The MeidasTouch Podcast: Judge Drops Bombshell Ruling Against Trump in Comey Case

Date: November 17, 2025
Hosts: Ben, Brett, and Jordy Meiselas

Episode Overview

This episode centers on a breaking and unprecedented federal court ruling in the James Comey criminal case, which dealt a devastating blow to Donald Trump and his legal team. The discussion, led primarily by Ben Meiselas, unpacks how U.S. Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick determined there was likely massive grand jury misconduct in the indictment process against Comey. The episode blends legal analysis, behind-the-scenes context, and brotherly banter, while maintaining The MeidasTouch’s signature passionate and democracy-defending tone.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Bombshell Ruling Exposes Grand Jury Misconduct

[01:01 - 07:50]

Ben Meiselas details the “catastrophic turn of events” for Donald Trump’s team after Judge Fitzpatrick’s finding of likely grand jury misconduct in Comey’s indictment.
Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s attorney, is at the epicenter—accused of misleading the grand jury about key legal principles and withholding or omitting grand jury transcripts.
Judge Fitzpatrick ordered grand jury materials (normally highly confidential) to be turned over to Comey and his legal team—a move described as “extraordinary.”

Quote (Ben Meiselas, 01:20):

“If your name is Lindsey Halligan right now, you need to be very nervous about what just went down... because your bar license and perhaps even more is on the line.”

2. Lindsey Halligan’s Role and Questionable Qualifications

[02:55 - 04:05]

Halligan’s background: a beauty pageant contestant turned insurance lawyer with no federal prosecution experience.
Trump personally pushed Halligan, via a social media post, to rush the Comey indictment as the statute of limitations loomed, bypassing experienced Republican federal prosecutors.

Quote (Ben Meiselas, 03:31):

“She was not a trial lawyer… right before the statute of limitations was about to expire... Trump posted that message on social media: ‘Pam Bondi, tell Lindsey Halligan to go bring this indictment against my political enemies’... Lindsey Halligan obliged.”

3. Critical Misstatements of Law Given to the Grand Jury

[05:10 - 08:00]

Judge Fitzpatrick finds Halligan likely lied to the grand jury about the Fifth Amendment, implying Comey had to testify at trial and wrongly shifting the burden of proof onto Comey.
The judge also flags Halligan’s implication that more evidence would materialize later, asking the grand jury to trust the prosecution’s process—another serious legal misrepresentation.

Quote (Ben Meiselas, 05:40):

“Did Lindsey Halligan essentially imply ‘we may not have all of the information right now... but the burden is on Comey’? That is absolutely a false statement of the law.”

Quote (Ben Meiselas, 06:35):

“It seems that Lindsey Halligan said, basically all you have to do is believe us that in the future we have better evidence… Just trust us that there’s probable cause in the future. Which is a misstatement of law.”

4. Attorney-Client Privilege Breached in Testimony

[07:55 - 09:30]

The only FBI witness relied on information possibly protected by attorney-client privilege between Comey and Daniel Richman (his lawyer), violating legal protocols.
The judge suggests this may have been done “willfully and maliciously.”

Quote (Ben Meiselas, 08:25):

“The nature and circumstances surrounding the disclosure of potentially privileged information established a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law.”

5. Unprecedented Disclosure and Potential Case Dismissal

[11:32 - 14:40]

Judge Fitzpatrick ordered the extraordinarily rare, pre-trial release of all grand jury materials to Comey’s defense—a relief “rarely granted.”
The judge concluded that Comey’s defense had made a “particularized and factually based showing” of irregularities serious enough to potentially warrant dismissal of the indictment.

Quote (Ben Meiselas, 14:00):

“The court recognizes that the relief sought by defense is rarely granted... the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps… that [may] justify dismissal of one or more counts of the indictment. Signed, Judge Fitzpatrick.”

6. Missing Grand Jury Materials and Procedural Irregularities

[13:08 - 13:45]

Halligan unorthodoxly presented more than one version of the indictment to the grand jury (first a 3-count, then a 2-count), but records disappear after the first—fueling the judge’s suspicions of “missing grand jury testimony.”

Quote (Ben Meiselas, 13:25):

“The recordings and transcripts stop after the first one. So what happened with the second indictment? Do you get what I’m saying? That’s why the judge says clearly that there is missing grand jury testimony.”

