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.
Posted on 11/19/2025 10:41:49 AM PST by Miami Rebel
The Justice Department on Wednesday admitted that the operative indictment against former FBI Director James Comey was never presented to the full grand jury — a procedural error defense attorneys say should bar the prosecution.
The admission came under sharp questioning from U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, after several judges overseeing parts of the case had raised concerns about the government’s presentation and an apparent discrepancy in the grand jury record.
Instead of presenting a new indictment to the full panel after it rejected one of the counts, interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan gave the grand jury’s foreperson an updated version — not seen by the other grand jurors — to sign.
Nachmanoff asked the government several times whether he understood correctly that the operative indictment was never shown to the entire panel.
“Yes, that is my understanding,” Tyler Lemons, an assistant U.S. attorney, said.
The judge called Halligan up to the lectern to answer additional questions, as she was the only prosecutor who made the government’s case to grand jurors for an indictment.
“Am I correct —” the judge began.
“No, you’re not,” Halligan interrupted, clasping her wrists behind her back.
She said that the grand jury foreperson and a second grand juror were present in the magistrate’s courtroom, recalling the proceeding. The judge said he was familiar with the transcript and directed her to sit down.
Michael Dreeben, an attorney for Comey, told the judge that the apparent error calls for dismissal because “no indictment was returned.”
That means the statute of limitations on the false statements and obstruction charges Comey faces, stemming from 2020 testimony he gave Congress, has lapsed, he contended.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
|
|
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. |
At this point, anyone who is left thinking James Comey will stand trial in DC is just pretending for their own agenda. Unfortunately, the dismissal of the case against him is a foregone conclusion.
The DOJ Lawfare embeds purposefully dragged their heels toward the statute of limitations, AG Pam Bondi didn’t respond fast enough to the institutional stonewalling, and that set up Lindsey Halligan for an almost impossible task.
Former FBI Director James Comey was leaking information to the media through his friend and FBI Special Government Employee Daniel Richman. When Comey was fired in May 2017, he knew what his risks were. Comey hired Daniel Richman as his personal lawyer and legal counsel. Comey knew this would make targeting him for leaking to media more difficult.
Last month U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, the Biden appointee overseeing the criminal case against Comey, assigned magistrate judge William Fitzpatrick to review the issues surrounding potential violations of attorney-client privilege within the indictment.
Today Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick sides with the Comey defense and blasts the prosecution for violating attorney-client privilege. [SEE RULING HERE] In addition, Judge Fitzpatrick instructs the prosecution, Lindsey Halligan, to give the defense team all of the evidence used in the grand jury indictment.
Fitzpatrick is setting the stage to dismiss the charges. There’s zero doubt about it when you read the 24-page order.
It’s enough to make you blow a blood pressure cuff when you see a judge upholding the Fourth Amendment argument on James Comey’s behalf, considering the blatant Fourth Amendment violations that Comey conspired to violate within his fraudulent investigations of Carter Page and President Trump.
Seriously though, don’t waste any hopium on this case, and expect the judge to require the government to pay all of Comey’s legal fees.
We read enough of this stuff to see a Lawfare set up when it is visible. The Lawfare crew has this case easily won. Judge Fitzpatrick gives the defense eleven points of process with which to file a motion to dismiss.
[COURT ORDER] – First, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the Richman Warrants were executed in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the orders of the issuing court.
Second, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government exceeded the scope of the Richman Warrants in 2019 and 2020 by seizing and preserving information that was beyond the scope of the warrants, that is, information that did not constitute evidence of violations of either 18 U.S.C. § 641 or § 793.
Third, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government had the lawful authority to search the Richman materials anew in 2025.
Fourth, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government’s 2025 seizure of the Richman materials included information beyond the scope of the original warrants.
Fifth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the government’s potential violations of the Fourth Amendment and court orders establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law.
Sixth, the facts provide a reasonable basis for the defense to show that they were prejudiced by the government’s use of the Richman materials in the grand jury, particularly if the government’s conduct was willful or reckless, given the centrality of these materials to the government’s presentation.
Seventh, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government took sufficient steps to avoid the collection and review of privileged materials, including the reasons why Mr. Comey was never afforded the opportunity to assert a privilege over his communications until after the indictment was obtained.
Eighth, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether privileged information was used, directly or indirectly, by the government to prepare and present its grand jury presentation. This is particularly troublesome because the government’s sole witness before the grand jury was exposed to a “limited overview” of privileged material shortly before he testified.
Ninth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the disclosure of potentially privileged information establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law. This is particularly significant because Agent-3, after having been exposed to potentially privileged information, chose to testify before the grand jury rather than separate himself from the investigation to contain any further exposure to privileged information and limit any prejudice to Mr. Comey.
