Former FBI Director James Comey is facing a legal storm as a federal grand jury has officially indicted him on serious charges.
The New York Post reported that Comey was indicted on two counts related to alleged false statements to Congress and obstructing justice, with the grand jury's vote confirmed despite initial procedural hiccups.
Back on Sept. 25, 2025, in Alexandria, Va., a federal grand jury took a historic vote on charges against Comey, initially considering three counts.
Two counts—making false statements and obstructing justice—secured the necessary support of at least 12 jurors out of 23, while the first count failed to muster a majority.
A court transcript from that day, presented before U.S. Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala, verifies that the grand jury properly returned a true bill on the two counts that passed.
Yet, confusion swirled initially, with a clerical error in redrafting the indictment briefly muddying the waters for Judge Vaala—though this was swiftly cleared up.
Fast forward to a tense court hearing on a recent Wednesday in Alexandria, where Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan faced pointed questions from U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff about the process.
Halligan initially suggested only the foreperson and one other juror presented the indictment, while Assistant U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons admitted uncertainty over whether all jurors reviewed the final two-count version.
Comey’s defense attorney, Michael Dreeben, pounced, arguing, “No indictment was returned,” before the statute of limitations expired on Sept. 30, 2025, aiming to sink the case entirely (Michael Dreeben, Wednesday hearing).
But the prosecution fired back with a court filing the following Thursday, asserting that the transcript “eliminates any doubt” about the grand jury’s vote, directly quoting the foreperson’s confirmation and the court’s acknowledgment.
Let’s be real—Dreeben’s claim feels like a desperate Hail Mary when the record shows a proper vote; it’s hard not to see this as a defense grasping at procedural straws to dodge accountability.
The defense also pushed a narrative of selective prosecution, alleging Halligan acted under pressure from President Trump, who they claim views Comey as a political foe for past investigations like Crossfire Hurricane into the 2016 campaign.
Dreeben painted this as a vindictive move, citing Trump’s supposed history of retaliation against Comey for exercising free speech, though he dodged directly calling Halligan a presidential puppet.
While concerns about political influence in justice deserve scrutiny, the focus should stay on the facts: Comey’s actions during high-stakes probes like the Clinton email server case invite legitimate questions, not just partisan vendettas.