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Halligan’s Qualifications:
“She was a beauty pageant contestant turned insurance lawyer… having never been in a grand jury room before.” (03:05)
On Grand Jury Secrecy and Misuse:
“In our grand jury system, the judge is not in the room, the defendant is not in the room… It was just Lindsey Halligan… And now we’re seeing this whole proceeding was likely tainted with lies, false instructions about the law, and misconduct.” (15:01)
Episode Conclusion:
“Wow, wow, wow. We'll keep you posted every step of the way. But haven’t read a ruling like that. I think of my entire legal career.” (16:18)

Timestamps for Crucial Segments

01:01 – Ben introduces the ruling and outlines the bombshell findings against Halligan and Trump’s team.
03:31 – Details on how Halligan became Trump’s prosecutor of choice.
05:40 – Misstatements of law explained; judge’s rationale for extraordinary ruling.
07:55 – Breach of attorney-client privilege discussed.
13:08 – Missing grand jury transcripts and procedural errors.
14:00 – Judge Fitzpatrick’s conclusion and the potential for indictment dismissal.
16:18 – Ben’s closing reaction and comments on the case’s uniqueness.

Summary Takeaway

The episode delivers a focused, enlightening breakdown of a potentially landmark court decision—one that not only threatens Trump’s efforts against Comey but lays bare shocking procedural breakdowns and prosecutorial misconduct within the grand jury system. The brothers’ legal expertise and conversational dynamic offer both depth and accessibility, making real the legal stakes and the rare, stunning nature of Judge Fitzpatrick’s order. Listeners come away with a clear understanding of both the legal missteps and their profound implications for Trump’s broader judicial battles.

Transcript

A (0:00)

The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info in more places that could expose you more to identity theft. But LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our US based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed your money back. Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less Holiday worry with LifeLock. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com podcast Terms apply did you.

B (0:30)

Know you can opt out of winter with VRBO? Save up to 1500 dollars for booking a month long stay when thousands of sunny homes are waiting for you, why subject yourself to the cold? Put the snow shovel down, put the parka back in the closet and don't you dare scrape another windshield. Slip into some flip flops, consider a sunless tan and use the monthly stays filter to save up to $1500. Book your warm getaway at vrbo.com introducing.

C (1:01)

