I have read the transcripts and seen enough to know that:
1) Yes, the prosecutor should have dotted the “i’s” and crossed the “t’s”. To be safe, given the venue and the target, they should have struck the first charge and presented the two that were accepted.
2) NO and hell no. The notion that the two counts that Comey was charged with were not presented to the entire Grand Jury is Horse Poop. They passed those out. They were given three. Said “yes” to two and “no” to one.
3) The press and this unscrupulous magistrate are trying to create an impression that Comey was not indicted. They are trying to conflate a technical slip with a major substantive issue.
4) this is why we read transcripts carefully. This “judge” didn’t get the answer he wanted from one prosecutor so he turned to the other. And here is the money line from the other prosecutor when the “judge” asked gave him the leading question about the indictment not being seen by the Grand Jury.
“That is my understanding.” That is legal ease for “I don’t know but am afraid to say I don’t know.” Or worse, it is the other prosecutor’s way of giving the answer he wishes were true without perjuring himself.
5) it is obvious by now that you have a Judge trying to throw a case and has picked a bad hill to die on. If this were La conservative under indictment, this issue would not have made the press and the case would be proceeding apace.
since you have read the transcripts do you agree with andyjackson about the page I posted. He seems to be correct
To: RummyChick
So Halligan did not respond at the end. The Judge did not ask a question. He testified for her on her behalf.
22 posted on 11/21/2025, 10:15:04 AM by AndyJackson
It appears from what little I have seen that Halligan did not say it but Lemons did.
And as to your first point, heck yes. However, the excerpt I posted from Gateway Pundit seems to suggest what they did is permissible. But the fallout from it is why you shouldn’t do it in a case involving a former FBI director.