Breaking news in the Law and Justice segment: Moments ago, the Department of Justice responded to a stunning revelation in the case brought by President Trump’s handpicked interim U.S. attorney, Lindsay Halligan, against former FBI Director James Comey.

During a dramatic courtroom moment, Halligan admitted she never presented the final charging documents to the full grand jury. Instead, she had only the foreperson sign off on them. The courtroom fell silent. Even the judge appeared shocked, calling the case “too weighty and too complex” to rule on immediately.

The DOJ has now filed its explanation, insisting everything was “normal” and “proper.” Prosecutors argue that the grand jury saw one charging document, deliberated for two hours, and that Halligan later removed one charge but kept the two counts the grand jury allegedly supported. They maintain the transcript is complete, procedures were proper, and the judge’s concerns are unfounded.

However, experts say what happened is highly irregular—unprecedented, even. Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman stated he has “never, ever” seen anything like this. The grand jury never saw or voted on the operative indictment, raising serious questions about whether Comey was ever legally charged at all.

If no valid indictment exists, the statute of limitations has already expired, which could mean the entire case is effectively over.

The issue stems from accusations that Comey lied in a 2020 hearing about authorizing leaks. Comey believes the case is a result of Trump’s personal vendetta, and his team is arguing that the rushed timeline and unusual procedures amount to vindictive prosecution.

The DOJ is urging the judge not to release grand jury transcripts and not to dismiss the case, but Comey’s team is expected to respond by Friday.

Observers note that the timing is suspicious. A Truth Social post by Trump pressured officials to move faster on “Comey’s indictment.” Prosecutors now acknowledge there was a rush because the statute of limitations was running out.

Legal analysts say this case now sits at the intersection of political pressure, procedural errors, and potentially fatal legal flaws, leaving the judge with major decisions ahead.