Lindsey Halligan says full grand jury never saw final indictment it handed up against Comey

Lindsey Halligan, outside of the White House on August 20. Jacquelyn Martin/AP/File

Will Judge Michael Nachmanoff bring up what interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan said to the grand jury – an approach so questionable it could prompt the case against James Comey to be dismissed?

Earlier this week, a magistrate judge’s opinion revealed multiple issues with Halligan’s work so far.

Nachmanoff is now set to review, as soon as this weekend, whether Comey’s team will be entitled to the full grand jury record.

The judge is also likely following the discussion in the court record so far describing what appears to be significant prosecutorial missteps.

Those include, as described this week by the magistrate judge assisting Nachmanoff on the case:

• Pushing forward a case where the evidence may not have been handled appropriately nor was authorized to be used.

• Suggesting to the grand jury it could approve the Comey indictment while misleading the grand jurors on the law. Halligan implied Comey would need to testify to win his case at trial and the Justice Department may bring in better, additional evidence later, according to the magistrate judge’s summary.

• The possibility that several minutes of a prosecutor’s discussion with the grand jury went unrecorded by a court transcriptionist.

It’s unclear how much discussion of Halligan with arise at the hearing. Comey’s defense team has focused its written arguments on the years of encouragement by Donald Trump for the Justice Department to charge Comey.

Halligan’s part of that alleged scheme, they argue, was to secure an indictment that other prosecutors wouldn’t greenlight.