Interim US Attorney Lindsay Halligan Submits Transcripts of Grand Jury Foreperson CONFIRMING Vote on Comey’s Two-Count Indictment

On Wednesday, US District Court Judge Michael Nachmanoff grilled interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan in his courtroom during a hearing on disgraced former FBI Director James Comey’s attempts to dismiss his case for vindictive prosecution.

While the hearing was specifically about the vindictive prosecution, Judge Nachmanoff, towards the end of the hearing, found that Halligan had signed the two-count indictment without first presenting it to the grand jury. This left the case “hanging by a thread,” as reported by Politico:

The Trump administration’s criminal prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey appeared to be in serious jeopardy Wednesday as the federal judge overseeing the case repeatedly questioned the validity of the grand jury indictment charging Comey with lying to and obstructing Congress. U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff pressed prosecutors during a hearing on the events around the Sept. 25 charges against Comey, questioning whether the entire grand jury ever saw the two-count indictment that a magistrate judge received after the grand jurors rejected one of three charges proposed by interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan. … Nachmanoff did not say precisely what action he was contemplating about the possible irregularity in the grand jury process, but his intense focus on the issue suggested he may view it as critical and, perhaps, fatal to the government’s case. However, today, Halligan filed a “Government’s Notice Correcting the Record” that clarifies the handling of the indictment. “The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively refutes that claim and establishes that the grand jury voted on – and true-billed – the two-count indictment,” according to the filing. Transcript excerpt showing court dialogue confirming the grand jury's vote on a two-count indictment, highlighting the foreperson's affirmation. The filing shows that the Court asked, “So you voted on the one that has the two counts?” to which the Foreperson responded, “Yes.” The Foreperson went on to explain that: “…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.”

Document discussing the grand jury's decision on charges, highlighting the separation of counts in an indictment and the foreperson's explanation of the process.

The Court recognized that the “two-count true bill is the valid, operative indictment” after it was determined that the grand jury could agree on only two of the three counts presented.

The foreperson confirmed the vote. The Court acknowledged the vote. The Court docketed the two-count true bill as the operative indictment. Only Count One lacked concurrence; Counts Two and Three were true-billed by at least twelve jurors.

Tyler Lemons, the federal prosecutor who argued on behalf of the DOJ, said that the indictments were identical and that the second one was created as soon as the grand jury proceedings concluded and merely excised the one charge that the grand jury rejected, according to the FOX News report.

The argument seems to be that you do not need to re-present your case to a grand jury if they voted only on a portion of the indictment, if you don’t change the substance of the indictment without the charge that was voted against.

“Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 6 (1887). Cf. United States v. Miller, 105 S.Ct. 1811 (1985) (it does not constitute an unconstitutional amendment to an indictment to drop those allegations which are unnecessary to an offense that is clearly contained within it.)

“An amendment for the excising of surplusage that has the effect of narrowing a defendant’s liability without changing the meaning of the charge as it was presented to the grand jury is permissible.” (emphasis added)

Further, Cornell’s Amdt5.2.2 Grand Jury Clause Doctrine and Practice states that:

A person can be tried only upon the indictment as found by the grand jury—in particular, upon the language in the charging part of the instrument. A change in the indictment that does not narrow its scope deprives the court of the power to try the accused. Although additions to offenses alleged in an indictment are prohibited, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is permissible “to drop from an indictment those allegations that are unnecessary to an offense that is clearly contained within it,” as, for example, a lesser included offense.” (emphasis added)

During the hearing, it was reported that Nachmanoff asked Comey’s lawyer, Michael Dreeben, if Halligan was a “puppet” or a “stalking horse” who was doing Trump’s bidding, according to a FOX News report.

Drebeen responded that he believed Halligan was operating at the behest of President Trump, but would not use the words the judge used to describe his opposing counsel.

According to the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct, under Canon 1, judges are required to avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety and should not engage in undignified or discourteous conduct. This would include making disparaging remarks about lawyers in front of opposing counsel.

The judge is also required under Canon 2, “A judge shall perform the duties of the judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.”

Will the Department of Justice issue a formal complaint regarding the conduct of asking defense counsel if the prosecutor is a “puppet” or a “stalking horse”?

Message from Jim Robinson:

Dear FRiends,

We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.

If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you,

Jim

“...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

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.

Funny, not much reaction from FReeper blowhards who responded almost instantly to yesterday's story here claiming this indictment had been botched. Where is their mea culpa?

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.