Adding to an already extensive series of motions for dismissal, former FBI Director James Comey has claimed that “potential misconduct” along with “severe” and “pervasive” irregularities—such as the possibility that grand jurors felt compelled to indict him—offers a compelling reason to drop the obstruction and false statement case against him.

In a detailed 26-page motion, Comey criticizes the charges for allegedly “misstating” his testimony, and supports the call for revealing grand jury proceedings.

Furthermore, Comey contended that Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and former insurance lawyer without prosecutorial experience, was appointed at the behest of President Donald Trump. He claims she pursued a rushed indictment “after business hours with just 14 votes” following an initial rejection, with the aid of an allegedly “tainted” FBI agent who might have had access to privileged attorney-client information.

“While grand jury proceedings generally enjoy a presumption of regularity, the significant irregularities in this case challenge that presumption and justify disclosing the grand jury record,” the filing argues, emphasizing the need for the defense to access these details. “Such irregularities could provide grounds for dismissing the indictment.”

Comey further argued that Halligan’s appointment was improper, noting that she only secured the indictment she sought through “a highly unusual procedure, which involved keeping the grand jury in session well beyond normal hours” as the five-year statute of limitations was set to expire.

Noting that the grand jury initially “no billed” a three-count indictment, Comey complained that instead of “leaving and reconvening on a later date,” Halligan tried again, securing the two-count indictment “by only a two-vote margin.”

The defense suggested that if U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff ordered the government to hand over grand jury details, those could reveal that Halligan sent a message that they couldn’t leave unless she got what she wanted.

“Undeterred by her initial failure, Ms. Halligan did not excuse the grand jury for the day. Instead, the grand jury remained at the courthouse into the evening hours to vote on a second indictment that was ultimately returned at 6:47 p.m.,” court documents continued. “That highly unusual decision could have sent the message that the grand jurors would not be permitted to leave unless and until they returned a true bill. And if Ms. Halligan used words to suggest that message, it would further support dismissing the indictment.”

Worse yet, the filing said, an FBI special agent and grand jury witness “may have been exposed to Mr. Comey’s privileged communications with his attorneys and thus may have conveyed that information to the grand jury.”

The filing did not explain exactly what that information was, leaving those details redacted, but added that it “apparently related to certain attorneys” for Comey, including law professor, Comey friend, and adviser Daniel Richman, and that the potentially “tainted case agent” testified the same day that the agent was “informed” of “privileged material.”

The portion of the Comey motion that redacted the allegedly privileged information an FBI special agent may have been privy to (court documents).

“Nevertheless, the agent testified before the grand jury that same day, and given the content of the resulting indictment, it is clear that his testimony must have referenced Mr. Comey’s interactions and communications with Mr. Richman,” the motion said. “This created a high risk that privileged information was presented to the grand jury by a tainted case agent.”

Taken together, Comey argued that the “irregularities” were “so severe and pervasive” that it’s doubtful the grand jury was “free from [improper] influence.”

The high-profile defendant separately filed a motion to dismiss because the Sept. 30, 2020, questioning conducted by Sen. Ted Cruz was “fundamentally ambiguous,” such that “people of ordinary intellect would not be expected to understand” what exactly the Texas Republican was asking Comey to answer and what exactly Comey allegedly lied about.

Recall that the indictment alleged Comey made materially false statement when he denied that he had “‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports’ regarding an FBI investigation concerning Person 1,” namely Hillary Clinton, because he “knew, he in fact had authorized PERSON 3,” Richman, “to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation coneerning PERSON 1.”

The problem, Comey maintained, is that Cruz’s “imprecise compound questions” made it seem to the “reasonable person” that the senator was asking whether the ex-FBI director “specifically authorized” former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to “be an anonymous source in news reports,” not Richman.

Comey additionally filed a motion for a bill of particulars, so the government may be forced to tell him, in detail, “what he is charged with so that he may prepare a defense and avoid unfair surprises at trial.”