Lindsey Halligan Was Never Alone with the Grand Jury; EDVA’s Grand Jury Coordinator Was
In Lindsey Halligan’s first attempt to explain why there were two grand jury indictments, she was at pains to deny that any of her actions were missing from the transcript.
5. During the intermediary time, between concluding my presentation and being notified of the grand jury’s return, I had no interaction whatsoever with any members of the grand jury. This time represents the grand jury’s private deliberation which was done in secret with no one but the members of the grand jury present, consistent with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(d)(2).
6. I was never present in front of the grand jury alone. At every moment I was in front of the grand jury, the court reporter was also present.
An email from the transcription service, submitted as an exhibit to the government’s bid [link fixed] to stave off Jim Comey getting the grand jury transcript, notes that — aside from Lindsey’s difficulties running ELMO, the AV system — there’s nothing untoward in the recording.
With the high profile nature of these cases, we went back through the audio and transcript for the J.C. case again and can confirm that no audio was missed and no testimony was left out. There was one instance where the prosector had technical issues with ELMO and some of the jurors assisted and came in to assist as well. That is detailed out in the transcript. When the prosecutor was finished presenting her case, she and the court reporter left the room, as is standard procedure, to let the jury deliberate. It was about 2 hours of deliberations. Both the court reporter and the CSO remained in the Grand Jury area (outside the jury room but in the secure area where the breakroom and restrooms are) during the deliberation period. When the deliberations were finished and the jurors were released, the court reporter went back into the jury room, transferred the audio files and annotations to the envelope and brought the envelope to our offices. The length of the audio files match to the timestamps in the annotations and nothing was missed or otherwise left out of the transcript.
But Lindsey also claimed all interaction with the grand jury was captured by the transcript.
There was no additional presentation, interaction, or discussion with the grand jury outside of what is reflected in the transcript.
That’s false. The transcription service’s description lays out that the court reporter left after “the jurors were released” and they “transferred the audio files and annotations to the envelope.”
Which means the other key disclosure in this filing happened without a court reporter as witness.
After the grand jury coordinator learned the grand jury had rejected one charge, “the coordinator was informed,” passive voice, by a prosecutor at EDVA to revamp the indictment. The grand jury coordinator “presented” the “corrected” indictment to the grand jury foreperson and deputy foreperson.
As a result of the grand jury’s determination that probable cause existed to believe that defendant had committed two of the charges set forth in the proposed indictment, the draft indictment was amended to remove the first count and keep the remaining two counts on which the grand jury had concurred. 23
23 After the Nov. 19, 2025, hearing on the defendant’s vindictive prosecution memorandum, the EDVA Grand Jury coordinator informed the undersigned that the grand jury foreperson informed her they had returned a true bill as to counts two and three, and not as to count one. The coordinator was informed by the Deputy Criminal Chief to amend the indictment by removing the text of former count one, and moving the remaining counts, two and three, to reflect as counts one and two. The grand jury coordinator then returned to the grand jury room and presented the corrected indictment to the grand jury foreperson and the deputy foreperson.
Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer was never alone with the grand jury. But the EDVA grand jury coordinator was.
Sure, maybe nothing substantive happened. But you have no proof that’s true.
Wow Marcy. Nice catch!
Please excuse my paranoia but is it possible that:
1) The original no true bill did apply to all 3 counts.
2) The black pen “only first count” was added later to try and save something.
3) The foreperson and deputy were corrupted by money or promises of an HJ from Lindsey or whatever.
4) The revised indictment was not presented because they knew that it would fail.
I.e. this was was all fabricated to get an indictment in spite of GJ opposition.
Q1: Did the judge speak to all of the GJ and not just the foreperson and deputy?
Q2: Is it clear from the GJ deliberation transcript that they did intend to indict on counts 2 and 3?
I would also like to know who wrote “Count 1 only” in black ink, and when.
Note that GJ deliberations are not recorded or transcribed.
I find it hard to believe that what you describe could have occurred without one of the grand jurors informing the court of the fraud.
They might not have realized until this blew up.
TY
I don’t know if GJ reports follow ISO documentation rules, but a change like that (‘count 1 only’) is invalid without a name and date. Officially, it would be as if it didn’t happen and on audits / FDA inspections it is ignored. It applies to 9001 (general), 13485 (medical devices), AS9100 (aerospace), 17925 (laboratories), etc. in order to ensure only authorized / trained people made the changes. The different color and no ID/date tells me it was a CYA exercise. I wouldn’t be surprised if IS Halligan scribbled it in herself, perhaps the handwriting could be checked.
The Coordinator’s “SoL shoehorn” characterization, “corrected,” should read “redacted.”
I believe “corrected” is likely the preferred term for the current administration. Goes along with re-education camps, etc.
