James Comey Indictment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot comprehend why these people would risk everything to lie for trump.

Different people likely have different reasons, but in Lindsay’s case I think it’s safe to say she’s just dumb as a rock

+1

This is a case of stupidity, not malice. She gained absolutely nothing from not presenting the 2 count draft indictment to the GJ.

She gained a (purported) indictment. If she did it the right way, they might have voted no on the two count or she might have run out of time. We don't really know the full story of what exactly they did and didn't vote for. We're just getting bits and pieces, most of them filtered through Lindsay herself.

I disagree. The grand jury had already taken a preliminary vote in which it voted to indict on counts two and three.

Preliminary.

Until they took a final vote, they could change their minds. Moreover, maybe some thought they no billed one count but not another and vice versa. That is why the details are important.

I'm the AUSA poster above. That's not really how it works. It is called a preliminary vote, but they don't actually vote again. I've indicted a few dozen cases and I've never seen a preliminary vote turn turn into a no bill. Again, I'm not defending her. I just don't think we should give her any more credit than she's entitled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot comprehend why these people would risk everything to lie for trump.

Different people likely have different reasons, but in Lindsay’s case I think it’s safe to say she’s just dumb as a rock

+1

This is a case of stupidity, not malice. She gained absolutely nothing from not presenting the 2 count draft indictment to the GJ.

She gained a (purported) indictment. If she did it the right way, they might have voted no on the two count or she might have run out of time. We don't really know the full story of what exactly they did and didn't vote for. We're just getting bits and pieces, most of them filtered through Lindsay herself.

I disagree. The grand jury had already taken a preliminary vote in which it voted to indict on counts two and three.

Preliminary.

Until they took a final vote, they could change their minds. Moreover, maybe some thought they no billed one count but not another and vice versa. That is why the details are important.

I'm the AUSA poster above. That's not really how it works. It is called a preliminary vote, but they don't actually vote again. I've indicted a few dozen cases and I've never seen a preliminary vote turn turn into a no bill. Again, I'm not defending her. I just don't think we should give her any more credit than she's entitled.

Again, we don't really know much about what they voted on. Lindsay and the foreperson walked into the court with a three count indictment that said the GJ had voted to no-bill the entire thing. They also had a two count indictment that said they voted indict on those two counts. The judge was confused because those documents were in conflict. She questioned the foreperson on it and the testimony is very garbled and confusing. The judge eventually concluded that the GJ voted for the second two counts and against the first one, and then voted for the two count. But the judge obviously got that wrong because we've now learned no vote ever happened on the two count.

[Anonymous]

Halligan should be disbarred and prosecuted for her prosecutorial malfeasance.

That was not an "honest mistake"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot comprehend why these people would risk everything to lie for trump.

Different people likely have different reasons, but in Lindsay’s case I think it’s safe to say she’s just dumb as a rock

+1

This is a case of stupidity, not malice. She gained absolutely nothing from not presenting the 2 count draft indictment to the GJ.

She gained a (purported) indictment. If she did it the right way, they might have voted no on the two count or she might have run out of time. We don't really know the full story of what exactly they did and didn't vote for. We're just getting bits and pieces, most of them filtered through Lindsay herself.

I disagree. The grand jury had already taken a preliminary vote in which it voted to indict on counts two and three.

That's actually not clear anymore; that's waht the judge originally thought before the new infomration about the lack of candor to the court.

[Anonymous]

I see reports that the DOJ has 6 months to fix the error even if the statute of limitations ran out. Is that correct, legal people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see reports that the DOJ has 6 months to fix the error even if the statute of limitations ran out. Is that correct, legal people?

There is a statute that extends the SoL by 6 months where an otherwise timely indictment is dismissed after the SoL has run, but whether they could actually use it depends on the reason for the dismissal. If it gets dismissed because there was never a proper indictment, then controlling 4th Circuit precedent says they cannot refile under that statute. If it gets dismissed under the vindictive prosecution claims, the other misconduct claims, or the literal truth claims, then I expect the judge would dismiss with prejudice and they could not refile. If it's under the Lindsay's appointment is illegal theory, I could see it going either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot comprehend why these people would risk everything to lie for trump.

