Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer Confesses There Is No Indictment
As I have suspected since at least Friday, there is no Jim Comey indictment.
That’s because, rather than re-presenting the case after the jury no-billed on one count, Lindsey Halligan never re-presented the remaining two counts.
Here’s CNN. (See also Politico and WaPo.)
In a shocking back and forth, prosecutors said that instead of presenting a new indictment to the grand jury after it declined to approve one of the counts, Halligan simply brought an altered version to the magistrate’s courtroom for the grand jury’s foreperson to sign.
“The new indictment wasn’t a new indictment,” Lemons said, attempting to justify that it was only reviewed by the foreperson.
Judge Michael Nachmanoff quickly called Halligan, who was the only prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, to the lectern, asking her to confirm that the entire grand jury was never presented the altered indictment.
The judge started, “Am I correct -”
“No, you’re not,” Halligan interrupted. She said that there was one additional grand juror in the magistrate’s courtroom and quoted her back-and-forth with that judge.
“I’m familiar with the transcript,” Nachmanoff said. He then told her to sit down.
Apparently Michael Dreeben declared, correctly, that therefore there is probably no indictment, period, because the full grand jury did not vote to support it.
The problem goes beyond just the basics of how a grand jury works. As I noted here, Lindsey’s Loaner AUSAs already confessed that they want to rely on the no-billed count to support their obstruction case.
[A]s provided in discovery and via the indictment, the government intends to seek the admission of evidence at trial on this count regarding the defendant’s statements to senators during the September 30, 2020, committee hearing. For instance, the defendant’s statements to Senators Grassley and Cruz regarding his use of Richman as an anonymous source concerning the Clinton email investigation and his statements to Senators Graham and Hawley regarding his alleged lack of memory concerning the so-called Clinton plan to “tie Trump” to Russia.
And it’s worse than the poor Loaner AUSAs seem to realize.
The September 30, 2020 hearing had a specific scope, which could fairly be taken as the scope of the investigation the Senate was pursuing at the time. The Clinton email investigation was not included in that scope.
1 Before the hearing, the committee agreed that it would be limited to four specific topics: (i) “Crossfire Hurricane,” (ii) the December 2019 Department of Justice Inspector General report’s “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation,” (iii) the Carter Page FISA applications, and (iv) Christopher Steele’s source network and primary sub-source.
Without the no-billed count, nothing charged against Comey would be included in the scope of the hearing.
Her fuck-ups continue to snowball!
So….
It was all an *actual* hoax?
Witch hunt.
I saw CNN article hit my feed and went here. If I were a member of the Florida Bar Association, I’d be drafting the complaint against her alma mater. I’d assume her bar license is toast. I’d assume that the Fourth Circuit is going to ask her nicely to submit an extraordinary pro hac vice application so they can reject it, with prejudice.
Without going and doing the full Due Diligence myself, do you know of any precedent that allows for tolling a criminal Statute of Limitations where the prosecution is at fault for fatal screw-ups? I cannot imagine as such but federal appellate courts tend to be deferential to the DOJ and law enforcement screw-ups over all.
SoL had what, like an hour and a half left on it?
Lindsey is toast.
Presenting a judge with forged documents purporting to be a grand jury vote that never happened has got to be about the biggest f*ckup a prosecutor could make.
Just wondering what sanctions the judge will impose.
I also think I’m closer to getting my pony if the judge calls AG Bondi in for a chat.
Peterr getting a pony would make my day!
Pretty Pleeeeeaze energies of the universe? Make it so!
Peterr, I hope it ends up being the prettiest pony ya ever did see!
‘Lindsey is toast.”
Avocat toast.
(Full disclosure: I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on the side of a bus. )
The judge is clearly shocked, so I guess this CAN’T be routine. But I don’t quite get the purpose of the actual document that only needs to be signed by the foreperson (and the prosecutor). Does it actually have to list out no-billed charges? Is there actually a requirement that the entire grand jury has to see that document, so long as it precisely captures what WAS true billed?