Ah. So it’s like “going clear” in Scientology? Or maybe like being “born again” for documents? The latter probably makes the most sense, given the kind of theocracy they’re trying to erect.
I wonder where in the DoJ’s manual for prosecutors and staff that it talks about “revamping” indictments where the GJ failed to true-bill all charges? And where does it instruct a GJ “coordinator” how to represent a revamped indictment only to the foreperson and deputy foreperson? Presumably, they had no authority to present the revamped indictment to a quorum of the GJ and ask for an up or down vote. So where was Lil’ Lindsey?
Insurance Lady Lindsey was again playing fast and loose with the court. She must have known about the actions of the GJ coordinator. Their actions were the only way she obtained a document to present to the court.
I would call her not mentioning that to the court to be a material omission, and itself a fraud on the court, irrespective of the underlying conduct.
One wonders how many times the grand jury coordinators have played fast and loose with no bill indictments. It’s very hard to believe that this is the very first time.
Given how rarely a grand jury returns no true bill, I’d say the answer (pre-Trump) approaches zero.
If you don’t try to bring an indictment without clear evidence, and don’t screw up your presentation, then you get your indictment of the proverbial ham sandwich.
So you’re saying if they went after the sandwich instead of the sandwich thrower, they may have had a shot at an indictment?
(sorry, couldn’t resist)
Someone forgot to say “Hold the pickles,” because they are in one now.
The GJ coordinator was informed by the Deputy Criminal Chief to do x,y, and z? Presumably, that means the one assigned to the EDVA, but one would have to confirm that. I thought the entire EDVA legal staff refused to work with Lil’ Lindsey.
Obviously, the court will want to interview several more people to find out what the hell really happened here.
Do the Rules of Court permit delegation of that authority away from the regular order? I doubt it, if for no other reason that such a policy is an appeal generator where defense attorneys can claim unauthorized changes with the hope of making it stick on appeal.
IIRC, indictments have to be voted on by the GJ quorum, even modified ones.
Remember, Cleary was let go because she listened to actual lawyers and wouldn’t approve this indictment. Lindsey Halligan only had the gung-ho echo chamber and wasn’t interested in anything other than pleasing Convict-1.
That footnote 23 is a truly bizarre explanation of what happened. Are we supposed to believe that before today, Lindsay Halligan knew none of this going into to today’s hearing?
Comparing that statement to her previous declaration, I am reminded of the old Law & Order clip with Sam Waterston saying “Were you lying then or are lying now?”
The crazier claim is that neither of the Loaner AUSAs bothered to figure this out. When things started going south with the grand jury transcript, why didn’t you figure out the answers to the very basic questions, like One Indictment or Two?
And that’s relying on the GJ coordinator, but no comment from the Deputy Criminal Chief, someone who should be experienced enough not to pull this.
I think “Deputy Criminal Chief” has to be Maggie Cleary. And if that’s the case, they knew all this last month and that’s probably why she was fired.
And they kept that from the loaner prosecutors.
And I’m having trouble thinking that an experienced prosector would do this, and wouldn’t want to amend count 2 to add the material from count 1 they need for the other two counts.
That makes me think Cleary is a witness.
Even if she is, I doubt that’s why she was fired. More likely she was fired bc she balked at this privilege push.
Again, it seems to me that the answer to your question is that the SoL was the driving force in all this.
Along with Trump, etc.
Note that in describing the paperwork they call it a “draft indictment.” Is that actually a thing, or is it, once again, merely a form of words to cover the malfeasance?
All these comments loosely refer to an unnamed “they”. What do you think is the personnel tree that first, prepped the Halligan initial presentation then subsequently reviewed the state of the case, then directed her and her loaner’s responses? Was it first to Todd Blanche, who answers for someone else, who in their case spoke for (or channelled) Donald Trump? Pam Bondi? Steven Miller? Someone else? Since the indictment, each step has been met not by competent legal work but the kind of evasion that a non-lawyer might find effective in a non-legal circumstance, so I would look in that direction myself, but think knowing who it is might be critical in determining how the rest of the garbage cases will play out.
I understood a GJ coordinator to be acting on behalf of the court interacting with the GJ — in this case, they seem to be acting as a go-between between the prosecutor and GJ. I can imagine they may have some independence to facilitate the process between all 3 parties and acting as they did (providing the foreperson with an updated indictment and accepting that the foreman could sign without presentation to the entire jury based on prior vote(s)) may not be entirely untoward and may be a matter of course… is that fair?
I could be fine with a reasonable process of amending and resubmitting, but it also seems like the coordinator and GJ (foreperson) were acting with an awareness that they were running up against the statute of limitations and therefore in service to the prosecutor’s goals. Literally: “we can’t take a beat and resolve this tomorrow with actual answers from a judge because tomorrow will be too late!”
