Reply to James Comey Indictment

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "James Comey Indictment"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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![/quote]

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. [/quote]

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[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics