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 ...
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
Not a lawyer, but I think that evidence of bad faith on the part of the prosecution usually gets a case dismissed with prejudice.
You may be right, and that sucks.
WTF is a "foreperson"? Are the sexual deviants behind this middle-fag language hoping someone will slip and say "foreskin"?
You know all those gender-vague, perversion-obsessed psychos dream of little else.
According to Mike Davis, today, the corrupt magistrate judge, selected by the corrupt demo-commie DC judges, is the issue, not Halligan. And he urged Blondi to appeal.
Who is responsible for this mess?? Yes, I know buck stops with Trump but there is someone more directly responsible for Comey walking free.
Is it Bondi?
Quote: “ Even before this, most legal analysts I trust said they couldn’t get him.”
Yes, quite right. But the analysis was focused on whether they could get a conviction. There is a difference between the Jury acquitting and there won’t even be a trial.
The evidence that is being released here is damning, even if not capable of supporting a conviction. They don’t even want the evidence out, at all.
My guess, a dismissal with an order to seal all documents.
Quote: “ You think a court should allow a case to move forward without an indictment? This wasn’t a technically flawed indictment. IT WASN’T AN INDICTMENT. And Halligan knew it.
I disagree with that. But, I think we should take the high road here. Next up, Alvin Bragg indicting Trump for fraud committed in the 1800’s!! Statutes of limitations are so yesterday!!
We take the high road as they jail us. Cool, we can sit in prison feeling morally superior.
https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1991205920353972724?s=46&t=y153fofzkn-hS1FoZRF0bA
“Court room source tells me Judge Michael Nachmanoff, the Biden appointee overseeing the indictment against James Comey, called acting US Attorney Lindsey Halligan a “puppet” during a hearing this morning.”
https://x.com/grok/status/1991207149243134193?s=46&t=y153fofzkn-hS1FoZRF0bA
“Yes, the judge’s remark could signal bias against the prosecution, offering ammunition for an appeal if the dismissal follows. Appellate courts scrutinize dismissals for abuse of discretion, and evidence of prejudice—like dismissing a key government actor as a “puppet”—might persuade them to reverse, especially if it tainted the ruling. Success hinges on fuller context and transcripts, but it’s a notable red flag for impartiality.”
This has zero to do with the phony Bragg prosecutions.
Whatever his bias (and I’m sure it exists,) proving it does not cure the fatal flaw(s) in Halligan’s case.
They still have Florida.
It has EVERYTHING to do with it. I have sat in enough Courtrooms to witness. Judge put his finger on the scale to rescue a party he/she likes or wants to win. Brag’s case was rescued by a Judge. This case, if against a Republican, would be rescued by a Judge. Instead, we get this two tiered justice crap where the magistrate is practically writing the motion.
Let’s say he’s taken off the case.
How does that correct the fact that the government presented a phony indictment to the court?
Did they have a quorum?
A grand jury requires at least a majority of the jurors to advance an indictment.
In this case, only two jurors approved it, or indeed saw it at all.
Can the case be presented to a new Grand Jury? I don’t see why not. It wouldn’t be double jeopardy.
From the Shrill: “ 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. ”
What is cleverly missing from the Hill’s article is that Halligan gave them an indictment that deleted the counts rejected. So it maintained the one’s the full Grand Jury voted on and passed out.
She took a shortcut not realizing it was no bueno. Even though it was a pain in the arse, she needed to repeat the indictment without the other rejected counts. I think here she was rushed by the SOL running out. Running that out, by the way, was the “career” deep state prosecutor’s strategy to help their buddy.
The Hill would have you believe that the indictment was never voted on at all.
That is NOT what happened and you can bet your house that if this were a GOP defendant, this Judge would overlook it in a heartbeat and even that is too long.
The Statute of Limitations has run.
Exactly.
A Crabd Jury should be called for a RICO Consipacy charge, which is what should happen, because there is plenty of evidence to support that charge. Lying to Congress pales in comparison. For a Federal case the 5 years starts with the last known act. I think they still have time for that one.
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.