Family Freedom from T Mobile we'll pay off four phones up to $3200 and give you four free phones, all on America's largest 5G network. Visit T mobile.com familyfreedom up to $800 per line via virtual prepaid card typically takes 15 days. Free phone via 24 monthly bill credits with finance agreement example Apple iPhone 16128 gigs 829.99 eligible trade in example iPhone 11 Pro for well qualified credits end and balance due if you pay off early or canc the James Comey criminal case just blew up in Donald Trump's face. As we expected, it's a catastrophic turn of events that they should have seen coming for Trump, his doj, and especially Lindsay Halligan. If your name is Lindsey Halligan right now, you need to be very nervous about what just went down this morning because your bar license and perhaps even even more is on the line right now. After these findings, a federal magistrate judge, Judge Fitzpatrick, found that there was likely massive grand jury misconduct that led to the indictment of James Comey. Judge Fitzpatrick talks about how Lindsey Halligan, who was alone in the room with the grand jury, likely gave the grand jury false information about the law on at least two different critical legal instructions. She just lied about the law, it seems. Also the judge, Judge Fitzpatrick does not believe Lindsey Halligan that she provided the full grand jury transcripts. The judge says that's impossible because initially the grand jury did not return an indictment when there were three counts listed. So you had to go back Halligan, print out a copy of the indictment with two counts and then represent it to the grand jury. And that is missing. Where did that go? So when you've said you've turned it over and you filed the declaration, Judge Fitzpatrick is not buying it. Judge Fitzpatrick has ordered an extraordinary remedy of turning over the grand jury materials at this early stage, pre trial to James Comey and James Comey's lawyer. That only happens in the most extraordinary of circumstances. And Judge Fitzpatrick says, based on these specific findings that I'm making, this satisfies those extraordinary circumstances where grand jury testimony should be turned over and grand jury material needs to be turned over to James Comey and James Comey's lawyers. Now, we know Lindsey Halligan was never a federal prosecutor before. She was not a trial lawyer. She was a beauty pageant contestant turned insurance lawyer who Trump brought on to be a personal lawyer. And then right before the statute of limitations was about to expire in the James Comey case, Donald Trump posted that message on social media saying, pam Bondi, tell Lindsey Halligan to go and bring this indictment against my political enemies. James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Adam Schiff and others. Lindsey Halligan obliged the Trump regime, forced out the Republican United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan took over that role again, having no federal prosecutorial experience, having never been in a grand jury room before. And then you'll recall that right here on the Midas Touch Network, I was saying over and over again, go back to the videos from when that indictment was first secured. I said, I guarantee you she was giving the grand jury incorrect information about the law and, and incorrect facts and that there was misconduct in the grand jury because there's a reason why no other federal prosecutor would bring this case, including Republican federal prosecutors. One other thing that the judge points out as well, about how these grand jury proceedings were tainted with misconduct. Apparently the FBI agent who was the only person who testified in the room to the grand jury, his testimony may have been based on attorney client privileged information between James Comey and his lawyer, Daniel Richmond, or another lawyer of his, Daniel Richmond, to form the basis of the presentation, which is against the law to do that, to invade attorney client privilege without the filter protocols in place. And the judge suggests that that was willful and malicious and intentionally done. And, and there was multiple misrepresentations potentially made to the grand jury to secure this indictment of James Comey. This ruling is so extraordinary, I want to go through it with you in a very methodical way so you can hear the words of Judge Fitzpatrick, the magistrate judge who made this extraordinary order. Government Turn over all of the grand jury material, including testimony, to James Comey and James Comey's lawyers. Let's take a look at at Lindsey Halligan potentially giving false instructions to the jury about the law. Here's what the judge says. The prosecutor statement that and this portion gets rejected is a fundamental and highly prejudicial misstatement of the law. That suggests the grand jury, that suggests to the grand jury that Mr. Comey does not have a Fifth Amendment right to not to testify at trial. The prosecutor's statement ignores the foundational rule of law that if Mr. Comey exercised his right not to testify, the jury could draw no negative inferences from the decision. The prosecutor statement that and then this portion gets redacted may have reasonably set an ex. May have reasonably set an expectation in the minds of the grand jurors that rather than the government bear the burden to prove Mr. Comey's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the Burden shifts to Mr. Comey to explain away the government's evidence. In other words, did Lindsey Halligan essentially imply, we may not have all of the information right now, but we don't have to have it right now. James Comey can rebut the evidence at trial if he wants, but the burden is on Comey, which is an absolutely false statement of the law. Second, Judge Fitzpatrick says the prosecutor told the grand jury that there was and this portion gets redacted. This statement clearly suggested to the grand jury that they did not have to rely only on the record before them to determine probable cause, but could be assured that the government had more evidence to perhaps better evidence that would be presented at trial. In other words, the grand jury was skeptical that the evidence that was being presented was enough to indict James Comey. But it seems that Lindsey Halligan said, basically all you have to do is believe us that in the future we have better evidence. We don't need to show you all the evidence right now. This is all we've got. So just trust us that there's probable cause in the future. We. Which is a misstatement of law. So the judge, having read this, says, this is completely not what the law is. You're not allowed to tell a grand jury that you need to show this to James Comey and his lawyers so that they now can use it in a motion to dismiss based on grand jury misconduct as a result of what Lindsey Halligan did right here. One of the things that the judge also talks about is the disclosure of. Of privileged information from Daniel Richmond Comey's former lawyer. And basically the main person that the prosecution is claiming that James Comey gave information to to go to the press back in 2017 or 2016, and then Comey lied to the Senate is the argument about not telling people to go to the press is Comey's own former lawyer and friend, Daniel Richmond, a Columbia law professor. So just think about it like this. The two witnesses who the prosecutors claim support, you know, who the prosecutors claim would support their claim against Comey. One was Andrew McCabe, who's been here on the Midas Touch network. And he said, Comey never instructed me to go to the press. He didn't have to. He didn't have to authorize me. I did it on my own. So that can form the basis. The other is, is Comey's own personal lawyer, Daniel Richmond. And Richmond says Comey never authorized me to go to the press. But Richmond was also Comey's own personal lawyer. And the information between them is attorney client privilege that can't be invaded by the government in this fashion. So what the court says here is the nature and circumstances surrounding the disclosure of potentially privileged information established a reasonable basis to question whether the government's conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law. This is particularly significant because Agent 3, that's the only FBI agent to testify after having been exposed to potentially privileged information, chose to testify before the grand jury rather than separate himself from the investigation to contain any further exposure to to privileged information and limit any prejudice to Mr. Comey. The judge goes on to talk about how, as discussed above, the prosecutor made statements to the grand juries that could reasonably form the basis for the defense to challenge whether the grand jury proceedings were infected with constitutional error. And the grand jury transcript and recording likely do not reflect the full proceedings because although it is clear that a second indictment was was prepared and presented to the grand jury, the transcript and audio recording of the proceedings do not reflect any further communication after the grand jury began deliberating on the first indictment. So do you get that point there? The grand jury received two indictments. And again, this is not what's supposed to happen. They usually get one indictment.