“The Indictment Signer:” Lindsey Halligan’s Time in the Grand Jury
The loaner AUSA in the Tish James case, Roger Keller, has responded to Attorney General James’ request that they be ordered to follow the rules (he even authored his own document, unlike the Comey loaner AUSAs). I’ll come back to it but it is … inadequate to the task, though it cites liberally and faithlessly from the DC Circuit opinion upholding part of the gag on criminal defendant Donald Trump.
In any case, that may be far less important a development than the order that Judge Cameron McGowen Currie gave in both the James and Comey cases.
As happened with the other challenges to Trump’s unlawfully appointed US Attorneys, Currie (a senior judge from another District within the same Circuit) was appointed by Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Albert Diaz to preside over the challenge to Lindsey Halligan’s appointment. While Comey included Halligan’s appointment paperwork in his challenge, James (who filed hers before she got any discovery) did not.
In any case, Currie wants more. She ordered DOJ to file, “all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts.”
The undersigned has been appointed to hear this motion and finds it necessary to determine the extent of the indictment signer’s involvement in the grand jury proceedings. Accordingly, the Government is directed to submit, no later than Monday, November 3, 2025, at 5:00 pm, for in camera review, all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts. In camera review is appropriate given the secrecy requirements applicable to grand jury proceedings. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2).
Currie may need these simply to understand what the remedy would be if she ruled for Comey and James. As far as we know (and as news reports cited in both motions claim), unlike other challenges to Trump’s unlawful US Attorney appointments, Halligan was the only one present for the presentment, meaning if her appointment is unlawful, the indictments have to go away. Both Comey and James are arguing for dismissal with prejudice, though the argument is less compelling in James’ case (because unlike Comey, the statute of limitations did not expire). So Currie needs to understand how much of the case relies on Halligan’s presence.
Whatever Currie’s goal, reviewing these transcripts will likely to be exceedingly damning for Halligan, whom Currie refers to not as the “interim US Attorney” or even (as James referred to her) as the “purported interim US Attorney,” but as the “indictment signer.”
After all, they will show that Dan Richman gave testimony that debunked the very premise of the indictment against Comey; such a review may show that Halligan simply neglected to share that transcript with grand jurors. More damning still, it’ll reveal the testimony of James’ great-niece, Nakia Thompson, describing that she has paid almost nothing in rent since she lived in the home James bought for her in 2020, undercutting the entire claim that Attorney General James was intending to use the house as an investment property. It’ll reveal that Halligan got an Alexandria grand jury to indict James, bypassing those grand jurors in Norfolk who had heard Thompson’s testimony.
But Judge Currie may find something else Comey argued compelling: that because Halligan was not lawfully authorized to be US Attorney, Halligan’s mere presence in the grand jury was a violation of grand jury secrecy.
Here, Ms. Halligan’s unlawful appointment tainted the structural integrity of the grand jury process. Absent Ms. Halligan’s unlawful title, she would not have been able to enter the grand jury room, let alone present and sign an indictment. Indeed, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow only “attorneys for the government” to be “present while the grand jury is in session,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(d)(1), and define such attorneys to include only “attorney[s] authorized by law to conduct” grand jury proceedings, Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(b)(1)(D) (emphasis added). Those rules implement the longstanding principle “that the proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings”—a principle that “is ‘as important for the protection of the innocent as for the pursuit of the guilty.’” United States v. Sells Eng’g, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 424 (1983) (citations omitted). By limiting participation to government attorneys “authorized by law,” Rules 1 and 6 maintain the secrecy of the grand jury proceeding and reinforce that an unlawfully appointed attorney’s presentation to the grand jury undermines the structure of that proceeding. The fundamental error here thus allows a presumption that Mr. Comey was prejudiced, “and any inquiry into harmless error would [require] unguided speculation.” Bank of Nova Scotia, 487 U.S. at 257.
Judge Currie may have very modest reasons for requesting these transcripts. But they will, almost inevitably, raise larger questions about both Halligan’s conduct, and that of the people who appointed her.
2/2/2026 WASH DC
The Supreme Court today overturned the conviction of former US Attorney Lindsey Halligan for violating grand jury rules.
The ruling written by John Roberts explains that Halligan is legally blond and thus cannot be guilty.
And she can burnish her resumé with her experience as a Purported Acting US Attorney as well as an Indictment Signer.
“…Halligan is legally blond…”
“Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence”
“Legally blonde” does not mean “naturally blonde.”
Purport Mudrake =/=
Rupert Murdoch
Hey, any legal argument is a good one, for this Maladministration.
I don’t know why you malign such a perfectly lovely movie.
The judge will dismiss the charges with prejudice if Halligan, as anticipated, failed to present the grand jury with Richman’s or Thompson’s testimonies. Halligan might be an ex-squire as a result. However, I can easily see the Fourth Circuit or SCOTUS adopted a good faith standard as a way out for messy appointment fights. As badly as the Federalists on SCOTUS want a King Trump, they don’t want to abdicate their own role in adjudicating these disputes and they don’t want a President Newsome having whomever he wants serving as AUSA without Senate approval.
So, unless Bondi, Blanche, etc. wrote a memo declaring a bad faith intent, then Halligan, Habba, and Chattah in NV will not be punished for grand jury secrecy between their initial appointment and the first filed disqualification motion against them. And, honestly, I’m okay with that part. They’ll lose their licenses to practice and go on a low-rent speaking tour and they’ll fade away.
