On November 5, 2025, the normally staid halls of the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, buzzed with tension as U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick took the bench. The hearing, which lasted just under an hour, was anything but routine. The subject: the Justice Department’s prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey—a case that has already stirred controversy and drawn public accusations of politicization at the highest levels of American law enforcement.
Judge Fitzpatrick didn’t mince words. As reported by Politico and ABC News, he described the Justice Department’s approach as “highly unusual,” pointedly remarking, “We’re in a bit of a feeling of indict first, investigate second.” It was a stinging rebuke, the kind that rarely echoes from the federal bench, especially in such a high-profile prosecution. The judge’s warning wasn’t just about courtroom decorum; it cut to the heart of the American justice system’s promise of fairness for all—no matter how politically charged the case.
At the center of the storm is James Comey, once the nation’s top law enforcement officer, now facing two federal charges for allegedly lying to Congress in 2020 about the FBI’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s contacts with Russia. Comey has pleaded not guilty, and his legal team, including former federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, is fighting back hard. They claim the indictment is not just flawed, but politically motivated—engineered, they say, at the direct command of President Trump, who has long made no secret of his disdain for the former FBI director.
According to Politico and UPI, the roots of the case stretch back to 2019 and 2020, when investigators executed four search warrants targeting Daniel Richman, Comey’s longtime adviser and, crucially, his attorney. The seized materials, which include electronic records and communications, are now at the heart of a fierce legal battle over privilege and proper procedure. Comey’s defense argues that some of the materials are protected by attorney-client privilege and must not be used as evidence. “We believe the former FBI director’s constitutional rights may have been violated,” Comey’s lawyer said in court, according to ABC News.
The judge’s skepticism was further fueled by questions about how prosecutors had handled the seized evidence. During the hearing, Fitzpatrick pressed Assistant U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons for clarity: Had anyone on the investigative team accessed records that should have remained confidential? Lemons responded that, just days before Comey’s indictment, investigators reviewing the materials stumbled upon information that might be protected by attorney-client privilege. The review was halted, and the potentially privileged materials were “isolated on a desk in FBI headquarters.” Lemons assured the court, “We’re not going to touch this evidence until the court approves it.”
Fitzpatrick’s instructions were unequivocal. He ordered the Justice Department to turn over all seized materials—along with every grand jury document and transcript—to Comey’s defense by the end of business on Thursday, November 6, 2025. “They’re entitled to this information quickly,” the judge declared. But he also acknowledged the immense burden this would place on the defense, given the sheer volume of records involved. “The government has had this for five and a half years … this is an unfair burden the government is placing on the defense, but I don’t see another path forward,” he said, as reported by ABC News.
The prosecution’s handling of the case has drawn scrutiny well beyond Fitzpatrick’s courtroom. The indictment itself was secured under unusual circumstances. According to Politico, President Trump had demanded immediate prosecutions of his political adversaries in September 2025. He pushed for the appointment of Lindsey Halligan, his former personal lawyer, to a key federal prosecuting office in Virginia. Halligan, seated at the Justice Department’s table during Wednesday’s hearing, personally presented the case to the grand jury and secured the indictment against Comey—without the support of career prosecutors. This highly irregular process has become a cornerstone of Comey’s claim that the prosecution is “vindictive,” motivated by Trump’s personal animus rather than the pursuit of justice.
Comey’s legal team has filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the indictment came less than a week before the statute of limitations would have expired. They further contend that the prosecution violates Comey’s First Amendment, equal protection, and due process rights. In court filings and public statements, they assert that Trump’s dislike for Comey is the real reason behind the charges.
The case is now under the microscope of several federal judges. In addition to Fitzpatrick’s pointed warnings, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie is reviewing the validity of Halligan’s appointment—a decision that could, if found improper, sink the case altogether. Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is set to preside over a potential trial in early January 2026, has made clear his intention to proceed swiftly, despite the defense’s challenges in combing through massive troves of evidence, including classified materials that remain out of reach due to delays in security clearances.
At Wednesday’s hearing, the courtroom was sparsely attended compared to Comey’s arraignment the previous month. Comey sat quietly alongside his attorneys, with his wife and son-in-law, former federal prosecutor Troy Edwards Jr., in the public gallery behind him. Both Comey and U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan attended the hearing but did not address the judge directly.
As the legal wrangling continues, the stakes extend far beyond the fate of one former FBI director. The case has become a litmus test for the Justice Department’s independence and the rule of law in an era of deep political polarization. Judge Fitzpatrick’s closing admonition echoed this larger concern. He warned prosecutors that they proceed “at their own risk” if they use any evidence that could be tainted by privileged material, hinting at serious consequences should the court find that the government mishandled the evidence or trampled on Comey’s rights.
With deadlines looming and the defense team racing to review thousands of pages of documents, the next chapter in this legal saga is set to unfold rapidly. Whether the prosecution will withstand judicial scrutiny—or collapse under the weight of its own irregularities—remains to be seen. But for now, the eyes of the nation are fixed on Alexandria, where a judge’s blunt warning has thrown a harsh spotlight on the intersection of law, politics, and power.