Are we sure the only reason the judge finds this weird isn’t because normally prosecutors don’t make the other errors they made in how they sent this Frankenstein document to the judge (which included AO 191 for some reason and also mixed versions of the indictment itself, some from first draft and some from second draft).
Not suggesting everybody else is wrong here, I know nothing about this stuff, just trying to understand.
The law depends on transparent process and meticulous documentation. What was presented to the grand jury? Dunno, Lindsey didn’t record that. What did the grand jury decide about the revised indictment? Dunno, Lindsey didn’t show it to them. Were there sufficient votes from the grand jury to indict on those two counts alone? Dunno, Lindsey didn’t record it and only had the foreman (and one other) document it.
I agree. I can imagine a scenario where the judge needs to determine whether the transcript of the grand jury adequately and precisely captures the charges that were true billed. In that case, it’d be very important for Comey’s team to have access to the transcript and grand jury materials, since that’d be disputed. However, it wouldn’t necessarily mean there was simply no indictment that took place, that’d be for the judge to figure out.
As I understand this twisted history, the GJ no-billed the first count of the “indictment” but agreed on charges two and three. That’s not an indictment per se you can present to the court. But it is a federal record that has to be preserved in its original form.
instead, Halligan cut out the first charge, somehow reformatted the pages, renumbering the charges in the process, and got the foreperson to sign it. She then signed it and submitted it as the “indictment.” That’s a big problem on many levels.
What she should have done is revise the paperwork around the two charges the jury “could” agree on, resubmit it to a quorum of the grand jury for a vote, get the required vote, have the foreperson sign the true-billed indictment, sign it herself, and submit it to the court as the indictment.
She saved about an hour’s time by not resubmitting the revised paperwork to a quorum of the GJ for a vote. Who knows whether presented that way, the minimum number of grand jurors would have agreed on the two charges. They barely agreed on them the first time.
The document Halligan submitted is not an indictment. It’s void and has no legal effect. She tanked the case and her law license to save about an hour’s time. Without a presidential pardon or commutation, she might spend time in prison.
How do you know the Judge is “clearly shocked” when you “know nothing about this stuff, [and you’re] just trying to understand?” And how is it when “know this about this stuff” you also ask so many alternative explanation questions seemingly seeking to sow doubt in this report by Marcy? You clearly KNOW and UNDERSTAND far more than your self-debasing puffery claims or you’re a savant of some type. I agree with you that those questions should be asked and answered but I’m definitely calling complete bullshit on your puffery self-abusing and misdirection in your post. All apologies, in advance, if I am wrong.
I know the judge was clearly shocked because the first sentence of the quoted piece begins “In a shocking back and forth…”. You think the judge finds this routine? Marcy has been documenting how insane and sloppy and corrupt the behavior from the prosecutors has been and she is correct.
2. I’ve spent a bunch of time reading emptywheel closely over the years, huge fan. Commenter only for a few years, but I go back much longer. But I’m not a lawyer, don’t work in legal profession at all, just read this website too obsessively. So like I googled around to understand what AO 191 because it’s in the docs that were linked to, for example.
The idea I’m trying to undermine the reporting is incorrect. I have nothing but respect and admiration.
Well then, let’s work on upping your confidence level because your longtime reading and great insights into the nuance and next steps was excellent. I apologize in advance and again now. Apologies again, I didn’t recognize your handle and that you’ve been here so long.
My wife and I combined for over thirty total years as Assistant US Attorneys, and still more at the Dep’t in DC. Neither of us ever handed up an indictment that had not been presented to & voted on by the entire grand jury, & neither of us ever heard of anything remotely resembling Halligan’s apparent circus.
As I think over our procedures, I can only conclude that we presented the grand jury with the same document that would, if voted out, be:
(1) Signed by our office & the foreperson, then
(2) Handed up to the judge, to avoid
(3) Any doubt that we had complied with the Constitution and submitted our charges to a grand jury.
