Former FBI Director James Comey has added to a substantial list of motions to dismiss the obstruction and false statement charges against him, alleging “potential misconduct, severe, pervasive” issues, and “abundant irregularities” surrounding his indictment. Among these claims is the suggestion that grand jurors may have felt pressured not to leave unless they agreed to indict him.
In a 26-page motion seeking disclosure of grand jury proceedings, Comey’s defense team criticized the charges for “facially misstat[ing]” his testimony. The motion also targeted interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan, describing her as a former insurance lawyer who “lacks any prosecutorial experience” and was appointed at the urging of her former client, President Donald Trump. According to Comey, Halligan secured the rushed indictment “after business hours with a meager 14 votes,” following an earlier no true bill, and did so with the help of a potentially “tainted” FBI special agent who “may have been exposed” to attorney-client privileged information while serving as a witness.
The filing argued, “Although proceedings before the grand jury are typically entitled to a presumption of regularity, the abundant irregularities surrounding the return of the indictment in this case overcome that presumption and warrant disclosure of the grand jury record.” The defense contends that these irregularities may provide grounds to dismiss the indictment altogether.
Comey also renewed his argument that Halligan was unlawfully appointed. He claimed the rookie prosecutor obtained the indictment she wanted only after a “highly unusual procedure,” which included keeping the grand jury in session well beyond normal business hours as the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations approached.
Notably, the grand jury initially “no billed” a three-count indictment. Rather than adjourning and reconvening later, Halligan reportedly pressed on and secured a two-count indictment by just a two-vote margin. The defense suggested that if U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff orders the government to disclose grand jury details, these records could reveal that Halligan implicitly or explicitly sent a message to jurors that they could not leave until they returned a true bill.
Court documents state: “Undeterred by her initial failure, Ms. Halligan did not excuse the grand jury for the day. Instead, the grand jury remained at the courthouse into the evening hours to vote on a second indictment that was ultimately returned at 6:47 p.m.” The filing added, “That highly unusual decision could have sent the message that the grand jurors would not be permitted to leave unless and until they returned a true bill. And if Ms. Halligan used words to suggest that message, it would further support dismissing the indictment.”
Further complicating the case, the filing alleges that an FBI special agent and grand jury witness “may have been exposed to Mr. Comey’s privileged communications with his attorneys and thus may have conveyed that information to the grand jury.” While the filing redacted specific details of the privileged information, it noted that it “apparently related to certain attorneys” for Comey, including law professor, friend, and adviser Daniel Richman.
The “potentially tainted case agent” reportedly testified on the same day he was “informed” of privileged material. Despite this, the agent testified before the grand jury that day, and given the content of the indictment, it is clear the testimony referenced Comey’s interactions and communications with Richman. The motion emphasized, “This created a high risk that privileged information was presented to the grand jury by a tainted case agent.”
Taken as a whole, Comey argued that these irregularities were “so severe and pervasive” that there is reasonable doubt the grand jury was free from improper influence.
Separately, Comey filed a motion to dismiss the charges related to his September 30, 2020, questioning by Senator Ted Cruz, asserting that the questioning was “fundamentally ambiguous.” The defense argued that Cruz’s “imprecise compound questions” would confuse “people of ordinary intellect,” making it unclear exactly what Cruz was asking Comey to answer or what Comey allegedly lied about.
The indictment claims Comey made materially false statements when he denied having “‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports’ regarding an FBI investigation concerning Person 1,” identified as Hillary Clinton. The prosecution alleges Comey in fact authorized PERSON 3—Richman—to serve as an anonymous source regarding that investigation.
Comey, however, maintains that Cruz’s questions gave a reasonable person the impression that the senator was inquiring whether Comey specifically authorized former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to be an anonymous source in news reports, not Richman.
As these motions proceed, the case continues to attract significant attention, raising questions about the grand jury process, prosecutorial conduct, and the validity of the charges against the former FBI director.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/severe-and-pervasive-comey-floats-tainted-fbi-special-agent-theory-while-attacking-grand-jury-process-as-rife-with-irregularities/