James Comey: A case on the edge - and a judge who speaks of misconduct at the Justice Department

The case against James Comey suffered a new and serious shock on Monday. In Alexandria, Virginia, a federal judge declared that the Justice Department may have committed misconduct – a word that is rarely used in this context and even more rarely with such clarity. And yet it now stands in black and white in a 24-page decision that shakes not only the work of the prosecution but the entire case.

At the center of the matter is Lindsey Halligan, the inexperienced attorney whom President Trump appointed only a few months ago as the chief prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia – even though she had never handled a criminal case before. She appeared alone before the grand jury, without support, without a team, and according to Judge William Fitzpatrick made several serious errors. Two of them he described as “fundamental and highly prejudicial.” In his words one senses not only criticism but doubts about the legality of the entire process. See also our research on this case under: “The Shadows of Justice - How Trump’s administration undermined the Constitution’s appointment power,” at the link: https://kaizen-blog.org/en/die-schatten-der-justiz-wie-trumps-regierung-das-ernennungsrecht-der-verfassung-aushebelte/ – “According to our research, Lindsey Halligan’s term under § 546 had long expired when she signed the document. The defense also argues that Halligan was not lawfully in office, which would render the entire indictment unconstitutional.”

The judge also found that the grand jury records that Halligan was required to turn over appeared incomplete – as if crucial parts were missing. “The actions of the government raise genuine questions of misconduct,” Fitzpatrick wrote. And he added that these questions must now be fully examined by the defense. That a judge would even order a defendant to be given access to portions of the grand jury record is almost unprecedented. Grand jury proceedings are normally sealed shut – for good reason. But here, Fitzpatrick said, transparency is the only way to treat the matter fairly at all.

As the case continues to lose stability, Halligan’s role becomes more questionable. Just days before this decision, another judge questioned whether she had even been lawfully appointed. The question of whether Attorney General Pam Bondi properly installed her is expected to be answered by Thanksgiving. If this appointment was unlawful, the case against Comey could collapse before any court even addresses the substance of the charges. And the path to the indictment was already rough. Erik Siebert, Halligan’s predecessor, had stated after reviewing the files that the evidence was insufficient for a case against Comey. He was dismissed shortly thereafter – an action that even under Trump was rarely tied so openly to a specific case. Halligan, by contrast, filed the indictment quickly: Comey is accused of having concealed the truth in 2020 before the Senate Judiciary Committee about anonymous sources within the FBI and of having obstructed the work of Congress.

But what is now at stake is larger than a single statement from an old hearing. It concerns trust in the law enforcement system of a country in which political loyalty often outweighs experience. A judge who publicly speaks of “misconduct” does not do so lightly. And he does so only when he believes the independence of the judiciary is threatened. The Comey case was meant to become a prestige project – a political symbol meant to speak to two worlds: Trump’s supporters, who have viewed Comey as an opponent for years, and those who feared that the justice system was being turned into a weapon against critics of the president. Now the case stands at a point where not Comey carries the greatest burden, but the Justice Department itself.

How the case proceeds no longer depends only on facts, but on the question of whether a case that began this way can be brought to a credible conclusion at all. And whether a country that once relied on the independence of its judiciary has not long since lost that certainty.