Foreman states the grand jury’s decision in the James Comey case was appropriate.

Indictment of Former FBI Director James Comey Upheld

In September, a federal grand jury correctly indicted former FBI Director James Comey, according to new court documents that clarify a prior miscommunication from prosecutors about jurors’ exposure to the indictment’s final version.

Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsay Harrigan submitted the brief following a contentious hearing in Alexandria, Virginia, where she claimed that only “the chief justice and another grand juror” had presented the indictment to U.S. Magistrate Judge Lindsay Varla.

However, a filing from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia on Thursday referenced a docket from September 25, which asserts that the grand jury indeed voted on a two-count indictment, disputing any claims of procedural flaws.

In response to claims made by Comey’s legal team that the indictment was invalid because jurors hadn’t fully voted on the indictment, Harrigan’s team argued that the official record directly contradicts this assertion.

On September 25, grand jurors voted on three counts against Comey—two related to false statements to Congress and one for obstruction of justice. Notably, one of the counts regarding false statements was not dismissed by a majority of the 23 jurors.

The grand jury foreman noted that they did not agree on the first count, leading to the remaining counts being packaged separately for approval.

A clerical oversight, stemming from revisions made to the indictment, briefly misled the magistrate regarding the grand jury’s deliberations, but this issue was sorted out quickly.

The jury foreman confirmed their agreement on two charges while clarifying the confusion with the magistrate.

Prosecutors later asserted that the full record clears up any doubts surrounding the indictment’s validity, emphasizing that the jury had established charges with at least 12 jurors supporting the counts.

During the hearing, much of the discussion revolved around the defense’s view that the case is a selective and retaliatory prosecution, hinged on allegations of political motivations from Trump supporters.

Comey’s attorney, Michael Dreeben, brought forward the argument that Trump perceived Comey as a political adversary and had retaliated for Comey’s public comments. Dreeben posited that this context made the charges appear politically driven.

Judge Nakhanov sought to clarify whether Dreeben viewed Harrigan as merely acting under Trump’s direction, to which Dreeben hesitated to agree. Lemons, part of the prosecution team, countered that the U.S. attorney had not been directed from above to pursue this case.

After the hearing, Harrigan criticized the judge’s choice of language as a “personal attack” and emphasized the importance of maintaining respect throughout legal proceedings.

Comey’s legal team has also filed for dismissal on the grounds of improper appointment of the U.S. attorney and sought access to grand jury materials. The judge has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss based on allegations of retaliation but has paused a previous order that concerned privilege-related issues from the Justice Department.