I have to admit I’m not aware of any court decisions on this subject. The main reason for that, though, is that no prosecutor in their right mind would pull something like that. (I’ll save Halligan’s apparent mis-statements of the law for another day.)
Thanks for that info! Totally change my views on all this.
This is the type of perspective and insight that fueled my first response to your post – it seemed to me that you were newer because you hadn’t understood this perspective which is very often represented in the comments here!
While I don’t have a combined 30-years of experience, I have some at both fed and state level, and I totally co-sign this. I cannot imagine a world in which I would ever have made the decisions LH made. (As an aside, I cannot imagine a world where I was close to *not* getting a true bill, but that’s a different story I guess). And I also agree about struggling to find analogous case law – it’s so hard to fathom because I don’t understand how any prosecutor would think it would be ok to refashion a document like this. The carelessness is breath-taking.
Mind if I ask one more question:
In the Letitia James case, is it weird that the first page is less bolded than the other page, or is that a normal artifact of clerk copying machines? https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/media/1416106/dl?inline The only reason we know about the no-bill charge for Comey was that they jumbled the pages when filing.
As I mentioned below, the judge (per TPM’s David Kurtz) pointed the parties to a 1969 case that prohibited a practice in D.D.C. of basically doing what happened here (voting on a charge in the abstract, and having the foreperson signing it after the USAO drafted the indictment). So at least in D.C. (and more than likely, because the bars in DC, EDVA, and MD probably overlap), it hasn’t been a question in 56 years.
Did she backsass a judge? O__O
Yeah…ooof!
Like Trump and Bondi, Halligan appears to be a one-trick pony. She back-sassed the court, as if she were being interviewed by Faux Noise, performing for Trump.
Apart from this case, I hope the DoJ’s gross mishandling of this case and abuse of the courts in general encourage federal courts to refuse to give the DoJ the presumption of regularity on every case brought by Trump.
Lindsey is displaying her preening devotion for her Dear Piggie Piggie!
Gonna be interesting to see how Judge N addresses all of her blatant ethics violations – if so.
I keep having this feeling that most counsel in most cases would likely have already received a notice to show cause!
Merely interrupting a judge is considered pretty poor form, never mind correcting them.
Obviously the judge is a professional who will consider only the facts and evidence, without letting personal feelings get in the way, but it’s a pretty dick move to annoy them.
I would think that rudeness should be the least of her worries right now.
This particular display of rudeness is small in the scheme of things, yes, but it’s readily evident to people with zero understanding of DOJ and the judiciary. It’s obvious, the arrogant dismissiveness treating a co-equal branch of government with open disdain, and yet another failure to uphold the oath all federal employees take to defend the Constitution. The Insurance Lawyer is treating our government like she would a claimant against her client, and that’s not her job.
I get that. I’m not trying to minimize the importance of professionalism. I’m saying that losing her license and potentially opening herself up to a civil suit (if she is deemed to not be properly appointed) seem like the kind of thing where the judge would forego scolding her for interrupting him because she’s getting ready to go through some things.
It’s something we in the military would lead thusly: ‘With all due respect…’ which means some whoop-ass is on its way to a superior officer. The phrasing ties the criticism solely to the action at hand, not the office or the person. However, as a personal servant of wannabe King Convict-1 IS Halligan thinks she’s ‘wearing his stripes’ and is at his level. It usually doesn’t work well among professionals who know their job.
Like she is doing now for the Epstein files, expect AG Bondi to decide to open an ‘investigation’ to prevent a close look at the whole cabal from Convict-1 on down. The problem with that idea is timing, because a lot of inconvenient truths will be hitting right before the midterm elections of 2026. Bondi can’t investigate forever, and FWIW, the 5th Circuit just shot down TX redistricting attempts. Let’s remember this is the district that tried to wipe out medication abortion or the right of the FDA to approve drugs. In other words, not tree-hugging DFHs. It’s a very bad sign for Convict-1’s plans if he can’t even get the 5CA to agree with him.
