On November 19, 2025, during a public court hearing in Alexandria, Virginia, federal prosecutors acknowledged that the full grand jury did not review the final version of the indictment against former FBI Director James Comey. The admission has raised legal and procedural concerns, prompting Comey’s legal team to seek dismissal of the charges.
Final Indictment Reviewed by Only Two Jurors
During the hearing, Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan and Assistant U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons confirmed that the final indictment—filed on September 25, 2025—was reviewed only by the grand jury foreperson and one other juror before being submitted to the court.
The full grand jury had previously reviewed an earlier draft of the indictment and rejected one of three proposed charges. However, the revised two-count indictment, which includes perjury and obstruction of Congress, was not presented again to the full panel.
Charges Stem from 2020 Senate Testimony
The charges against Comey are based on statements he made during September 2020 Senate testimony regarding the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation. Prosecutors allege that Comey made false statements and obstructed congressional oversight—not that he mishandled classified documents or communications from 2016, as some earlier reports inaccurately suggested.
Comey has pleaded not guilty and maintains that the prosecution is politically motivated.
Judge Questions DOJ’s Process
U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff expressed concern over the DOJ’s handling of the indictment. He pressed Halligan on whether the grand jury process had been properly followed and whether the revised charges should have been resubmitted for full review.
The judge has not yet ruled on the defense’s motion to dismiss but has ordered the DOJ to respond by the end of November 2025.
Defense Argues for Dismissal
Comey’s attorney, Michael Dreeben, argued that the indictment is invalid due to the limited grand jury involvement. In court, he stated, “There is no indictment. This is not a lawful process.” Dreeben also raised concerns about the statute of limitations and alleged prosecutorial vindictiveness.
Legal analysts note that while the indictment was technically “handed up,” the lack of full jury review could be grounds for dismissal, depending on how the judge interprets procedural requirements.
No Confirmed Dates for Future Hearings
Contrary to some reports, no future court dates have been officially set. The next steps depend on the DOJ’s response and the judge’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. There is also no confirmed congressional oversight hearing scheduled, though some lawmakers have expressed interest in reviewing DOJ practices.
Public and Political Reaction Remains Measured
While the case has drawn attention, there is no verified polling data from CNN or other major outlets reflecting public opinion on the DOJ’s conduct. Likewise, no confirmed statements from figures like Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Rep. Jamie Raskin, or Sen. Josh Hawley have been issued in direct response to the November 19 hearing.
Some broader calls for DOJ oversight have been reported in outlets like Politico, but no formal bipartisan investigation or legislation has been introduced as of this writing.
Legal Integrity Under Review
The November 19 hearing has spotlighted procedural gaps in a high-profile federal case. While the DOJ maintains that the indictment is valid, the court’s upcoming decision could have broader implications for how grand jury processes are handled in politically sensitive prosecutions.
