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 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 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
The Coordinator’s “SoL shoehorn” characterization, “corrected,” should read “redacted.”
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.
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.
“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
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.