If I’m a homeowner or corporate plaintiff that went up against Lindsey Halligan in a legal matter anytime from 2013-2022 – and a partner from 2018 – when she was at Cole, Scott & Kissane, I’d be contacting lawyers right now to see if there were any legal shenanigans perpetrated by the Insurance Lawyer against them.
*ding-ding-ding* That. All of that.
Am I hearing correctly that the DOJ rep told the judge his boss, Todd Blanche, told him not to say if there was a prior declination memo in the case? IANAL but perhaps one of you who is can tell me how a Judge handles this kind of thing? Will he demand to hear from Todd Blanche???? Is this not contempt?
The attempt to put thumbs on legal scales is likely to lead to a conspiracy charge eventually (no way Convict-1’s pet DoJ will pursue one) on all of the actors here. It might even include Convict-1 himself if he doesn’t self-pardon.
Since these are all documented interventions proving a conspiracy should be easier to show how IS Halligan (based on Feeb coaching) did what fellow MAGA USA Cleary would do, since she talked to actual lawyers. Could VA do the investigation and charging as a state matter since this was done there?
I’m not sure if the court wants to provoke a fight with Main Justice, but it’s odd that Blanche thinks he can just refuse to disclose whether a memo exists. Even if he’s arguing that the memo is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the law doesn’t let you refuse to confirm or deny its existence – you usually log the document in a privilege log. Second, it sure seems like that memo could be exculpatory information under Brady, so there’s a tension between Comey’s constitutional right to exculpatory information and the DOJ’s right to the work product privilege. So it seems like just refusing to confirm or deny its existence isn’t going to work as a long-term strategy. Although, tbh, DOJ has way bigger problems than this in terms of saving this crap criminal case.
The DOJ is acting like a pro se litigant in small claims court. No, more like the unprepared side in front of Judge Wapner on the People’s Court.
I represented myself in Small Claims court here in the UK, which although the stakes are a lot lower is still a pukka court presided over by a district judge.
I conducted myself with courtesy and professionalism, and even when the opposing solicitor was talking absolute nonsense I countered calmly with facts and evidence – and brought receipts (literally!)
It’s simply a matter of respect. Respect for the people in the room, respect for the setting and the procedure. If I could manage it as a litigant in person, it’s beyond belief that professionals who do this for a living (although maybe not for much longer!) can’t do the same.
Obviously, not all. But I recall a friend suing his former landlord for his rental deposit. The landlord claimed he had to replace flooring and wanted to retain the entire amount. My friend provided before and after pictures of the claimed damage, his own repair costs for it, and a copy of the rental agreement. Friend won case and court costs back (so the landlord was out the deposit and my friend’s filing fees).
That’s exactly how much relevant experience Hannigan has. Again – most incompetent USA in history.
https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3m5yppjo4n22a
Nov 19, 2025, 11:53 AM
From the screenshots of the Opinion:
In my former life as a lawyer, spent number of years as a prosecutor and presented hundreds of cases before grand juries. I can imagine and almost feel the terror Halligan was probably experiencing the moment she realized that she was putting in motion the irretrievable process of indicting someone for federal crimes that the grand jury had actually not voted on. I can, as well, picture the more sentient AUSAs lurking in the hallways and hiding in their offices feeling their own sense of terror for being witnesses to all this fuckery. Can almost feel sympathy for Halligan and the world of pain she’s going to live through for these transgressions, but then again…
The level of legal incompetence is beyond my comprehension (IANAL). In my former profession my license as a Professional Engineer would be toast as a minimum. Performing licensed work outside my specialty is expressly forbidden.
I was absolutely flabbergasted that she accepted the position. If she manages to keep her license, I can’t imagine anyone wanting to hire a lawyer is so mind numbingly unaware of how different legal fields work.
In my world, the Inspector is the judge and her/his decision is final! I was warned that disrespect of authority is like having a cage match in the mud with a pig.
After a couple of days…. you come to realize that the pig is enjoying himself and you are not.
Is the judge allowed to dismiss with extreme prejudice?
