James Comey Indictment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And in today's episode of "That Moron HAlligan Gets Punted Again", grand jury transcripts to be turned over to Comey and the defense.

"For the reasons set forth
below, the Court finds the record in this case requires the full disclosure of grand jury materials.
In so finding, the Court recognizes this is an extraordinary remedy, but given the factually based
challenges the defense has raised to the government’s conduct and the prospect that government
misconduct may have tainted the grand jury proceedings, disclosure of grand jury materials under
these unique circumstances is necessary to fully protect the rights of the accused. ""

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.191.0.pdf

Eventually, I'll feel sorry for the poor woman. Eventually.

This is truly incredible. It looks like what happened here is that Lindsay took a three-count indictment to the GJ and got no-billed on one of the counts. She then created a new indictment with two counts and submitted that to the judge as the true bill indictment without ever taking it back to the GJ. And since the foreperson's signature is on the new two-count indictment, it appears she somehow forged it or did a cut and paste job from the original no-billed indictment!

I'm the former AUSA who has posted in this thread before. I think everything you said is accurate, except the last part about a forgery or a "cut and paste job." The GJ foreperson is present (along with the prosecutor) when the indictment is presented to the judge. It is just as likely that she had the GJ foreperson sign the new, two count indictment immediately before returning it. There would be no need to forge anything because the foreperson would have been present throughout the return process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And in today's episode of "That Moron HAlligan Gets Punted Again", grand jury transcripts to be turned over to Comey and the defense.

"For the reasons set forth
below, the Court finds the record in this case requires the full disclosure of grand jury materials.
In so finding, the Court recognizes this is an extraordinary remedy, but given the factually based
challenges the defense has raised to the government’s conduct and the prospect that government
misconduct may have tainted the grand jury proceedings, disclosure of grand jury materials under
these unique circumstances is necessary to fully protect the rights of the accused. ""

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.191.0.pdf

Eventually, I'll feel sorry for the poor woman. Eventually.

This is truly incredible. It looks like what happened here is that Lindsay took a three-count indictment to the GJ and got no-billed on one of the counts. She then created a new indictment with two counts and submitted that to the judge as the true bill indictment without ever taking it back to the GJ. And since the foreperson's signature is on the new two-count indictment, it appears she somehow forged it or did a cut and paste job from the original no-billed indictment!

I'm the former AUSA who has posted in this thread before. I think everything you said is accurate, except the last part about a forgery or a "cut and paste job." The GJ foreperson is present (along with the prosecutor) when the indictment is presented to the judge. It is just as likely that she had the GJ foreperson sign the new, two count indictment immediately before returning it. There would be no need to forge anything because the foreperson would have been present throughout the return process.

We'll see, but both the no-billed and true billed indictments that were filed have identical signature pages, suggesting Lindsay substituted pages. Note the misnumbered paragraphs and counts.

True bill:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.1.0_13.pdf
No bill: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135.3.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And in today's episode of "That Moron HAlligan Gets Punted Again", grand jury transcripts to be turned over to Comey and the defense.

"For the reasons set forth
below, the Court finds the record in this case requires the full disclosure of grand jury materials.
In so finding, the Court recognizes this is an extraordinary remedy, but given the factually based
challenges the defense has raised to the government’s conduct and the prospect that government
misconduct may have tainted the grand jury proceedings, disclosure of grand jury materials under
these unique circumstances is necessary to fully protect the rights of the accused. ""

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.191.0.pdf

Eventually, I'll feel sorry for the poor woman. Eventually.

This is truly incredible. It looks like what happened here is that Lindsay took a three-count indictment to the GJ and got no-billed on one of the counts. She then created a new indictment with two counts and submitted that to the judge as the true bill indictment without ever taking it back to the GJ. And since the foreperson's signature is on the new two-count indictment, it appears she somehow forged it or did a cut and paste job from the original no-billed indictment!

I'm the former AUSA who has posted in this thread before. I think everything you said is accurate, except the last part about a forgery or a "cut and paste job." The GJ foreperson is present (along with the prosecutor) when the indictment is presented to the judge. It is just as likely that she had the GJ foreperson sign the new, two count indictment immediately before returning it. There would be no need to forge anything because the foreperson would have been present throughout the return process.

We'll see, but both the no-billed and true billed indictments that were filed have identical signature pages, suggesting Lindsay substituted pages. Note the misnumbered paragraphs and counts.

True bill:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.1.0_13.pdf
No bill: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135.3.0.pdf

Same poster. Candidly, I'm struggling to understand exactly what I'm looking at with those documents. The three count indictment has two "COUNT TWO" headings and the numbering is off beginning on the third page. I agree that the final/signature page on both documents looks the same, although obviously we can't see the foreperson's signature, which is what really matters.

I'm confused because it looks like she took the last page from the two count indictment and stuck it onto the back of the (no-billed) three count indictment. But if that's the case, I'm not sure why she'd do that, because there would be no purpose in doing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And in today's episode of "That Moron HAlligan Gets Punted Again", grand jury transcripts to be turned over to Comey and the defense.

