"this case requires the full disclosure of grand jury materials. In so finding, the Court recognizes this is an extraordinary remedy, but given the factually based challenges the defense has raised to the government’s conduct and the prospect that government misconduct may have tainted the grand jury proceedings, disclosure of grand jury materials under these unique circumstances is necessary to fully protect the rights of the accused." --Federal judge ordering that Comey's defense team be granted full access to normally secret grand jury materials.
You can read the decision HERE.
The court made this decision after conducting its own in camera review of the grand jury materials. The evidence supporting possible government misconduct includes:
- The only witness to testify before the grand jury had access to privileged and confidential communications between Comey and his attorney. In particular, the witness had access to phone records from phones seized from Comey's attorney.
- The search of the attorney's phones went beyond the scope of the search permitted by the warrant. The seizure of the phones was limited to searching for evidence relating to crimes for which Comey is not charged: "The government appears to have conflated its obligation to protect privileged information–an obligation it approached casually at best in this case–with its duty to seize only those materials authorized by the Court. This cavalier attitude towards a basic tenet of the Fourth Amendment and multiple court orders left the government unchecked to rummage through all of the information seized."
These problems occurred in the first Trump Administration, in 2019 and 2020.
- When Trump's FBI started the investigation of Comey in the Summer of 2025 it: "Inexplicably elected not to seek a new warrant for the 2025 search, even though the 2025 investigation was focused on a different person, was exploring a fundamentally different legal theory, and was predicated on an entirely different set of criminal offenses. The Court recognizes that a failure to seek a new warrant under these circumstances is highly unusual. The Court also recognizes that seeking a new warrant under these circumstances would have required a fresh legal analysis and likely resulted in some delay, a delay the investigative team could not afford given that the statute of limitations would expire in a mere 18 days"
- The agent who testified to the grand jury did so knowing he had seen attorney/client privilege protected materials and made that known to the prosecutor. The prosecutor (the incompetent Halligan), knowing this, had him testify anyway.
- The record shows two statements by Halligan to the grand jury "on their face appear to be fundamental misstatements of law that could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process."
- The two statements by the prosecutor are redacted. The first appears to that Halligan told the grand jury that Comey's refusal to testify in front of the grand jury supported an inference of his guilt. That is a clear violation of Comey's 5th Amendment rights.
- The second statement appears to be Halligan telling the grand jury that it did not have to rely on the record presented by the government to it, but could infer the government had more and better evidence it would present at trial.
- The timing of the indictment process suggests the prosecution misled the court and had communications with the grand jury that the prosecution represented to the court it did not have. The prosecution claims it had no communications with the grand jury after it presented its first proposed three count indictment to the grand jury at 4:28. The prosecution claims at about 6:40 the grand jury refused to indict as to count 1 of that indictment. Yet, the second indictment, for just two counts, came down by 6:47. In the words of the court:
"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 . . . this unusual series of events, still not fully explained by the prosecutor’s declaration, calls into question the presumption of regularity generally associated with grand jury proceedings, and provides another genuine issue the defense may raise to challenge the manner in which the government obtained the indictment."
The prosecutor is in a box here. If Halligan did have communications with the grand jury after 4:28, that gave her advance notice to prepare the second set of charges, then she risks a claim of spoiling the record. There is no transcript for such communications because the prosecution allowed the court recorder to go home. What’s more, Halligan told the court no communications with the grand jury occurred after 4:28.
The judge concludes:
"the procedural and substantive irregularities that occurred before the grand jury, and the manner in which evidence presented to the grand jury was collected and used, may rise to the level of government misconduct resulting in prejudice to Mr. Comey."
Accordingly, Comey's defense team is entitled to see what the judge has seen so they can make that argument. The grand jury materials are not, per the order, being made public. Comey's team will receive them under a protective order.
This problem for the prosecution, by itself, is massive. I don’t see how several of these problems, even alone, can be overcome. Yet, it is but one of several strong basis to dismiss this case. This trial will never get to a jury.