And can they please give Peterr a pony while they’re at it :-)
(I’m not advocating actual violence, merely alluding to a classic movie quote!)
Per TPM (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/due-to-botched-paperwork-comey-may-never-have-been-properly-indicted), Judge Nachmanoff pointed the parties to a case from the DC Circuit that seems pretty much on point: (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/413/1061/36450/). The practice there was for the GJ to vote on presentment, in general, after hearing testimony, and the USAO would draft an indictment for the foreperson’s signature, without the actual indictment being presented to and voted on by the grand jury; the DC Circuit rejected this practice. That court also pointed to precedent that limited what could be presented at trial to what was actually in the indictment. All in all, very good work by the judge’s clerk to find that case!
There is always something worse. The bottom is always further down. As remarkable as the absence of an indictment is it appears that there is a declination memo from Siebert and Todd Blanche is directing the rented prosecutors not to produce it. Could that be true? Did they show it to Halligan or have they kept it from her too?
It strikes me that the DOJ version of MAGA is seeing things like taint, warrants, and how to get an indictment from a grand jury as norms, things to ignore, finesse, or trash as a show of power. A parallel to Republican behavior in the Senate, or Trump himself. But they forget they need backup. The Senate has their self-interest rules like the filibuster, Trump has Congress and SCOTUS. Who do these clowns have? Bondi, who wouldn’t even give them a paralegal to help with prep? FAFO, as our Secratary of WAR!! likes to say.
Yup, the incompetence is intentional, but at some point an established process has to be followed. That may be less true IF you literally control everything, and that’s probably what Donnie Dementia thought.
I can’t help but wonder if Bondi set Halligan up to take the fall because she knew this case was a loser. Providing zero guidance to a complete novice seems a lot like sandbagging.
Lindsey Halligan is clearly giving Ned Racine a run for his money. Things didn’t work out well for Ned, either.
I was thinking more along the lines of Lionel Hutz from The Simpsons.
One of the ironies here is that Lindsey and the loaner AUSAs are proving Comey’s vindictive prosecution case for him before they even get to the actual trial part. Or at least giving him even more to work with.
They would be so much more dangerous if they were competent.
This is what confuses me. Why did Halligan include the original indictment with count 1 crossed out when she gave the indictments to the Judge? Did the court already have a copy of that original indictment and she needed to explain why she was bringing the one with only 2 counts? If she hadn’t included the original 3 count indictment, would the judge have even known it existed?
I suspect she thought what she was doing was OK, just saving time since the GJ had “approved” two of the three counts therefore it was a foregone conclusion they would approve the revised indictment, and as a consequence presented everything to the judge because it provided a complete record of what had happened. She didn’t want to get in trouble for leaving out some of the paperwork. I can’t imagine that if she’d any idea she’d probably lose her case and possibly law license over it she’d have not presented the new indictment to the GJ.
“foregone conclusion” isn’t quite what I meant (passed the edit deadline), more like “had already approved the two indictments”.
The only possible explanation that makes sense is if Lindsey Halligan mis-heard Donald Trump, and has been working tirelessly to bring him a No-bill Prize.
These people thought they would just
prosecute the fvcking former Director of the FBI…
unbelievable.
Bwahahaha
(I’m sorry, I’m still stunned by the fact that my admittedly trolling comment that maybe Comey was no-billed on all three charges turned out to be correct in the most hilarious way possible.)
I just wonder if the foreperson was put in personal legal jeopardy for signing what was apparently an illegitimate document? Or would the jeopardy fall on any lawyer who advised the — presumed non-lawyer — foreperson?
This LIVE THREAD of the Hearing by “recovering lawyer” Nonilex on Mastodon
was recommended by Ed Walker on Bluesky:
https://masto.ai/@Nonilex/115576824468954310
Nov 19, 2025, 09:26 AM
The LEMONS’ bit begins at Nov 19, 2025, 09:26 AM, here:
https://masto.ai/@Nonilex/115577199914315750
LEMONS to the Judge: