'This is juicy': Jim Comey's court response to Trump prosecutor catches expert off guard
Former FBI Director James Comey's eyebrow-raising new filing in his federal indictment case left a legal analyst with more questions than answers.
Comey is being tried in the Eastern District of Virginia on allegations of lying to Congress. The judge set a Monday deadline to have initial filings turned over.
U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan submitted a filing attacking Comey's lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, for "improperly disclos[ing] classified material."
Her filing earned a prompt response, with Fitzgerald asserting her claim was "provably false" and an "effort to defame" him, Lawfare's Roger Parloff pointed out on Bluesky.
Legal analyst Allison Gill flagged one of five redactions in the filing.
"Oooh this is juicy," she wrote on social media with a screen capture of the filing. "This is from Jim Comey's response to Lindsay Halligan's motion to disqualify defense counsel Pat Fitzgerald, and to set up filter protocols over old warrants. THE DEFENSE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE WHAT? lol"
The full paragraph she drew attention to had three of the five total redactions.
"The government has to date refused to answer the defense's questions about the legal basis to continue to review materials pursuant to [REDACTED] that [REDACTED]. Similarly, the government has refused to answer questions about what, precisely, it intends to review from the prior warrants. Particularly in the face of the government's refusal to answer basic questions about this proposed review, and in light of the serious privilege and constitutional concerns apparent from even a superficial review of the warrants, the defense needs time to diligently review the discovery to respond to this motion. Concerns about the potential review are amplified because the defense has reason to believe [REDACTED], as set forth in a sealed exhibit."
The last redaction stretched more than two lines.
Early Monday morning, Gill also posted, "I’m willing to bet that Comey and Fitzgerald are smarter than the DoJ lawyers about what constitutes a conflict of interest, and I’m willing to bet they’ve already contemplated this and have a response prepared."
Other redactions cite the names of prosecutors and a reference to what appears to be a classified investigation.