The American legal system rests on a fundamental expectation: prosecutors present evidence, and defendants challenge it. But the case ofUnited States v. James B. Comey Jr.defied this principle, unfolding as a startling departure from established norms. A grand jury delivered an indictment on two felony counts, only to see that indictment systematically dismantled – not through legal argument, but through conjecture, personal attacks, and unprecedented procedural maneuvers.
A troubling pattern is emerging, suggesting an increasing influence of activist judges who prioritize political agendas over impartial justice. Their actions reveal a disregard for judicial neutrality, ethical obligations, and the very constitutional role of the grand jury – the voice of the people in criminal proceedings.
Judge Michael Nachmanoff immediately framed the case with a loaded question, revealing a clear bias: “So your view is that Ms. Halligan is a stalking horse or a puppet, doing the president’s bidding?” This wasn’t neutral inquiry; it was an accusation, setting a hostile tone from the outset.
Nachmanoff repeatedly relied on news reporting as factual basis, a direct violation of judicial Canon 3. He allowed media narratives to shape his skepticism towards the Department of Justice, effectively prejudging the case before evidence was fully presented. His courtroom became a platform for pre-conceived notions, not objective assessment.
The prosecution was consistently interrupted while attempting to explain internal DOJ processes, a courtesy routinely extended to the defense. When the U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan, attempted to correct the judge’s factual misrepresentations, she was abruptly silenced: “You may sit down.” This led to a formal “NOTICE CORRECTING THE RECORD” filed by the Government, highlighting the judge’s demonstrably inaccurate account of grand jury proceedings.
Perhaps most concerning, Nachmanoff declared he would struggle to find independence in Halligan’s actions, even if she swore to it under oath. This wasn’t a finding based on evidence; it was a prejudgment, a declaration of distrust before any legitimate inquiry could occur.
Senior Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, sitting by designation from South Carolina, dismissed the indictment entirely, launching a personal attack on Halligan, dismissing her as “a White House aide who has no prosecutorial experience.” This wasn’t legal reasoning; it was character assassination, injecting irrelevant and prejudicial commentary into the proceedings.
Like Nachmanoff, Currie leaned heavily on press reporting, citing “abundant newspaper reporting” as justification for her doubts. The decision to allow media narratives to dictate legal outcomes was deeply troubling. Furthermore, the case was decided by a judge hundreds of miles away, with no clear explanation for why a Virginia indictment was routed to a judge in another state.
This created a glaring appearance of judge-shopping, a practice federal courts actively avoid, especially in politically sensitive cases. A dispositive ruling in a high-profile criminal case was made outside the district, by a judge with no connection to the venue, with no record explanation for the assignment, and without any indication the presiding judge had even reviewed the grand jury evidence.
Currie’s dismissal of the indictment directly contradicted the precedent she cited –United States v. Calandra, which states that “the validity of an indictment is not affected by the character of the evidence.” Yet, she dismissed the indictment based precisely on her distrust of the evidence and the process.
Magistrate Judge William G. Fitzpatrick’s actions represented the most extreme departure from judicial standards. His rulings were built on distorted transcript context, invented suspicion, and a blatant disregard for sworn clarifications. He didn’t simply misinterpret testimony; he actively manipulated it.
Fitzpatrick took a single, continuous statement from the prosecutor and artificially split it into two parts, creating a meaning that was demonstrably absent from the original text. The omitted portion, crucially, proved the prosecutor had acted correctly, yet Fitzpatrick deliberately excluded it, twisting the narrative to fit a pre-determined conclusion.
The Government unequivocally labeled Fitzpatrick’s analysis as “unsound” and the result “distorted.” His findings rested on “conjecture rather than evidence,” violating Canon 2(A) regarding integrity and avoidance of speculation. He also “misstat[ed] or distort[ed] the record,” breaching Canon 3(A)(4).
Fitzpatrick falsely alleged a suspicious gap in the transcript, claiming “missing minutes” during grand jury deliberation – a period that is never recorded. This theory was immediately contradicted by the court reporter herself, who confirmed the time was dedicated to deliberation. Despite this, Fitzpatrick continued to treat the period as evidence of misconduct.
Based on this flawed foundation, Fitzpatrick ordered the unprecedented disclosure of all grand jury materials, including audio recordings – a breach of secrecy later stayed due to its lack of factual basis. He even exceeded the scope of a narrow remand from the district judge, reopening the entire inquiry.
Remarkably, both Fitzpatrick and Currie reviewed evidence that Judge Nachmanoff, the presiding judge, had never seen. The judges least responsible for the case had access to more information than the judge responsible for overseeing it.
The grand jury had clearly indicated its intent – to “true bill Counts Two and Three.” Yet, Nachmanoff misstated the return, Fitzpatrick alleged nonexistent misconduct, and Currie dismissed the indictment without addressing the evidence. The grand jury’s voice was ignored, overruled at every turn.
The record reveals a bench actively seeking reasons to doubt the case, volunteering new theories and suspicions that the defense then adopted, rather than simply refereeing a fair contest. This wasn’t judicial review; it was judicial dismantling.
This case didn’t fail due to evidentiary weakness; it collapsed because of judicial bias. If judicial integrity matters, the events inUnited States v. Comey Jr.demand scrutiny, not silence.
