Comey is seeking to have the indictment dismissed because of the Justice Department’s handling of the case

Amna Nawaz:

Welcome to the News Hour.

President Trump is expected to sign a bill requiring the Department of Justice to release its files on the late convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. The Senate referred the measure to the White House today, just days after Trump withdrew his opposition.

Jeff Bennett:

Attorney General Pam Bondi today sidestepped questions about releasing the documents, saying only that she would follow the law.

Pam Bondi, US Attorney:

We will continue to follow the law with the utmost transparency while protecting victims.

Jeff Bennett:

In further fallout related to the Epstein case, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers resigned from OpenAI’s board of directors days after Congress released documents that showed Summers had a close relationship with Epstein.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department is facing more scrutiny over its handling of its case against former FBI Director James Comey. I previously spoke about both developments with Josh Gerstein, Politico’s chief legal correspondent.

Josh Gerstein, welcome back to The News Hour.

Josh Gerstein, Politico:

It’s good to be with you.

Jeff Bennett:

To refresh memories, James Comey was accused of lying during a 2020 congressional hearing about whether he allowed leaks to the press. He has pleaded not guilty.

But today, President Trump’s handpicked US attorney, Lindsey Halligan, admitted that the grand jury did not witness the final indictment against James Comey. Tell us more about that.

Josh Gerstein:

right.

Well, that was a surprising turn during the hearing. We expected it to focus primarily on whether this was a retaliatory and selective case against Comey, which was brought at President Trump’s insistence. But at a certain point, it turned sharply, and the judge became very focused on this issue of whether Comey’s final indictment, which was a two-count indictment, rather than the three that Halligan had originally proposed, had been presented to the full grand jury.

It appears to have been modified somewhat after the grand jury voted on the first indictment and it was then prepared in Halligan’s office and transmitted directly to the judge by the grand jury foreman without that paper traveling to the grand jury room.

Jeff Bennett:

Has anything like this happened before?

Josh Gerstein:

There were sometimes cases where prosecutors amended or rewrote the indictment after it was delivered. It’s not common. Sometimes, the judge asks for permission to make some type of written or technical amendment to the indictment.

But there is no indication that that happened here. Signs seem to be that this may be a result of Halligan’s inexperience, because he has never tried a case before and, frankly, because the possibility of a federal grand jury rejecting even part of an indictment is a very rare event.

Jeff Bennett:

Is this enough to dismiss Comey’s case?

Josh Gerstein:

So the judge didn’t really say that, although he asked three or four times about it, saying it was important for him to be completely clear about whether the final indictment had been presented to the grand jury.

So it seemed like it was heading in that direction. He told both sides that he wanted them to file legal briefs on the issue or address this question over the course of this week. It appears he might consider dropping the case on that basis, although that is not a suggestion the defense has formally put before him, at least not yet.

Jeff Bennett:

Let us now turn our focus to the Epstein files. The measure passed by Congress, as you know, requires the Department of Justice to release the additional files, all the files, within 30 days.

Do we expect the Ministry of Justice to adhere to this?

Josh Gerstein:

If all means every single one of the files, Jeff, I don’t think the Department of Justice would abide by that. Certainly, the law allows withholding victim information. But I think the main question here is that the law also includes a provision that states there is no need to publish material that could affect the ongoing investigation.

And we’ve already heard from Attorney General Pam Bondi that she’s considering the investigation that President Trump ordered just a few days ago, saying he wanted to investigate prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton over their contacts with Epstein, and she’s assigned that to the federal prosecutor in Manhattan.

She described that day as an ongoing investigation. This limits the information the Department of Justice can release. So I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this was used as a mechanism to hold some files within the 30 day deadline.

What’s strange about this, of course, is that he’s not talking about withholding any material related to Trump, because Trump, of course, has not encouraged an investigation into himself. Therefore, it would be a strange result here if any information related to Trump in the files became public and information related to his Democratic enemies remained secret.

Jeff Bennett:

We must say that there is no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by Clinton or Trump regarding their past relationships with Jeffrey Epstein.

But looking back, what do the Comey case and the fight over the Epstein files tell us about how the Justice Department will operate under this administration?

Josh Gerstein:

Well, it tells us how influential and influential the role of the president is here at the Department of Justice. I mean, in both cases, we see the president’s instructions being treated as directives for prosecutors.

In court today, prosecutors defending Comey’s case tried to point out that the case was not brought on the president’s instructions. But it was quite clear in the letter the president sent just two days before the actual indictment that he wanted to see Comey indicted.

And so, it’s a cloud that hangs over almost everything the Justice Department does in high-profile cases now, whether it’s something they just decided to pursue on their own or whether they’re carrying out the president’s orders.

If the latter were the case, judges around the country would certainly take a more stringent view of these cases, and I think they would probably have an irritated eye on whether or not to proceed.

Jeff Bennett:

Josh Gerstein is Politico’s chief legal correspondent.

Josh, our thanks, as always.

Josh Gerstein:

Thank you.