Lindsey Halligan is a member of the Florida bar. Habba, Blanche & Co. belong to real bars, and they might end up in trouble. But I’m not sure that the Florida bar is free of Trumpist influence.
It seems to me that one ought to be hauled before the Bar in which jurisdiction the offending actions were committed, pro hac or otherwise. From there it would be up to the other Bars as to whether they would adhere to the Model Rules.
There are so many unforced errors here with Halligan, and as you said, if she didn’t present the exculpatory testimony, that could not only get the case tossed with prejudice, but it could also expose her to sanctions by the court.
The shift from practicing real estate law to serving as a federal prosecutor (let alone as a US Attorney, acting, interim, or otherwise) is not a small jump, and Judge Currie may be preparing to show her just how big a leap that is.
Not presenting exculpatory evidence is not disqualifying in a GJ. That’s why prosecutors get ham sandwiches indicted (except in cases of ICE assaults on protestors).
But it does help to show the malice of the unlawful appointment.
Thankfully, the grand jurors in these ICE “assault” cases so far seem to have an instinctive understanding of “de minimus non curat lex.” Also, good a bull$**t detector.
I’ve read Kellers response to James. In it, he refers to “Halligans client”, 4 or 5 times.
Who is Halligans client? Is this unusual phrasing?
Neither the docket in the James case nor in the Comey case show that Halligan has noticed her appearance. At Comey’s arraignment, all she said when she introduced herself to the court was her name. She did not say for whom she was appearing. Keller, who filed his appearance six days ago and is thereby on record as representing the United States, may be trying to dance around Halligan’s omission.
In the absence of any other DoJ lawyer, it would be standard protocol to fill in the blank and complete Halligan’s statement, that is, by deeming her to be appearing for the govt in the prosecution of a defendant for which she was the only signatory on the indictment.
The alternative, deeming no one to be acting for the govt, would seem to require a nonsensical outcome: throwing the case out because the govt hadn’t shown up. Courts are loathe to do that.
Exactly.
It’s Trump.
“But Judge Currie may find something else Comey argued compelling: that because Halligan was not lawfully authorized to be US Attorney, Halligan’s mere presence in the grand jury was a violation of grand jury secrecy”
…Add to this Ms Halligan calling and reaming out the reporting from Bower who she told was all wrong in her summary…
I read this entire article observing that Ms. Wheeler had written about ‘the indictment singer’. I thought that was hilarious, so I mentioned it to my wife. She read the lead and said, “You’re an idiot”. It’s probably a good thing that I’m just a farmer.
I first read the headline that way too! In a way I still prefer the image it conjures up…
Like HABBA [NJ] and CHATTA [NV] before him,
Bill ESSAYLI is disqualified from position as US Attorney,
LA based judge J. Michael Seabright said yesterday.
BUT “the indictment Essayli presided over are not dismissed
bc they were signed by other lawfully appointed prosecutors.”
“Indictment Signer” HALLIGAN’s indictments of Comey and James
are different because she is the only person who signed them.
See Politico’s Kyle Cheney, here:
https://bsky.app/profile/kyledcheney.bsky.social/post/3m4cc4c7rg323
October 28, 2025 at 9:26 PM
Document, from Cheney: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.983892/gov.uscourts.cacd.983892.56.0.pdf
I should have been clearer. The quote after BUT, above was from Cheney.
THIS is what the Judge said:
o/t
DOJ places on leave 2 prosecutors who said ‘mob’ of ‘rioters’ carried out Jan. 6 attack
The prosecutors had filed a brief in the case of Taylor Taranto, sources said.
Marcy mentions TARANTO most recently, here:
Stephen Miller Implies He Intended for Trump’s Nutjobs to Kill Democrats
https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/10/02/stephen-miller-confesses-he-intended-for-trumps-nutjobs-to-kill-democrats/ October 2, 2025
And Marcy’s already posted about this:
https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social/post/3m4dqjgv67s2b
October 29, 2025 at 11:16 AM
History has split in two: the strand sustained by those like EW that memorializes the truth, contra the MAGA Myth. The furious energy being poured into the latter effort would not guarantee its dominance without the complicity of many sub-actors (PragerU, Dominionist Christians, NeoNazis) fueling the project for their own purposes.
Given the blinders willfully assumed by so many among the “legacy media,” it seems up to us to preserve a true accounting of these times. Which is why I spend my money here.
A family member in the tax accounting profession says the profession is rife with low-skilled people who quickly take a tax position for a client, right or wrong, and file on that basis. They have no advanced training past the basic college degree. They are often wrong because many tax situations can be quite complicated and because there is so much law/regulation that it’s difficult to keep up even in one area. They are arrogant; they Really don’t want to be told that they are wrong. And there is no consequence to them for being wrong; the only consequence might be to the client, and that is rare (few audits).
Sounds like your “legacy media”.
It would be great if the requested materials were to “reveal the testimony of James’ great-niece, Nakia Thompson, describing that she has paid almost nothing in rent since she lived in the home James bought for her in 2020” [testimony from June in Norfolk, as I understand], but I don’t see how that relates “to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings.” Thus it’s far from clear to me that Judge Currie is seeking that information or will receive it.