Posted on 11/21/2025 6:31:37 AM PST by MtnClimber
No, it isn’t . There continues to be confusion as to whether she admitted it or not.
I posted the transcript. Did she admit it or not?
“Nachmanoff also trained his attention on a different prosecutor on the case, Tyler Lemons, and asked him to explicitly confirm that the final document was never presented to the grand jury.
“I wasn’t there, but that is my understanding,” Lemons said.
ANd did Tyler lemons say this:
So Halligan did not respond at the end. The Judge did not ask a question. He testified for her on her behalf.
At least they’re not nearly as incompetent as GWB and Rumsfeld were when they invaded Iraq on the premise of phony mass weapons info cooked up by British spooks
I don’t know if it was brought up elsewhere. also trying to see what exactly tyler lemons said
The TDS Freeper cabal is nearly as insufferable as anything one might find on Dummies Underground
The TDS Freeper cabal is nearly as insufferable as anything one might find on Dummies Underground
I thought you should see this. I wanted to help make sure you did. 🤙
Meanwhile, Halligan and Assistant US Attorneys Tyler Lemons and Gabriel Diaz wrote in Thursday’s filing that the transcript “confirms the Court’s recognition that the two-count true bill is the valid, operative indictment.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
good job halligan & crew
we’ve got one sh0t make it count
You should stop your ridiculous posts to me. I asked a legitimate question and it continues to be legitimate. Did she say it or not. The answer is not in the excerpt.. THEIR CLAIM is in the excerpt.
It would appear she did not say it but still don’t know if Tyler said it.
Your continued harassment of me because of Epstein shows how ridiculous you are that you would make the post you just made concerning a legitimate question that needs to be answered.
They are in over their head. This confusion should have never happened in the first place.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-halligan-slam-judge-comey-case-hearing/story?id=127709589
“Let me be clear that the second indictment, the operative indictment in this case that Mr. Comey faces, is a document that was never shown to the entire grand jury or presented in the grand jury room; is that correct?” U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff asked.
“Standing here in front of you, Your Honor, yes, that is my understanding,” Lemons said.
The antics by Comey’s lawyers remind me of the antics by OJ Simpson’s lawyers some 30 years ago.
Namely, Comey’s lawyers are trying to find any slight misstep by the prosecution, investigators, or the police.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlotte/politics/2025/11/21/comey-indictment-filings
The new court filing, supplemented by a transcript from the September evening the indictment was returned, is meant to undo any public perception that the grand jury presentation was botched and that the case may be jeopardized as a result. It was not clear why some of the points in Thursday’s filing were not raised during Wednesday’s hearing, when prosecutors made clear that the full grand jury did not see the indictment filed in the case.
Oops. your hatred for all things associated with Trump has failed.
We had folks here several days ago believing the propaganda and trashing Halligan and whoever picked her.
Well, it turns out it was all Fake News.
Folks need to question more what they are reading.
That is their job. In my opinion, it would verge on malpractice if they didn’t bring up this grand jury issue.
Why are you still posting Fake News about this?
Then why did Tyler Lemons say this
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5616816-comey-grand-jury-doj/
“Asked directly by U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff whether the final indictment is a document that was “never shown” to the entire grand jury, Lemons said he wasn’t there but “yes, that is my understanding.”
Shouldn’t he know his case?????????????????????????????
Halligan and Lemons are in over their head. They are up against experienced lawyers and an adversarial Judge.
Chances are Comey walks.
ROFLMAO
Did you just miss the poster who slammed me for questioning whether something was factual or that I am the only one that posted the transcript. No one else did!!!!!!!!!!!!
“For someone who is not following along why did she say this:
“Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. Attorney had admitted to the trial judge on Wednesday that the full grand jury never saw the final version of the charges against Comey.”
Is it a factual statement or not”
Thanks. You are right about the FR comments.
The DOJ’s Criminal Resource Manual states that:
“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)
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.