Different people likely have different reasons, but in Lindsay’s case I think it’s safe to say she’s just dumb as a rock

+100

Lindsay also does not have the typical resume for this type of job so she probably gambled that the career opportunity would be worth the risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot comprehend why these people would risk everything to lie for trump.

Different people likely have different reasons, but in Lindsay’s case I think it’s safe to say she’s just dumb as a rock

+1

This is a case of stupidity, not malice. She gained absolutely nothing from not presenting the 2 count draft indictment to the GJ.

She gained a (purported) indictment. If she did it the right way, they might have voted no on the two count or she might have run out of time. We don't really know the full story of what exactly they did and didn't vote for. We're just getting bits and pieces, most of them filtered through Lindsay herself.

I disagree. The grand jury had already taken a preliminary vote in which it voted to indict on counts two and three.

That's actually not clear anymore; that's waht the judge originally thought before the new infomration about the lack of candor to the court.

And even ignoring the indictment vote issue the judge discussed serious legal violations in the presentation to the jury. The order from earlier this week discussed 11 possible misconduct grounds, this is just one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Halligan should be disbarred and prosecuted for her prosecutorial malfeasance.

That was not an "honest mistake"

She will be. It's just a matter of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot comprehend why these people would risk everything to lie for trump.

Different people likely have different reasons, but in Lindsay’s case I think it’s safe to say she’s just dumb as a rock

+100

Lindsay also does not have the typical resume for this type of job so she probably gambled that the career opportunity would be worth the risk.

She’s so arrogant that she doesn’t realize that actually understanding the process and doing it correctly really matters. She thought she could just pull it off because she is pretty and Trump likes her. Probably used to “pretty privilege” getting her whatever she wants.

[Anonymous]

Now they're insulting the judge based on a question he asked the defense about their framing. I think they know this is about to get dismissed.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-halligan-slam-judge-comey-case-hearing/story?id=127709589

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Halligan should be disbarred and prosecuted for her prosecutorial malfeasance.

That was not an "honest mistake"

She was following instructions of Pam Bondi because Hslligan isn't smart enough to have done this by herself.

[Anonymous]

Once again the msm, dcum and the deep start are wromg! New court filings, including the grand-jury transcript, show U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan PROPERLY obtained the indictment against James Comey.

Despite the media's best efforts to misreport and cover for their favorite deep-state actor, James Comey.

I. The court and the foreperson confirmed the vote on the 2-count indictment.

II. The court acknowledged the clerical discrepancy and directed the docketing of the 2-count true bill.

III. The transcript leaves no room for ambiguity.

Accordingly, any assertion that the grand jury "never voted on the two-count indictment" is contradicted by the official transcript.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again the msm, dcum and the deep start are wromg! New court filings, including the grand-jury transcript, show U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan PROPERLY obtained the indictment against James Comey.

Despite the media's best efforts to misreport and cover for their favorite deep-state actor, James Comey.

I. The court and the foreperson confirmed the vote on the 2-count indictment.

II. The court acknowledged the clerical discrepancy and directed the docketing of the 2-count true bill.

III. The transcript leaves no room for ambiguity.

Accordingly, any assertion that the grand jury "never voted on the two-count indictment" is contradicted by the official transcript.

This isn't true at all. Halligan revised the document which required revoting by the grand jury. She never did this, had the forepersim sign it, and submitted it to the judge. That is a huge no no.

And again, that's not even touching her blatant fifth amendment violations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again the msm, dcum and the deep start are wromg! New court filings, including the grand-jury transcript, show U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan PROPERLY obtained the indictment against James Comey.

Despite the media's best efforts to misreport and cover for their favorite deep-state actor, James Comey.

I. The court and the foreperson confirmed the vote on the 2-count indictment.

II. The court acknowledged the clerical discrepancy and directed the docketing of the 2-count true bill.

III. The transcript leaves no room for ambiguity.

Accordingly, any assertion that the grand jury "never voted on the two-count indictment" is contradicted by the official transcript.

Not to worry. This will get dispensed with as it always does with Halligan. And, at a minimum, it shows she lied to the judge. Outright lied.