ANYONE who has gone to law school should know Comey does not have to prove his innocence in a United States criminal court..even an insurance lawyer.
..
Posted on 11/21/2025 6:31:37 AM PST by MtnClimber
New court filings show that former FBI Director James Comey’s indictment on charges of obstructing justice and making false statements to Congress was properly voted on by members of the grand jury.
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.
Comey’s defense team had seized upon that admission as a possible misstep which could doom the prosecution’s case, but filings from Halligan’s office later that same day appear to show that correct procedures were followed and that the charges remain legally valid.
On September 25, members of the grand jury voted on three counts against Comey, two for making false statements to Congress and one count of obstruction of justice.
However, the jury failed to return a majority vote on one of the false statements charges and only the two of the counts were returned.
The New York Post reports that the grand jury foreperson told US Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala, “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.”
The judge also had to negotiate a brief misunderstanding after the indictment was redrafted, asking the grand jury foreperson, So you voted on the one that has two counts?”
The jury foreperson answered, “Yes.”
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.”
Prosecutors appeared to slam the door on the hopes of Comey’s defenders, writing, “The complete record eliminates any doubt: 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.”
Amendment- you have cited CNN, Grok (with a loaded query) and Twitter.
I am sorting through this. I posted the update from another lawyer after DOJ decided to refute what Lemons said.
And there is an issue of timing
““The short time span between the moment the prosecutor learned that the grand jury rejected one count in the original indictment and the time the prosecutor appeared in court to return the second indictment could not have been sufficient to draft the second indictment, sign the second indictment, present it to the grand jury, provide legal instructions to the grand jury, and give them an opportunity to deliberate and render a decision on the new indictment,” Fitzpatrick wrote.”
So exactly how are you defending the timing issue?? And exactly what was presented?
and is this acceptable????
“He said Halligan, facing tough questions from grand jurors, appeared to suggest Comey might have to testify at trial to explain his innocence, an improper characterization of the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “
Fitzpatrick has made allegations. IF those allegations are true, and they may not be...do you really believe this is acceptable:
“Halligan told jurors they did not need to rely on the evidence before them because the government supposedly had “better” evidence for trial, an egregious violation of fundamental rules that any competent attorney knows.”
IF Fitzpatrick is right, there are plenty of reasons to throw this case out. That is, IF, he is correct .
You certainly wouldn’t want your client indicted if a prosecutor was indicating your client has no right to remain silent and they didnt need to rely on the evidence because the Prosector had magical evidence to be shown later.
I bet if I asked Grok if Comey has to testify at trial to prove he is innocent Grok would know the correct answer. So what remains to be seen is did Halligan do what Fitzpatrick said she did. IF Fitzpatrick allegations are correct..especially about the magical evidence yet to be seen... and true representation then Comey is free.
Of course Comey’s black robed buddies will just try to find another way to get all the charges dismissed. So he can walk Scot free like democrats always do.
The obstacles are why it was a huge mistake to get a novice to try this case against an former FBI director.
Ty Cobb is right.
IF Fitzpatrick is right in what he is saying ...her incompetence will be taught in law school for years to come
this is so crazy that I have to hold out hope she wasn’t this crazy
“”That’s like saying, ‘Please indict this person because we don’t have time to indict innocent people.’ It’s just way, way, way out of bounds.””
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/ty-cobb-doj-james-comey/2025/11/18/id/1235118/
I gather that you never sat on a Grand Jury.
The statement “you could indict a ham sandwich” didn’t come from nowhere.
All I know is that we have devolved from citing transcripts and testimony to:
“Well Grok said” and “I saw on Twitter” to “CNN” and now to “well the allegations are serious”
Like the allegations of Russian Collusion were serious? Those kinds of serious allegations? Not like the Deep State would ever stoop to “serious allegations” to protect one of its own. No no. The indictment is horrid. Let’s get back to throwing guys like Flynn in jail. Guilt first, trial later. Brought to you by the same “Judges” who suddenly can’t find an indictment they like.
Anyway, if those are your sources for supporting your argument, then nothing anyone says will move you. Your mind was made up and I have no idea the motives for why. I’m out.
So for all the claims here that this has been resolved I am not so sure. More details needed. For example, Did she reappear and did she need to. I expect more wrangling over this issue
Marc²
@mgsquared
Ummm no. This is tremendous. Stretch and spin.
Halligan admits she never reappeared. She admits she only signed one document. Yet there are 2 charging instruments with her signature, and no record of her presenting the 2nd one. A coordinator cannot lawfully present a charging instrument to a federal grand jury. And the foreperson’s later signature does not replace the constitutional requirement that the grand jury itself vote on the actual instrument that becomes the indictment.
The Judge that coined that phrase was a nut case, had bipolar disorder, and was sentenced to 15 months in jail
I am willing to speculate that it will turn out that Halligan couldn’t even indict a ham sandwich and Comey walks.
Yes, I saw that last night, but thanks for the heads up. It’s encouraging news.
So a Deep Stater is going to get off in a Deep Stare Court? Wow, amazing.
Okay, I just watched a guy (Will Chamberlain) from The Article III Project, who says that the dismissed indictments have another 6 months, because an indictment was present when the dissmissal was handed down. He fully expects that the disnissal will be overturned, if not in the appeals court, where he believes it will be reversed, then in the Supreme Court. He does not see the dismissal stading for either the James Comey or the Letitia James indictments.
Thanks. Good to hear.
Yes that was my exact reaction as well. So, of course I had to share. 😁🤙
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.