A U.S. magistrate has raised concerns about potential misconduct involving an FBI agent witness and a former defense attorney of President Donald Trump, who recently became a prosecutor. After a private review of grand jury materials related to James Comey, the magistrate suggested these individuals might have compromised the proceedings.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick, who previously criticized U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice (DOJ) for an “indict first, investigate later” approach, recently ordered the government to submit grand jury transcripts, audio recordings, and evidence from the “Arctic Haze” leak investigation. This was to assess James Comey’s claims that there were valid reasons to breach grand jury confidentiality.

Comey’s legal team argued that misconduct might have occurred during the grand jury process, either through the actions of interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan or due to a compromised FBI agent who may have had access to attorney-client privileged information.

The DOJ has maintained that Comey failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify breaching the long-standing principle of grand jury secrecy, requiring specific and factual reasons to warrant disclosure.

However, Judge Fitzpatrick, in his opinion on Monday, highlighted a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” that challenged the DOJ’s stance.

“The Court finds that the institutional concerns for grand jury secrecy are greatly outweighed by Mr. Comey’s right to Due Process,” Fitzpatrick stated. “While the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted, the record indicates significant investigative errors that may have compromised the integrity of the grand jury proceedings.”

Noting that ordering the release of the grand jury materials to Comey’s defense would not make them public at this time, given the protective order in place, Fitzpatrick said the ex-FBI director deserves to have them because they are “essential” to a fair defense.

“[A]s the Court has found, these materials are essential if Mr. Comey is to fully and fairly defend himself in the face of the irregularities that have characterized this investigation from its inception,” the magistrate said.

Further down in the opinion, the judge took stock of Halligan’s presentation and the testimony of the FBI agent.

Regarding Halligan, the lone signer of the Comey indictment and the only prosecutor in the grand jury room, Fitzpatrick said he “identified two statements” that she made to grand jurors that “on their face appear to be fundamental misstatements of law that could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process.”

One of those statements seems to have emphasized that Comey’s silence could be used against him.

“Both statements by the prosecutor are in response to questions by grand jurors and are directly related to communications involving Mr. Comey,” Fitzpatrick explained, though the exact Halligan statements were redacted.

“The prosecutor’s statement that [redacted] is a fundamental and highly prejudicial misstatement of the law that suggests to the grand jury that Mr. Comey does not have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify at trial,” the magistrate continued. “The prosecutor’s statement ignores the foundational rule of law that if Mr. Comey exercised his right not testify the jury could draw no negative inference from that decision.”

The second Halligan statement, Fitzpatrick continued, “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 the government had more evidence–perhaps better evidence–that would be presented at trial.”

“[T]he prosecutor made statements to the grand jurors that could reasonably form the basis for the defense to challenge whether the grand jury proceedings were infected with constitutional error,” he said.

As for the FBI agent witness? The magistrate found it “troublesome” that the DOJ’s “sole witness before the grand jury was exposed to a ‘limited overview’ of privileged material shortly before he testified.”

Comey’s defense, therefore, should have the grand jury materials to explore “whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law,” Fitzpatrick said.

“This is particularly significant because Agent-3, 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 privileged information and limit any prejudice to Mr. Comey,” he added.

Taken together, Halligan and the agent “potentially undermine[d] the integrity of the grand jury proceeding,” making this the “rare” time ordering “all grand jury materials” over to the defense the appropriate decision, Fitzpatrick concluded.

Days before Halligan’s presentation before the grand jury, Trump publicly pleaded with Bondi to install the erstwhile insurance lawyer in place of ousted ex-EDVA interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert.

“Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot,” Trump said.

Read the full opinion here.