On a fateful Friday afternoon, Lindsey Halligan, the cosplay US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, found herself defending her prosecuting abilities amidst claims of missing minutes in grand jury presentations that led to the indictment of former FBI Director Jim Comey.

“There are no missing minutes, contrary to the suggestion raised by the court,” Halligan asserted, refuting claims about gaps in the grand jury record. Yet, her indignation led to an unusual step: filing three documents to confirm her prosecutorial adequacy, and doing so twice, perhaps to amend an initial embarrassing typo.

The core of the controversy revolves around what appears to be a chaotic handling of the grand jury proceedings. Initially, Halligan sought a three-count indictment against Comey, which the jury partially rejected, leading to a convoluted series of events. Notably, three varying versions of the indictment emerged, each with differing counts and labels, raising eyebrows about the procedural integrity under Halligan’s watch.

Adding to the procedural anomalies, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, overseeing the disqualification motion, pointed out a concerning 139-minute gap in the grand jury records, suggesting no court reporter was present to document crucial moments of the session. Halligan countered by stating those minutes were private grand jury deliberations, exempt from documentation. However, this explanation did not address the existence of three signed copies of the indictment.

Further complicating matters is Halligan’s potentially unlawful appointment. Her role as US Attorney was orchestrated without Senate approval, a deviation from standard legal procedures under Trump’s administration. This unconventional appointment process involved a series of strategic moves by Attorney General Bondi, designed to extend Halligan's term past the typical interim limits.

Despite efforts by Bondi to rectify the situation post facto by retroactively installing Halligan as special attorney, legal experts and observers remain skeptical. The question looms whether these retroactive fixes are permissible, or if they merely serve as a precarious legal foundation for the ongoing prosecution.

As the case unfolds, the implications are profound, not just for Comey, but for the credibility of the legal processes at play. With a magistrate judge recently ordering the release of the grand jury transcripts to Comey’s defense team based on multiple grounds, the future of this indictment hangs in balance.

Halligan’s case against Comey is not just a legal battle but has morphed into a glaring spotlight on the intricacies and often, the messiness of legal procedures at the highest levels of government. Whether this case will withstand judicial scrutiny remains to be seen, but for now, Halligan’s math, as some critics might say, truly isn’t mathin'.