The judge is the one who needs to be scrutinized for his technical errors.
I beginning to wonder if most federal judges have a correspondence law degree from Howard U.
I’m sorry, that’s not allowed to be true.
“...vindictive prosecution...”
This is a joke, and a bad one. Probably the most prosecuted politician in history is Trump and I can safely say that every single one, since none of them have been proven, were nothing less than a vindictive prosecution. And in some cases the charges were so outrages they were astronomically insane. There’s been lies that have never been looked into until just lately that even were covering actions by congress that happened 10 years ago because no one would open their minds enough to recognize the actions, some illegal and prosecutable.
Our political system is biased, crooked, and wide spread. And Trump scares them so much, even as a lame duck president, that they are still trying to get him and destroy the conservative movement with more every day. A number of them need to be in prison.
wy69
Judge sounds like Rumplestiltskein....you know...the loser.
Lawyered Up
@Lawyeredup1
#USAvComey
Comey Indictment: Transcript of Return Proceedings
The transcript filed by the govt clarified a lot of issues regarding the unusual indictment. Some people are criticizing Atty Halligan for providing the transcript late in the process. I am not one of those. I think she did the right thing in filing the transcript to correct the record. I don’t think she had the transcript all along but failed to provide it. When a proceeding is audio-recorded - rather than transcribed by a court reporter, it takes longer to generate the transcript.
Having read the transcript, here are my thoughts.
The Report of a Grand Jury’s Failure to Concur in an Indictment clearly stated that the 12 jurors did not concur in an indictment in this case. There was no exception for count 1, and no handwritten addition. This was the document originally handed to the magistrate. It was AFTER the magistrate’s questioning and at the magistrate’s urging that the handwritten addition was made, indicating that the failure to concur applied to count 1 only.
Thus, originally, the magistrate was given two contradictory documents: 1 document saying the grand jurors did not concur on an indictment in this case. 2. A document indicating that the grand jurors concurred on 2 counts.
Was the Second Indictment Presented to the Full Grand Jury? It appears that it was. Here’s what the GJ foreperson said to the magistrate. “So the three counts should be just one count. It was the very first count that we did not agree on, and the Count Two and Three were then put in a different package, which WE agreed on. Transcript, 9/25/2025, at 4, ln 3-6. (emphases added). To me, this clearly shows that the second indictment (put in a “different package”) was presented to the full GJ and they agreed on the indictment.
A defense counsel can still make arguments regarding the contradictory docs submitted to the magistrate, but I don’t think it would be a winning argument.
Other problems with the indictment remain. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the fact that the sole GJ witness was privy to attorney-client privileged info (involving Comey), the legality of obtaining evidence without a warrant, the legality of exceeding the scope of a previous warrant are big problems for the govt.
Additionally, on the merits of the case, Sen Cruz’s question (which elicited Comey’s response) can be deemed ambiguous. If so, you can’t sustain the perjury charge. Comey can and has argued that his answer was literally true. Also, the govt does not have evidence that Comey authorized someone at the FBI to serve as anonymous source in a news report. The govt will need to prove that Comey authorized someone; that the person authorized was at the FBI when the authorization was given; and that the authorization was for that person to serve, not as a named source, but as an anonymous source. That’s a tall task!
Does Mr. Richman qualify as “someone at the FBI” if his contract with the FBI was not renewed? I don’t think so.
Do you notice they never apologize or correct any ill advised posts? Do you notice they are about as accountable as the MSM they rant and rave about? Why would anyone with enough sense to come in out of the rain accept an article from The Hill as gospel? Might be some impulse control issues going on here.
Let's take a trip down Memory Lane to the intersection with High Dudgeon Estates Road and see what world class doomsaying looks like.