Tenth, as discussed in Section IV above the prosecutor made statements to the grand jurors that could reasonably form the basis for the defense to challenge whether the grand jury proceedings were infected with constitutional error.
Eleventh, the grand jury transcript and recording likely do not reflect the full proceedings because, although it is clear that a second indictment was prepared and presented to the grand jury (ECF 3), the transcript and audio recording of the proceedings do not reflect any further communications after the grand jury began deliberating on the first indictment.
Collectively, the facts set forth herein and the particularized findings of the Court establish that “ground[s] may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury[.]” Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). [more]
There are two tiers of justice.
The legal system is as rigged as the intelligence system.
It’s not Halligan’s fault; she tried.
With so many lawyers, why not find some good ones to handle important high profile cases.
Looks like the DOJ is throwing the case on purpose. Comey must have some friends in Low Places.
I heard they threw her to the wolves.
There aren’t any. In recent years the Justice Department has employed about 10,000 career prosecutors. Since January, 5500 have been fired, have taken buyouts, or have resigned.
This one has the stench of a Biden judge looking to find ANY procedural problem as an excuse to dismiss an otherwise clear cut case of lying to Congress. By the time the DOJ has crossed every T and dotted every I the statute of limitations will expire.
The fix is in, or at least it is for this particular case.
I’m no lawyer, but this is what it looks like to me.
All of that tale might be true, but the conclusion isn’t valid.
Of course, Halligan is to blame.
She botched getting the grand jury to sign off on her revised indictment and tried the flimsy expedient of getting just two jurors to represent the entire grand jury, a panel which usually made up of 15 to 25 individuals. It’s s bogus as having two jurors out of dozen decide the outcome of a criminal trial.
This may be an unpopular opinion on FR but... the buck stops with Trump. He had the power to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for that district, and “interim” can serve for 120 days without Senate confirmation. So he could’ve picked anyone. To head that important office, he could’ve picked someone who’d worked there for years in a lower position, gaining experience and demonstrating competence as a prosecutor. Instead, he picked an insurance lawyer who had never prosecuted a case in her life. She proceeded to foul up a basic legal requirement. It seems that Comey may well walk as a result.
Trump sometimes puts too much emphasis on people’s physical appearance (men and women). Whether or not Lindsey Halligan is a GOOD insurance lawyer, she is, to my (straight male) eye, a hot-lookin’ babe. I suspect that her looks swayed Trump’s decision.
oops
No, that sort of thing does happen.
I’m no lawyer either, but this isn’t just a procedural technicality like a misplaced comma.
If you were charged with criminal trespass and just two of the dozen jurors hearing your case entered a guilty verdict but falsely claimed to speak for the ten others, you’d naturally expect the case to be tossed. Here the prosecution KNEW it was presenting to the court an improper indictment.
According to Mike Davis (?), this is not true as the criminal conspiracy was still ongoing with Jack Smith. No idea if this is the case, but Davis is a lawyer so there is that.
Addendum to what I wrote: Per the linked article, the appointment is technically the province of Bondi, not Trump. I must assume, however, that something this important would’ve been cleared with Trump.
I agree with the criticisms of Bondi in this thread. Still, I also think Trump should do a better job of keeping an eye on her. Deep State or no, this was an unforced error.
Interesting how leftist judges are part of the defense team and questioning the prosecution rather than letting the defense do it. And to all those that are blasting the government, this judge is a Comey friend and leftist so no matter what the government does, this ass will side with the defense.
Intentional incompetence?????
Can the charges be refiled??
there never was any chance of convicting this guy
From day one I’ve felt that everything that needed to be accomplished against Comey’s reputation was achieved on the day he was indicted. Simply put...
Comey will always be the “indicted former FBI director”
That is now a permanent part of his biography
Nothing any court can do can remove that title, you can put it in his obituary
Could be. It also smacks of DOJ under pressure from the MAGA “DO SOMETHING!” crowd that they moved too fast, didn’t take their time to build a case.
Yes, but remember this is going before that same “sort” of judge.
Even before this, most legal analysts I trust said they couldn’t get him.
They can F up a football.
Senate room 216, where Comey testified about Russian meddling in the 2016 election ... also the scene of democrat boo-fooing and the swearing-in of Rat “justices”.
2023 Aidan Maese-Czeropski, the Senate aide who was filmed having butt sects in a Capitol Building hearing room, has “no regrets” for the lewd act and said he only did the dirty deed because he was “bored” with his highly sought-after job, according to a new interview.
Now known as the “Senate Twink,” Maese-Czeropski, 25, fled the country for Australia after video of him engaging in sexual congress in an exclusive Senate room, Hart 216, was leaked from a WhatsApp group chat — getting him fired and upending his life.
“But I don’t regret f—king in the Senate,” the former Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) told New York Magazine via FaceTime from a beach in the Outback.
This is what we’re dealing with, don’t surrender to the pervs and liars.
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.