Sometimes the coverup is worse than the crime, and sometimes the prosecution is sloppier than either. A federal judge spent Wednesday openly questioning whether the Justice Department's case against former FBI Director James Comey should exist at all, after prosecutors made what looks like a pretty basic legal mistake.

When The Grand Jury Never Sees The Final Product

U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff kept pressing prosecutors on one uncomfortable fact: the grand jury never actually saw the final version of the indictment they're now using against Comey. Here's what apparently happened. The grand jury looked at a three-count draft indictment back in September and approved two of those counts while rejecting the third. Prosecutors then dropped the rejected count and assembled a new two-count indictment. The grand jury foreperson signed it, but the full panel never reviewed this revised version, according to Reuters.

That's the kind of procedural problem that makes judges nervous. Nachmanoff's sustained questioning during the hearing on Comey's motion to dismiss came as prosecutors tried to defend a case already facing allegations of political motivation. Comey faces charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation related to his September 2020 testimony to Congress. He pleaded not guilty in September, with trial scheduled for January in Alexandria, Virginia.

The Political Backdrop Gets Messy

Comey's legal team spent 90 minutes arguing the indictment isn't just procedurally flawed but politically poisoned from the start. They pointed to President Donald Trump's public vow of "retribution" against his critics and the appointment of Lindsey Halligan, a Trump loyalist, as U.S. attorney after her predecessor reportedly resisted bringing charges.

In a filing Wednesday evening, prosecutors tried to downplay the grand jury issue, insisting that because jurors approved the two counts and only the language on the rejected third count changed when it was removed, there's no real problem. They argued the foreperson's signature should be enough and that this oversight doesn't warrant dismissal.

What Happens If This Falls Apart

A dismissal would be more than embarrassing for the Justice Department. As the Associated Press noted, it would fuel broader judicial skepticism about prosecutions targeting Trump's perceived enemies, a list that includes New York Attorney General Letitia James and former national security adviser John Bolton.

The Trump-Comey feud goes back to May 2017, when Trump fired Comey while the FBI director was overseeing an investigation into possible connections between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. The two have been publicly at odds ever since, making this prosecution look less like neutral law enforcement and more like the latest chapter in a very personal conflict.