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too short and common, your username will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]
A grand jury, like a petite (trial) jury, requires a quorum to be valid. So that second try fails.
“exhibit to the government’s bid ”
The link to this appears to be an error, possibly because of a proximate date.
Re: “submitted as an exhibit to the government’s bid to stave off Jim Comey”
Please the above links in error to PLAINTIFF ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Nice
Hunter requests $33.3 Million from Byrne for punitive damages.
Marcy, I just read Haligan’s declaration, and correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t she just make herself a fact witness to this case? Her affidavit is averring a timeline to to the court as a matter of fact. And, it is on a matter that could easily be raised by Comey at trial. As such, she has made herself a potential fact witness.
If I recall my professional responsibility classes correctly, this fact alone would disqualify her from continuing on in this case (although, I doubt Comey and his attorneys would want her gone) and potentially taint the entire EDVA office.
Halligan, Bondi (for her vouching twice for the indictment), Blanche (for his memo to disregard the earlier rejection by another GJ), and whoever the GJ coordinator is also on the fact witness list.
Who on earth was this “Deputy Criminal Chief” who apparently decided on the bungled amendment procedure? Was that Halligan or somebody else…?
We know from other testimony that lawyers were not involved, so I would guess it is a special agent feeb, perhaps Eckenrode.
A non-lawyer – that would explain the inappropriate corner-cutting. And Eckenrode in particular – plausible given his longstanding personal animus and the Kash Patel agenda. But whatever, it seems that Snow Halligan and her Seven Backroom Lawyers aren’t fully in control of what’s happening here.
We only know what Halligan’s people have said about who ws involved, something they are not being candid about even with the judge.
An FBI agent would not be the deputy head of the EDVA’s criminal division.
Fair enough but who does the EDVA org chart tell us is in that place? The changes haven’t been moving that fast.
Absent the first charged crime in the original indictment , I don’t see any evidence for the subsequent charges.
I think two judges have made very clear that the amended indictment was never recorded as presented- there seems to be no record of it being presented to the GJ- only a signature without explanation. Who told the Foreperson to sign it? Who told the foreperson that was okay?
I think this is the true error/ fraud.
No true bill on one of three charges. Okay. But…Hpw much of the other two charges relied on the first charge in arguments/ testimony? Pattern of behavior?
I think the other two charges hinged on Comey’s later record of talking to Richmond- after his testimony to Congresss and about a different issue.
I can see where Comey’s earlier communications about ‘teaching’ could be construed as ‘leaks’, but the author was identified and it wasn’t about classified/ secret information, just personal process- no information was revealed that wasn’t already public record. Comey discussed the same reasoning in testimony to Congresss.
I do think Comey thought Hillary would be elected and wanted to protect the FBI from any scandal-.
He was wrong, but not particularly malicious. He just wanted to protect his FBI from Congress, and didn’t see that he was being played (which isn’t great for the head of the FBI).
All I can think is that Hillary needs to file a lawsuit for defamation against Comey, to give Comey a lawsuit against the DOJ for actual harm, and so we have a good public record of all involved
Making Attorneys Get Attorneys- MAGA.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. I’ve corrected typos in your username as it triggered auto-moderation. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill to avoid duplicating this typo; future comments may not publish if username does not match. /~Rayne]
Thanks Rayne!
This is the only site my phone won’t remember for me.
[Moderator’s note: we are serious about privacy and surveillance avoidance. Because username and email address used here do not compromise the site the way a password might, you could save your username and email address (if not valid/working) in a note on your phone. /~Rayne]
A technical question for the people who know how it works. If DoJ wants to indict for 3 counts, could they present 3 separate documents, and each one is voted separately one by one? Or, could they prepare in advance a series of document with the most likely variations (charges 1, 2, 3; charges 1,2; charges 1, 3; charges 2,3; etc…)? Or it must by law be one document at a time, with all or nothing votes from the G.J.?
You may be overthinking this and beginning to view things from Halligan’s bent perspective.
Prosecutors don’t have time or energy to prepare multiple versions of the same set of charges. They’re fully occupied in writing up a set of charges they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that are likely to survive appeal. They don’t want to create a record that might reveal their strategy, mistakes, or lack of confidence in their case.
Halligan screwed up. I suspect she or someone in her office chose this dog’s breakfast of a process primarily because they were out of time and had no confidence that that GJ would consider, vote, and return true-bills on both charges.
Is that permutations or combinations?
C(3,3)+C(3,2)+C(3,1)
if they did a separate indictment for each count then they have to fight battles to join any charges at all and there would be as many cases as there are counts, which would be absurdly inefficient for the whole court system.