attorney losing her bar license," she wrote on Bluesky. "Never, in almost 30 years as an attorney, have I heard of this big of an intentional fuck up before a grand jury."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) argued that Halligan's actions were enough to justify her termination as interim US attorney.
"In a normal Department of Justice not run by hacks and sycophants and malicious clowns," he wrote, "Lindsey Halligan would resign and the indictment against James Comey would be dismissed."
Quinta Jurecic, a longtime legal journalist who writes for The Atlantic, said that she found Halligan's error to be "impressive" because "I honestly didn't even know this was a mistake you could make."
Anti-Trump attorney George Conway, meanwhile, encouraged his followers on X to "please remember to give thanks to the Lord that Trump and his people are so unbelievably incompetent."
Maya Sen, a political scientist at the Harvard Kennedy School, drew a line between the quality of legal competence in the Comey case and a three-judge panel in Texas shooting down the administration's efforts to redraw Texas' congressional map as part of a mid-decade gerrymandering scheme.
"High levels of incompetence between this and the DOJ-TX gerrymandering situation," she wrote on X. "It's hard to find people with high levels of competence and expertise when maximizing on ideological and personal loyalty, and this is a problem for [Republicans] in the age of educational polarization."
Legal experts and reporters reacted with shock on Wednesday after Trump-appointed interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan acknowledged that a grand jury never voted on the operative indictment filed against former FBI Director James Comey.
Politico reports that the admission appears to have put the Comey prosecution "in serious jeopardy," as Halligan told US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff the grand jury never saw the final indictment that was handed down in September that charged Comey with one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding.
The final indictment was a revised version of an originally proposed three-count indictment that needed to be changed after the grand jury rejected one of the proposed charges against Comey.
Former federal prosecutor Ken White attempted to piece together exactly what Halligan did in a post on Bluesky.
"So here’s what apparently happened: they tried to indict Comey on the last day of the statute with a three-count indictment," he explained. "The grand jury rejected one. Rather than cross it out or indicate on the indictment that only two of the three counts were voted upon, Halligan creates a new indictment, which shows only the two counts they true billed, and has the foreperson sign it without presenting it to the grand jury."
Assistant US Attorney Tyler Lemons told Nachmanoff that it was necessary to revise the indictment on short notice after grand jurors no-billed one of the charges since the statute of limitations for Comey's alleged crimes was set to expire within mere hours.
"They really had no other way to return it," he told the court.
Nonetheless, many observers expressed shock that Halligan could make such an elementary error that could singlehandedly get the entire case against Comey dismissed.
"Lindsey Halligan should be immediately disbarred," wrote Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at the Georgia State College School of Law, in a post on X.
Political and leadership consultant Elizabeth Cronise McLaughlin, a former human rights attorney, also believed that Hallingan should face severe consequences for pushing forward with an indictment that had not been voted on by a full grand jury.
"This should result in the interim US Attorney losing her bar license," she wrote on Bluesky. "Never, in almost 30 years as an attorney, have I heard of this big of an intentional fuck up before a grand jury."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) argued that Halligan's actions were enough to justify her termination as interim US attorney.
"In a normal Department of Justice not run by hacks and sycophants and malicious clowns," he wrote, "Lindsey Halligan would resign and the indictment against James Comey would be dismissed."
Quinta Jurecic, a longtime legal journalist who writes for The Atlantic, said that she found Halligan's error to be "impressive" because "I honestly didn't even know this was a mistake you could make."
Anti-Trump attorney George Conway, meanwhile, encouraged his followers on X to "please remember to give thanks to the Lord that Trump and his people are so unbelievably incompetent."
Maya Sen, a political scientist at the Harvard Kennedy School, drew a line between the quality of legal competence in the Comey case and a three-judge panel in Texas shooting down the administration's efforts to redraw Texas' congressional map as part of a mid-decade gerrymandering scheme.
"High levels of incompetence between this and the DOJ-TX gerrymandering situation," she wrote on X. "It's hard to find people with high levels of competence and expertise when maximizing on ideological and personal loyalty, and this is a problem for [Republicans] in the age of educational polarization."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.