Media Push To Sink Comey Indictment Was Based On A Lie

Earlier this week, the American people were “reliably” informed by the left-wing press that the full grand jury that indicted disgraced former FBI Director James Comey did not see the final indictment.

“Judge grills government over apparent lapses in Comey indictment,” ABC News’ Peter Charalambous, Alexander Mallin, Katherine Faulders, and Nicholas Kerr wrote on November 19. According to the quartet, U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan “told a judge … that the full grand jury that indicted Comey did not see the final indictment — only the foreperson and another grand juror did.”

It was the same claim made by The Guardian’s Sam Levine, who headlined his piece: “Full grand jury didn’t see final Comey indictment, prosecutors admit.”

The New York Times’ Alan Feuer and Devlin Barrett wrote: “Trump Loyalist Admits Grand Jury Never Saw Final Comey Indictment.” The duo said the alleged incident was an “irregularity” in the case.

“Ms. Halligan admitted that she had never shown the second — and final — version of the Comey indictment to the full grand jury before the foreperson signed the charging document,” The Times wrote.

The only problem?

It’s not true.

In a filing Thursday, the Department of Justice said: “The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively refutes that claim.”

What really happened is that, as former Supreme Court law clerk and attorney for the Article III Project Mike Davis explains on X, “The confusion arises solely from the magistrate judge’s misinterpretation of the administrative correction removing Count One from the indictment after the grand jury returned a true bill on Counts Two and Three.”

“That adjustment simply reflected the grand jury’s vote; it was neither unusual nor improper,” Davis said.

In fact, the court transcript shows the court asking: “So you voted on the [indictment] that has two counts?”

The foreperson said: “Yes,” later adding that “It was the very first count that we did not agree on, and the Count Two and Three were then put in a different package, which we agreed on.”

The DOJ says such testimony “confirms that the grand jury failed to obtain concurrence on Count One, and that Counts Two and Three were placed into a separate two-count indictment that the grand jury approved.”

According to the filing, the “Court acknowledged that two documents with the same case number had been presented, explaining: ‘concur across all three counts, so I’m a little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that are inconsistent.’”

As the DOJ filing states, the transcripts show that “any assertion that the grand jury ‘never voted on the two-count indictment’ is contradicted by the official transcript.”

Fox News reports that Tyler Lemons, the North Carolina-based federal prosecutor, said “the indictments were identical and that the second one was created as soon as the grand jury proceedings concluded and merely excised the one charge that the grand jury rejected.”

Halligan said in a statement that: “When the U.S. Attorney’s comments are read fairly, fully, and in context – as the Code of Conduct requires – the conclusion is unavoidable: there was no misstatement of law, no misleading of the grand jury, and no impropriety whatsoever. The magistrate judge’s contrary finding rests on a misreading of the transcript and cannot support disclosure.”

Of course, the same propaganda press that spread the hoax is now scrambling to pretend like it was the Justice Department that “reversed” itself rather than just admitting the obvious: The magistrate judge misunderstood what happened, and the media simply regurgitated that misinterpretation.

“In a reversal from what the Department of Justice represented in court and in written filings Wednesday, federal prosecutors said Thursday that the full grand jury reviewed the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey,” Charalambous and Mallin wrote in a new piece.

Comey was indicted by a grand jury on two counts: false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.