admin
A federal judge in Virginia has quietly given the Department of Justice extra time to fight an extraordinary magistrate ruling that would hand over sealed grand jury materials to former FBI director James Comey. The move, announced Monday, pauses an unprecedented disclosure that has conservative lawyers and political observers both relieved and furious at different parts of the system.
U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick shocked many by finding what he called a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” and ordering prosecutors to turn over audio and records from the hours before the Sept. 25 indictment. That same order accused prosecutors of procedural mistakes so serious they could have tainted the grand jury, a finding that jumped the rails of ordinary grand jury secrecy.
Among the troubling details the magistrate flagged were how agents handled attorney-client privilege and whether a testifying FBI agent had been exposed to privileged material that then became central to the grand jury presentation. Fitzpatrick also blasted interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan for comments that he said improperly suggested the jury could rely on evidence outside the record. Those are heavy accusations and, if true, deserve to be aired — but airing them shouldn’t become an excuse for judicial theater.
The trial judge, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, stepped in Monday to allow the Justice Department to file formal objections and to give Comey’s team time to answer, essentially buying breathing room in what could become a legal firestorm. Prosecutors argued in an emergency motion that the magistrate may have misread facts and that the government must be allowed to contest the extraordinary remedy. The deadlines Nachmanoff set give the DOJ until Wednesday and Comey’s lawyers until Friday before a final decision is made.
Conservative legal commentators were quick to question whether Fitzpatrick overstepped, with some suggesting the ruling plays into a narrative that prominent Trump critics get special treatment from the bench. That suspicion will only harden if courts seem to pick and choose when to protect grand jury secrecy or when to break it apart — courts must be guardians of the rule of law, not activists looking for headlines.
This fight isn’t just about Comey. The magistrate’s language has already rippled into other high-profile cases, with defense teams in unrelated indictments asking judges to review grand jury materials in light of Fitzpatrick’s criticisms. If one magistrate’s finding becomes a club used selectively against the administration’s political opponents or allies, we will have traded impartial justice for a partisan parade.
Hardworking Americans deserve a Justice Department that enforces the law fairly and a judiciary that resists spectacle. The DOJ is right to insist on its day in court to challenge an order this radical, and judges must be careful not to let one aberrant ruling rewrite long-standing protections around grand juries. Let the legal process play out, but let it do so with skepticism toward political posturing and with a conservative demand for equal justice under the law.