"For the reasons set forth
below, the Court finds the record in this case requires the full disclosure of grand jury materials.
In so finding, the Court recognizes this is an extraordinary remedy, but given the factually based
challenges the defense has raised to the government’s conduct and the prospect that government
misconduct may have tainted the grand jury proceedings, disclosure of grand jury materials under
these unique circumstances is necessary to fully protect the rights of the accused. ""

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.191.0.pdf

Eventually, I'll feel sorry for the poor woman. Eventually.

This is truly incredible. It looks like what happened here is that Lindsay took a three-count indictment to the GJ and got no-billed on one of the counts. She then created a new indictment with two counts and submitted that to the judge as the true bill indictment without ever taking it back to the GJ. And since the foreperson's signature is on the new two-count indictment, it appears she somehow forged it or did a cut and paste job from the original no-billed indictment!

I'm the former AUSA who has posted in this thread before. I think everything you said is accurate, except the last part about a forgery or a "cut and paste job." The GJ foreperson is present (along with the prosecutor) when the indictment is presented to the judge. It is just as likely that she had the GJ foreperson sign the new, two count indictment immediately before returning it. There would be no need to forge anything because the foreperson would have been present throughout the return process.

We'll see, but both the no-billed and true billed indictments that were filed have identical signature pages, suggesting Lindsay substituted pages. Note the misnumbered paragraphs and counts.

True bill:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.1.0_13.pdf
No bill: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135.3.0.pdf

Same poster. Candidly, I'm struggling to understand exactly what I'm looking at with those documents. The three count indictment has two "COUNT TWO" headings and the numbering is off beginning on the third page. I agree that the final/signature page on both documents looks the same, although obviously we can't see the foreperson's signature, which is what really matters.

I'm confused because it looks like she took the last page from the two count indictment and stuck it onto the back of the (no-billed) three count indictment. But if that's the case, I'm not sure why she'd do that, because there would be no purpose in doing that.

I don't know either, but it's obviously not normal and Lindsay has not adequately explained despite submitting a declaration. Frankly, the judge should have done some more questioning when this was originally presented. He noted the irregularities, but then assumed it was on the up and up.

[Anonymous]

Such a good use of our taxpayer dollars to have incompetent MAGA lawyers pursue politically motivated cases.

Judge Finds ‘Profound’ Missteps in DOJ’s Indictment of Comey
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/judge-finds-profound-missteps-in-doj-s-indictment-of-comey/ar-AA1QBP0I?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=691b69f211514c0a93a0f281c7e98ff2&ei=13

(Bloomberg) -- The Justice Department’s indictment of James Comey was riddled with problems that may give the former FBI director legal grounds to have it dismissed, a federal judge ruled on Monday.

“The record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding,” US Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick wrote in a blistering ruling Monday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Such a good use of our taxpayer dollars to have incompetent MAGA lawyers pursue politically motivated cases.

Judge Finds ‘Profound’ Missteps in DOJ’s Indictment of Comey
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/judge-finds-profound-missteps-in-doj-s-indictment-of-comey/ar-AA1QBP0I?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=691b69f211514c0a93a0f281c7e98ff2&ei=13

(Bloomberg) -- The Justice Department’s indictment of James Comey was riddled with problems that may give the former FBI director legal grounds to have it dismissed, a federal judge ruled on Monday.

“The record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding,” US Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick wrote in a blistering ruling Monday.

The prosecutor committed a blatant 5th Amendment violation here. I can't see how any judge lets this stand. The prosecutor made multiple serious misstatements of law to the grand jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a good use of our taxpayer dollars to have incompetent MAGA lawyers pursue politically motivated cases.

Judge Finds ‘Profound’ Missteps in DOJ’s Indictment of Comey
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/judge-finds-profound-missteps-in-doj-s-indictment-of-comey/ar-AA1QBP0I?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=691b69f211514c0a93a0f281c7e98ff2&ei=13

(Bloomberg) -- The Justice Department’s indictment of James Comey was riddled with problems that may give the former FBI director legal grounds to have it dismissed, a federal judge ruled on Monday.

“The record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding,” US Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick wrote in a blistering ruling Monday.

The prosecutor committed a blatant 5th Amendment violation here. I can't see how any judge lets this stand. The prosecutor made multiple serious misstatements of law to the grand jury.

If Halligan had said those things in a closing argument to a trial jury, you'd be spot on. But grand jury proceedings are different. This kind of issue comes up occasionally and the standard for dismissal of an indictment on this basis is sky high. I'm not saying Comey will prevail (though I hope he does), but this is hardly a straightforward or slam dunk issue for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a good use of our taxpayer dollars to have incompetent MAGA lawyers pursue politically motivated cases.

