A federal courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia, just became the stage for a legal showdown that could shake up the Department of Justice’s credibility.
On Wednesday, November 19, 2025, a hearing unfolded where a federal judge raised serious doubts about the legitimacy of an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, questioning whether political interference from President Donald Trump tainted the process.
Let’s rewind a bit to set the scene: Trump fired Comey back in 2017, and since then, the former FBI head has been a persistent thorn in the president’s side with his outspoken criticism.
Fast forward to September 2025, when Trump appointed Lindsey Halligan, a former insurance lawyer and White House aide with zero prosecutorial experience, as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Within a mere four days of her appointment, Halligan spearheaded an indictment against Comey—an eyebrow-raising timeline that had the judge, Michael Nachmanoff, openly skeptical about the depth of her independent review.
“What independent evaluation could she have done [in four days]?” Nachmanoff pressed, casting doubt on whether Halligan was truly acting on her own or merely following orders from higher up.
Here’s where it gets messier: Halligan initially presented a three-charge indictment to a grand jury, but after the jurors rejected one charge, she signed a revised two-charge version without resubmitting it to the full panel.
The Department of Justice, represented by federal prosecutor Tyler Lemons, insisted the two documents were nearly identical save for the dropped charge, but Judge Nachmanoff wasn’t ready to sign off on that explanation just yet.
Instead, he ordered an additional briefing to dig deeper into whether this procedural hiccup undermines the entire indictment’s validity—a decision that keeps this case hanging in limbo.
Adding fuel to the fire, Trump took to social media in September 2025, publicly urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to swiftly charge several political opponents, including Comey, with posts that didn’t mince words.
“We can't delay any longer, it's killing our reputation and credibility,” Trump declared, further ranting about past grievances before demanding, “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
While some might see this as a leader fighting for accountability, it’s hard to ignore how such public pressure on specific cases could taint the perception of impartial justice—especially when the target is a long-time adversary like Comey.
Comey, present in the courtroom during the hearing, let his lawyer, Michael Dreeben, do the talking, and the defense didn’t hold back in alleging a personal vendetta behind the charges.
Dreeben argued that the rapid timeline of Halligan’s appointment and subsequent indictment, coupled with Trump’s social media outbursts, points to a politically motivated prosecution that should be tossed out entirely.
Meanwhile, Judge Nachmanoff probed whether Halligan was merely a “puppet” for Trump’s agenda, a term that cuts to the heart of concerns about the Justice Department’s independence under intense political scrutiny.
