Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks torched Lindsey Halligan, President Donald Trump’s newly installed interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, after Halligan stumbled through the opening days of her headline-grabbing case against former FBI Director James Comey. Wine-Banks blasted what she called “embarrassing” rookie mistakes, warning that the prosecution could implode before it ever reaches a jury.
Halligan’s meteoric appointment was controversial from the start. A former Trump defense lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, she was vaulted into one of the nation’s most sensitive U.S. attorney posts after the prior chief balked at bringing charges Trump wanted. Within days, Halligan sought and obtained an indictment of Comey for perjury and obstruction tied to his congressional testimony, a move brought over the objections of career prosecutors who said the evidence didn’t meet even the low probable-cause bar for charging.
Legal experts immediately flagged substance and process problems. The counts center on alleged false statements about FBI leaks and Russia-related testimony, issues that critics say are being misquoted or ripped from context. That alone would be a steep hill for any prosecutor. But Halligan then tried to tack on another perjury charge tied to testimony on the Clinton Foundation probe; the grand jury refused, a rare rebuke given how tightly prosecutors control what jurors see.
Then came the face-plant. Halligan filed two contradictory records with the federal court: one correctly reflecting that two counts were returned and a proposed third was rejected, and another implying the grand jury returned no true bills at all, which would mean there was nothing to prosecute. Pressed by the judge on the discrepancy, Halligan reportedly claimed she hadn’t seen the faulty filing. “Okay. It has your signature on it,” the judge replied, according to a transcript. Even in high-pressure indictments, that kind of paperwork snafu is prosecutorial malpractice 101.
Wine-Banks, who helped build the Watergate cases, didn’t mince words on social media, skewering Halligan’s “inexperience” and predicting the charges could be tossed on motions practice or collapse at trial, writing on X, “Why is this not front page headline? The inexperience of Trump’s new USAtty is embarrassing. She does not know the rules, acted without sufficient evidence and against career AUSAs’ advice. I predict dismissal before trial, directed verdict after govt presents its case if not, and acquittal at worst.” Her assessment echoes a growing chorus, from ex-U.S. attorneys to academic lawyers, warning that the combination of questionable theories and poor execution threatens to backfire on the government.
Halligan’s promotion, championed by Trump and defended by Attorney General Pam Bondi, followed the firing of a predecessor who reportedly refused to pursue Trump’s critics. The Eastern District of Virginia isn’t exactly a training ground: it handles national-security matters, espionage cases, and complex public-corruption prosecutions. Dropping an inexperienced loyalist into the role, then launching a controversial case against a former FBI director, all but guaranteed a microscope on every comma and citation.
For now, the indictment stands, and Comey’s legal team is sharpening motions to dismiss on insufficiency, misquotation, and selective-prosecution grounds. If Halligan’s filings become the story, rather than the facts, Wine-Banks’ comments suggest an acquittal for Trump’s political adversary. In other words, the most damaging blows to this prosecution might be self-inflicted.