Judge Finds ‘Profound’ Missteps in DOJ’s Indictment of Comey
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/judge-finds-profound-missteps-in-doj-s-indictment-of-comey/ar-AA1QBP0I?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=691b69f211514c0a93a0f281c7e98ff2&ei=13

(Bloomberg) -- The Justice Department’s indictment of James Comey was riddled with problems that may give the former FBI director legal grounds to have it dismissed, a federal judge ruled on Monday.

“The record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding,” US Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick wrote in a blistering ruling Monday.

The prosecutor committed a blatant 5th Amendment violation here. I can't see how any judge lets this stand. The prosecutor made multiple serious misstatements of law to the grand jury.

If Halligan had said those things in a closing argument to a trial jury, you'd be spot on. But grand jury proceedings are different. This kind of issue comes up occasionally and the standard for dismissal of an indictment on this basis is sky high. I'm not saying Comey will prevail (though I hope he does), but this is hardly a straightforward or slam dunk issue for him.

While grand jury proceedings are different, misleading a grand jury on the standards for finding an indictment is incredibly serious. Yes, the standards are different but this violates those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a good use of our taxpayer dollars to have incompetent MAGA lawyers pursue politically motivated cases.

Judge Finds ‘Profound’ Missteps in DOJ’s Indictment of Comey
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/judge-finds-profound-missteps-in-doj-s-indictment-of-comey/ar-AA1QBP0I?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=691b69f211514c0a93a0f281c7e98ff2&ei=13

(Bloomberg) -- The Justice Department’s indictment of James Comey was riddled with problems that may give the former FBI director legal grounds to have it dismissed, a federal judge ruled on Monday.

“The record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding,” US Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick wrote in a blistering ruling Monday.

The prosecutor committed a blatant 5th Amendment violation here. I can't see how any judge lets this stand. The prosecutor made multiple serious misstatements of law to the grand jury.

If Halligan had said those things in a closing argument to a trial jury, you'd be spot on. But grand jury proceedings are different. This kind of issue comes up occasionally and the standard for dismissal of an indictment on this basis is sky high. I'm not saying Comey will prevail (though I hope he does), but this is hardly a straightforward or slam dunk issue for him.

While grand jury proceedings are different, misleading a grand jury on the standards for finding an indictment is incredibly serious. Yes, the standards are different but this violates those.

That's not exactly what she did, though. She didn't tell them that the standard for indicting is RAS, for example, which would be a misstatement of what the standard is for returning an indictment. We don't even know what she said because her statement is redacted in the Court's opinion. There's a lot we don't know and without that information, there can be no thoughtful analysis of whether her statements require dismissal of the indictment.

I'm not telling you this to be difficult or to defend her. I'm trying to use my experience presenting to a zillion grand juries to educate about how the criminal process works and provide real insight about how this may shake out.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully this will be all over when the special federal judge finds she was improperly appointed as a USA in the first place, which renders Comey’s indictment null and void and ends his case due to the SOL being long past. James they get another shot at, but hopefully they’ll think better of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully this will be all over when the special federal judge finds she was improperly appointed as a USA in the first place, which renders Comey’s indictment null and void and ends his case due to the SOL being long past. James they get another shot at, but hopefully they’ll think better of it.

It would be better if all of these motions to dismiss were issued simultaneously. Incompetence in appointing Halligan. Halligan's incompetence before the grand jury. Vindictive prosecution (a nice judicial finding of political lawfare). And dismissal on the grounds that Halligan indicted Comey for telling the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully this will be all over when the special federal judge finds she was improperly appointed as a USA in the first place, which renders Comey’s indictment null and void and ends his case due to the SOL being long past. James they get another shot at, but hopefully they’ll think better of it.

It would be better if all of these motions to dismiss were issued simultaneously. Incompetence in appointing Halligan. Halligan's incompetence before the grand jury. Vindictive prosecution (a nice judicial finding of political lawfare). And dismissal on the grounds that Halligan indicted Comey for telling the truth.

Agreed. I fear that comey will win on one issue, the gov will appeal, and then the calvinball court will reverse next year sometime, and then comey will win again, and then back again on appeal to the calvinball court…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does Comey get to see the grand jury documents, yet not one J6 defendants got the same courtesy?

You could read the opinion. This is an unusual remedy but there was evidence of blatant prosecutorial misconduct.

The J6 people are on video committing crimes. They were correctly charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard it also came out that there was some period of time that she was alone with the GJ without a court reporter present, so the record is incomplete. This is a very big no-no.

It sounds like the judge is not inclined to see her appointment as proper, and since she couldn’t find anyone to appear with her and sign the indictment with her, that would make Comey’s indictment over and done with as the SOL has run.

Incredible lack of professionalism from the Hooligan. Can’t believe Bondi didn’t even help her to do better.

Bondi hasn't helped anyone or done anything at DOJ. All she has done is give pressers and show fake binders.

She’s just as unqualified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does Comey get to see the grand jury documents, yet not one J6 defendants got the same courtesy?

Which J6 defendants even asked for the GJ materials? What were the reasons they presented? What reasons did the judges give for denying the requests?