During a courtroom session on Wednesday, the defense team for former FBI Director James Comey argued that the charges against him were both vindictive and selective. At the heart of their argument was the recent appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. Attorney. U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff probed Comey’s attorney to clarify their stance, asking directly if they believed Halligan was acting as a “stalking horse” or a “puppet.”

Following these proceedings, Halligan and the Department of Justice interpreted Judge Nachmanoff’s inquiry as a suggestion that she was indeed a “puppet” operating under the directives of President Donald Trump.

The day in court proved challenging for the Department of Justice. Halligan’s brief testimony only deepened the skepticism regarding the legitimacy of the indictment against Comey, which involved obstruction and false statements. This indictment was issued on September 25, just days after Halligan’s appointment, and precariously close to the September 30 statute of limitations deadline. Notably, prior assessments by other prosecutors had deemed the evidence against Comey insufficient.

Halligan, who had no prior experience in prosecution, stepped into the role after replacing Erik Siebert as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. This change occurred two days following a Truth Social post by President Trump directed at U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. In the message, Trump expressed frustration over the perceived inaction against Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and California Senator Adam Schiff.

In his post, Trump praised Halligan, stating, “Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot. We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” urging Bondi to act promptly.

It was in this context that Comey defense attorney Michael Dreeben, a former counselor to special counsel Robert Mueller and counselor to special counsel Jack Smith, stated Wednesday that the prosecution was brought with an impermissible vindictive motive to punish a rival and critic of the president, and that Halligan was the vehicle for achieving that goal.

Lawfare’s Roger Parloff on Thursday posted the portion of the transcript containing Nachmanoff’s exact response, pressing Dreeben on his view.

“So your view is that Ms. Halligan is a stalking horse or a puppet, for want of a better word, doing the president’s bidding?” the judge asked.

“Well, I don’t want to use language about Ms. Halligan that suggests anything other than she did what she was told to do,” Dreeben replied. “The president of the United States has the authority to direct prosecutions. She worked in the White House. She was surely aware of the president’s directive. She didn’t have prosecutorial experience, but she took on the job to come to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and carry out the president’s directive, and this was a directive to the attorney general.”

According to CBS News, when it was prosecutor Tyler Lemons’ turn to respond, he said “Ms. Halligan was not directed to pursue this prosecution” and that she is “not a puppet” but someone who “made independent decisions.”

In short, both the judge and the DOJ used the word “puppet” in court, but in neither case did they call Halligan a “puppet.” In addition, Comey’s defense declined to use the term upon questioning.

Nonetheless, a game of telephone began in earnest Wednesday afternoon with a post on X from conservative commentator Julie Kelly.

“Court room source tells me Judge Michael Nachmanoff, the Biden appointee overseeing the indictment against James Comey, called acting US Attorney Lindsey Halligan a ‘puppet’ during a hearing this morning,” Kelly wrote, inaccurately describing Halligan as an acting U.S. attorney when she is an interim U.S. attorney, while also stating Nachmanoff “called” Halligan a “puppet.”

Kelly’s mention that former President Joe Biden appointed Nachmanoff appears to have been added in as if to echo Trump’s own commentary about the judge after he was randomly assigned the case in late September.

“[Comey] is a Dirty Cop, and always has been, but he was just assigned a Crooked Joe Biden appointed Judge, so he’s off to a very good start,” Trump said.

Despite the judge not actually calling Halligan a “puppet,” the narrative was enough and Halligan rode the wave, participating in a Wednesday evening “exclusive” with the New York Post, in a story headlined, “Lindsey Halligan fires back at James Comey judge who claimed she’s a ‘puppet.’”

Although it is not new for Halligan to talk about a pending case, it remained a noticeably unusual choice for her — in a case as high-profile and fraught with issues as Comey’s — to go on the offensive in the press with a sitting judge after a rough day in court.

The headline described Nachmanoff as a “judge who claimed” Halligan was a “puppet,” but the story itself details what actually took place.

“District Judge Michael Nachmanoff asked Comey’s defense lawyer if he thought Halligan, the prosecutor who brought the indictment against the former FBI boss, was acting as a ‘puppet’ or ‘stalking horse’ of the commander in chief[,]” the story says.

As the transcript conveys, while Nachmanoff did ask Dreeben if the defense was calling Halligan a “puppet,” the judge himself made no “claim” that she was.

Then compare that fact with Halligan’s version of the facts, that Nachmanoff “referr[ed] to” her as a puppet in a “personal” attack.

“Personal attacks — like Judge Nachmanoff referring to me as a ‘puppet’ — don’t change the facts or the law,” Halligan said, according to the New York Post, defending her “professionalism.”

“The Judicial Canons require judges to be ‘patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity’ … and to ‘act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,’” Halligan reportedly added.

And yet, both Kelly’s tweet and the Post story were boosted Thursday by DOJ Office of Public Affairs spokesperson Chad Gilmartin, a cousin of Sean Gilmartin — an ex-MLB pitcher and the husband of former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany.

Chad Gilmartin, like Halligan, framed Nachmanoff’s question as a “personal attack.”

DOJ spokesman Chad Gilmartin’s criticism of Judge Michael Nachmanoff on Nov. 20, 2025 (@ChadGilmartinCA/X)

“A federal judge should be neutral and impartial. Instead, this judge launched an outrageous and unprofessional personal attack yesterday in open court against US Attorney Lindsey Halligan,” he wrote, boosting Kelly’s post. “DOJ will continue to follow the facts and the law.”

Gilmartin separately shared the New York Post story and retweeted U.S. Pardon Attorney and DOJ Director of the Weaponization Working Group Ed Martin’s reaction.

DOJ spokesperson Chad Gilmartin shares interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s comments to the New York Post and retweets Ed Martin on Nov. 20, 2025 (@ChadGilmartinCA/X).

Gilmartin’s social media activity has gotten the DOJ in hot water with a judge before, that time in the Luigi Mangione death penalty case, when the judge said Gilmartin’s post and that of Brian Nieves, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, appeared to run afoul of a local rule and a court order against public statements about the pending case.

The DOJ responded by saying it “directed that the posts be removed” and “informed” both Gilmartin and Nieves of the “Court’s most recent admonitions regarding public statements by DOJ personnel.”

Chad Gilmartin post on X and Brian Nieves retweet referenced in Luigi Mangione defense’s letter (court documents).

At the same time, the DOJ said Gilmartin had no real nexus to the case.

“These individuals are not members of the prosecution team, or trial counsel or staff supervised by the prosecution team, or otherwise employed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Nor are they law enforcement agents working on this prosecution,” the DOJ explained. “They operate entirely outside the scope of the prosecution team, possess no operational role in the investigative or prosecutorial functions of the Mangione matter, and are not ‘associated’ with this litigation within the meaning of Rule 23.1.”

As of this writing, neither Bondi nor Blanche have shared the Post article or made any statements about it, though both have not shied away from blasting “rogue” judges in recent days and months.

Law&Crime reached out to the judge’s chambers to inquire about whether he was aware of Halligan’s and the DOJ’s characterizations in the media and online of his question during the Wednesday hearing.

“We can’t comment on any pending matter in any way,” Law&Crime was told.

The DOJ evidently doesn’t feel the same.