one argument. everyone should consider how they would feel about this if it was them under indictment:
Lawyered Up
@Lawyeredup1
Respectfully, disagree. Original (and signed) indictment indicates no probable cause (PC) on all 3 counts. The grand jury was presented with this indictment, instructed on the law, deliberated, and voted. Foreperson then orally informs the grand jury coordinator that the actual finding was: no PC on one count, but PC on 2 counts. This oral communication changes nothing. The indictment document speaks for itself: no PC on all counts.
The second doc was prepared by the grand jury coordinator, was presented only to the foreperson and deputy foreperson. No instruction on the law, no exclusion of the facts and the law allegedly supporting the no-billed count, no deliberation, and no vote.
You are assuming that if the grand jury was presented with only the two counts, it would have voted the same way it did when there were 3 counts. We cannot make that assumption. That’s why it should’ve been presented to grand jury again.
What if there was a misstatement of the law or facts regarding the no-billed count? What if it there were prejudicial facts relating to the no-billed count but unrelated to the remaining counts? Is there a guarantee that the misstatements and/or the unrelated prejudicial facts did not affect the votes on the two true-billed counts? We don’t know. If only two counts were presented, there would’ve been no opportunity to misstate the law or facts again (regarding the 1st count). As such, it is possible that the grand jury could have voted differently if it was presented with only two counts.
2:14 PM · Nov 20, 2025
·
12.7K
Views
i dont know if Comey’s lawyers will do this...but if I was under indictment I would seize on this:
The second doc was prepared by the grand jury coordinator, was presented only to the foreperson and deputy foreperson. No instruction on the law, no exclusion of the facts and the law allegedly supporting the no-billed count, no deliberation, and no vote.