New Court Filings Show Grand Jury Properly Voted On Indictment of Former FBI Head Comey

American Greatness ^ | 21 Nov, 2025 | AG Staff

[FlipWilson]

I have read the transcripts and seen enough to know that:

1) Yes, the prosecutor should have dotted the “i’s” and crossed the “t’s”. To be safe, given the venue and the target, they should have struck the first charge and presented the two that were accepted.

2) NO and hell no. The notion that the two counts that Comey was charged with were not presented to the entire Grand Jury is Horse Poop. They passed those out. They were given three. Said “yes” to two and “no” to one.

3) The press and this unscrupulous magistrate are trying to create an impression that Comey was not indicted. They are trying to conflate a technical slip with a major substantive issue.

4) this is why we read transcripts carefully. This “judge” didn’t get the answer he wanted from one prosecutor so he turned to the other. And here is the money line from the other prosecutor when the “judge” asked gave him the leading question about the indictment not being seen by the Grand Jury.

“That is my understanding.” That is legal ease for “I don’t know but am afraid to say I don’t know.” Or worse, it is the other prosecutor’s way of giving the answer he wishes were true without perjuring himself.

5) it is obvious by now that you have a Judge trying to throw a case and has picked a bad hill to die on. If this were La conservative under indictment, this issue would not have made the press and the case would be proceeding apace.

[FlipWilson]

“Chances are Comey walks.”

And? He was walking regardless in that venue and we all knew it. So why on a motion to dismiss? Because the facts that were coming out, Comey walking or not, were absolutely damaging. Handwritten notes found in a burn bag?!?!

Oh, I appreciate you posting the transcripts. Having read a zillion of these things over the years, I just don’t read them as you.

Halligan did not admit to what the Judge and press say she did. She did not admit to never presenting the indictments to the Grand Jury. And the other prosecutor wasn’t there, had no direct knowledge and instead of saying that put his thumb on the scale.

[RummyChick]

since you have read the transcripts do you agree with andyjackson about the page I posted. He seems to be correct

To: RummyChick

So Halligan did not respond at the end. The Judge did not ask a question. He testified for her on her behalf.

22 posted on 11/21/2025, 10:15:04 AM by AndyJackson

---

It appears from what little I have seen that Halligan did not say it but Lemons did.

And as to your first point, heck yes. However, the excerpt I posted from Gateway Pundit seems to suggest what they did is permissible. But the fallout from it is why you shouldn’t do it in a case involving a former FBI director.

[FlipWilson]

So that transcript shows how a judge lies. They make a statement and tell you to sit down so you can’t get your objection on the record. Or you can and have a really bad day in Court.

But the Judge’s lie is that a totally new, created at that moment, indictment was just presented to the foreman. That is a lie. And the grand jury record shows it and the Magistrate knows that.

[wny]

No one is going to jail.

[Sacajaweau]

As long as they disrupt his lifw...day after day after day.

[FlipWilson]

Were they ever? The real point to me of this was to bring Comey’s misdeeds to the public. Let them proclaim his innocence, as we all see the two tiered justice system for the sham it is.

[FreeReign]

So that transcript shows how a judge lies. They make a statement and tell you to sit down so you can’t get your objection on the record. Or you can and have a really bad day in Court.

But the Judge’s lie is that a totally new, created at that moment, indictment was just presented to the foreman. That is a lie. And the grand jury record shows it and the Magistrate knows that.

Yup, Flip.

RC, it's as I said.

[RummyChick]

CNN did say this
“Halligan appeared frustrated as she confirmed that only the foreperson and one other juror – not the entire grand jury – saw the final indictment. In the brief exchange, she tried to answer the judge before he finished asking his question and concluded the exchange with a terse “OK.”

I can see why the press ran it the way they did especially given what Lemons said but Chad Gilmartin ,who is DOJ public affairs ,appears to be right

Chad Gilmartin
@ChadGilmartinCA
FACT CHECK: At no time during yesterday’s hearing did US Attorney Halligan say that the entire grand jury didn’t see the 2 count indictment

[TBP]

I’m sorry, but that’s not allowed to be true.

[RummyChick]

The issue stems from this


I saw this on twitter

Hey @grok Can an indictment go forward if a Grand Jury never votes on it. Bear in mind the attached image is the only bill that the full GJ saw. Further, can a GJ foreman cure a no bill by hand writing in an amendment after the fact?

Grok response. Grok @grok · Nov 19 No, an indictment cannot proceed without a grand jury vote; Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 requires the grand jury's concurrence, typically a majority vote on the final bill, not just foreperson action. The document shows a reported failure to concur, indicating no true bill was issued. A foreman cannot unilaterally amend or "cure" a no bill post hoc via handwriting, as that bypasses the collective deliberative process protected under the Fifth Amendment and precedents like those in Costello v. United States. This irregularity likely invalidates any subsequent charges absent proper re-presentation.

------------------

Halligan could have avoided all of this if she had done a better job so that the issue would never come up

[GMThrust]

At least one other here remembers the excoriating comments against Halligan.

[RummyChick]

She is in over her head and so is Lemons as seen by his opening his mouth confirming what the Judge was asking him.

Halligan has never even tried a criminal case.

There is an argument that could be made as seen by this post. Would it fly? I don’t know

“Carlos Mucha
@mucha_carlos
I dunno, on the four corners of Return signed by foreperson, all three counts rejected. The magistrate was wrong to asked the foreperson to amend it by hand after rest of GJ had left courthouse.
Since a no true bill was returned to court, GJ should’ve re-voted at next session.”

In my opinion, that is exactly what should have been done when trying to prosecute the former head of the FBI

[RummyChick]

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

[RummyChick]

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.

[Ditto]

He is either incompetent or malicious and did it to smear get and prejudice the case.

He’s a Democrat operative so those attributes are required for confirmation.

He needs to be removed from the bench.

Absolutely.

[RummyChick]

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.

[Old West Conservative]

Here’s one for you! With a link!

https://babylonbee.com/news/congress-passes-resolution-to-release-santas-naughtynice-list

[FlipWilson]

Grok? Really? Where did it go to law school?

[FlipWilson]

With all due respect, many here have refuted your arguments about sixteen posts ago. Your answer has been to cite Grok and CNN.

And now, to change the facts, you are asserting that the Grand Nury voted all the counts down. So now the foreperson is lying?