A U.S. attorney with no trial experience. A missing grand jury signature. A former FBI director claiming political revenge. What’s happening inside this federal courtroom could become one of the most surprising legal stories of the decade—and it all may hinge on whether the right form was shown to the right people at the right time.

In a Virginia courtroom, what began as a high-stakes federal prosecution of a former FBI director is slowly morphing into something far more precarious. Questions are piling up. Procedures are under the microscope. And a federal judge is pressing the Department of Justice harder than anyone expected.

At the center of it all is James Comey, former FBI Director, who now stands indicted on charges of obstruction and making false statements—and is aggressively fighting back. But this isn’t just about whether Comey lied to Congress or not. The case is beginning to turn on whether the Department of Justice followed the law in how it brought the charges at all.

And if the early signs are any indication, the case may be less about the facts—and more about the process.

How We Got Here

The current prosecution of James Comey stems from his 2020 Senate testimony, where he stated under oath that he never authorized FBI officials to leak classified information to the press. Prosecutors now claim that testimony was false, pointing to actions Comey allegedly took directing a third party to share internal memos with a reporter.

Comey has pleaded not guilty and denies wrongdoing.

But the charges themselves aren’t the main story anymore. The courtroom drama unfolding now is focused on how those charges came to be—and whether the grand jury that returned the indictment ever actually saw the final version of what they were voting on.

That’s a serious issue—and one that could derail the entire case before it ever reaches trial.

The Grand Jury Mystery

At a hearing in Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—a former Trump lawyer appointed to the position after her predecessor resigned—testified that the full grand jury never saw the final version of the indictment.

According to Halligan, the jury was presented with a three-count draft. They voted to indict on only two counts. After that vote, Halligan revised the indictment to remove the rejected charge—but never showed the new version to the full grand jury. Instead, only the foreperson and one additional juror reviewed the updated document before it was filed in court.

That has raised a legal red flag so big, even the judge couldn’t ignore it.

What the Judge Asked—and What the DOJ Didn’t Say

Judge Michael Nachmanoff, the presiding U.S. District Court judge, pressed DOJ attorneys repeatedly about why the full grand jury wasn’t given the final indictment. His questions intensified when another DOJ attorney refused to confirm whether an internal memo had previously advised against prosecuting Comey.

That memo, reportedly prepared by career prosecutors before Halligan took office, may have included recommendations not to pursue charges. But DOJ attorney Tyler Lemons said he was directed not to disclose whether the memo existed.

That exchange led the judge to issue a highly unusual instruction: both sides must now brief the court on a 1969 Supreme Court case in which a conviction was overturned because the defendant’s indictment was improperly presented to the grand jury.

In plain English? The judge wants to know if precedent exists to toss the case out completely.

A Political Backdrop

To understand why this case is attracting so much scrutiny, you have to understand its context.

Comey’s indictment came years after his public falling-out with former President Donald Trump, who fired him in 2017 amid the FBI’s investigation into Russian election interference. Trump later labeled Comey a “liar” and repeatedly called for him to be prosecuted.

Fast forward to 2025: Trump returns to office and names Lindsey Halligan, a former private attorney with no background in criminal prosecution, as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. She replaces a veteran prosecutor who reportedly resisted efforts to indict Comey.

Soon after her appointment, Halligan brings charges.

That timeline is now central to Comey’s defense—who claims the entire case is a politically driven campaign of retribution directed by the president himself.

The Defense: This Is a Political Hit Job

Comey’s lead attorney, Michael Dreeben, pulled no punches in court. He argued that Trump’s involvement in the case was undeniable, citing public statements the president made demanding prosecutions of Comey and others.

“This has to stop,” Dreeben told the judge. “This is not prosecution. This is retaliation. The president is manipulating the machinery of justice to punish a political critic.”

Dreeben argued that by removing a career prosecutor and replacing him with a former Trump lawyer, and by making public statements pushing for an indictment, the president created a situation that violates basic constitutional protections.

“This is an egregious violation of bedrock constitutional values,” he added.

The Government’s Pushback

DOJ lawyers argue that Comey’s indictment is legally sound.

They acknowledge the grand jury didn’t see the revised indictment in its final form—but insist the substance of the charges remained the same. They say the grand jury was presented with the two charges and voted to approve them. Therefore, they argue, there’s no legal reason to throw the case out.

They also dismiss the idea that Trump’s comments prove the prosecution is retaliatory. The DOJ notes that the president’s views may be public and harsh—but those statements, they argue, do not prove that the decision to prosecute was politically motivated.

According to the government’s filings, “The defendant cannot establish that the prosecution was brought solely to punish him.”

Why It Matters

At first glance, this might seem like legal hair-splitting. But in the U.S. legal system, how charges are brought is just as important as the charges themselves.

The grand jury is supposed to serve as a safeguard between the government and the accused—a panel of ordinary citizens who review the evidence and decide if it’s strong enough to proceed. If prosecutors circumvent that process, even unintentionally, it calls the entire case into question.

In this instance, Judge Nachmanoff and a separate magistrate judge have both raised concerns that the grand jury process was not properly followed.

One judge described the situation as “uncharted legal territory,” noting that the indictment filed in court was not the document reviewed by the full grand jury—a situation that may not meet legal standards for a valid indictment.

Prosecutors Face the Clock

Now, the case is heading toward a crucial moment.

Judge Nachmanoff has delayed the release of audio recordings from the grand jury, but defense attorneys are pushing for them. They argue that the recordings may show further irregularities—especially in how the charges were explained and how the vote was conducted.

If it’s proven that the process violated grand jury rules or misled jurors, the entire case could be dismissed before it even goes to trial.

The DOJ, meanwhile, is fighting to keep those recordings sealed, citing concerns over grand jury secrecy. But the judge’s patience appears limited.

Trial Date Looms

Despite the procedural storm, the trial is still scheduled to begin in early January. Whether it happens, however, depends on what the judge decides in the coming weeks.

If the judge determines that the indictment is defective—or that the case is politically tainted—it could all be over before jurors are ever selected.

If the case proceeds, it will mark the first time a former FBI director faces criminal trial in modern U.S. history.

Political Reverberations

Whether Comey’s case continues or collapses, it’s likely to be a defining issue in 2026 political discourse.

For Trump’s critics, the prosecution is seen as a warning sign of political score-settling—especially following the DOJ’s other controversial investigations into former officials and political opponents.

For Trump’s supporters, the case represents accountability for a man they view as a symbol of a politicized federal bureaucracy. In their view, Comey’s past decisions—including his handling of the Clinton investigation and Russia probe—demand scrutiny.

Either way, the outcome of this case will have ramifications far beyond one courtroom.

At the Heart of It All: Trust

This isn’t just a legal battle. It’s a test of public trust.

Did the Department of Justice follow the rules, or did it bend them in service of politics? Did the grand jury system work as designed, or was it short-circuited in the name of expedience?

Comey’s defense team believes the answers are clear. Prosecutors argue they did everything by the book.

Now, a federal judge will have to decide whose story holds up—and whether the American public will get to watch this trial unfold at all.

Closing Thoughts

The indictment of a former FBI director is extraordinary enough. But when that indictment may not have been properly presented, and when it comes against a backdrop of political pressure, public outcry, and procedural irregularities, it becomes something else entirely.

It becomes a test case for how justice is carried out in a divided era—where the law, the headlines, and the political winds often blow in very different directions.

And in the end, it may not be what Comey said in 2020 that determines his fate, but what prosecutors did in a Virginia courtroom five years later.