Judge Demands to See More Evidence on Prosecutor Lindsey Halligan’s Handling of Comey Case

The federal prosecutor overseeing the criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey turned over only a partial transcript of grand jury indictment proceedings to a judge that did not include what she had said in front of grand jurors.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie called out the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, for the partial transcript in an order on Tuesday and demanded she submit the whole thing as requested.

It’s the latest indication that the judge is closely examining the conduct of the politically-appointed acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who is fighting off a bid by Comey’s legal team to disqualify her from the case.

Halligan, who was appointed with the expectation that she would indict the president’s political enemies, was expected to privately submit the transcript so the judge could review the way she presented the case seeking to criminally charge Comey. When she did, it only included testimony from a witness and not her own comments, according to the judge’s order.

Currie is overseeing Comey’s team’s attempt to deem Halligan’s appointment as unlawful but not overseeing the criminal trial. She gave prosecutors until Wednesday afternoon to turn over all the paperwork or audio recordings.

Currie wrote that the partial transcript “fails to include remarks made by the indictment signer both before and after the testimony of the sole witness.” She also pointed out that prosecutors didn’t turn over a transcript of the moment that Halligan submitted the indictment to a magistrate judge, which was publicly reported as an awkward exchange due to the fact that the grand jury took the remarkable step of rejecting a third proposed criminal charge against Comey.

While prosecutors often turn over a transcript of witness testimony, they do not typically submit a record of their remarks in front of grand jurors when they’re explaining the case or describing the applicable laws. In this case, however, the judge requested it.

“It’s unusual for a judge to order production of this stuff,” said a former federal prosecutor who has made hundreds of grand jury presentations, requesting anonymity to discuss the matter. “At the very least it suggests she is taking the selective prosecution argument very seriously and wants to see if there’s anything Halligan said that lends credence to them. Given that the prosecutor usually explains the law to the jurors, it’s possible that Halligan didn’t do that properly or got the law wrong somehow.”

A person familiar with the situation told NOTUS that Halligan’s office turned over all the paperwork it received from the court reporter who was present during the grand jury proceedings. This person said the team would check to see if there’s any audio recording of the events.