SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
judge grills government over apparent lapses in comey indictment...
Earlier this week, the American people were “reliably” informed by the left-wing press that the full grand jury that indicted disgraced former FBI Director James Comey did not see the final indictment. “Judge grills government over apparent lapses in Comey indictment,” ABC News’ Peter Charalambous, Alexander Mallin, Katherine Faulders, and Nicholas Kerr wrote on November 19. According to the quartet, U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan “told a judge … that the full grand jury that indicted Comey did not see the final indictment — only the foreperson and another grand juror did.” The Media’s Latest Push To Sink Comey Indictment Was Entirely Based On A Lie BY: BRIANNA LYMAN It was the same claim made by The Guardian’s Sam Levine, who headlined his piece: “Full grand jury didn’t see final Comey indictment, prosecutors admit.” The New York Times’ Alan Feuer and Devlin Barrett wrote: “Trump Loyalist Admits Grand Jury Never Saw Final Comey Indictment.” The duo said the alleged incident was an “irregularity” in the case. “Ms. Halligan admitted that she had never shown the second — and final — version of the Comey indictment to the full grand jury before the foreperson signed the charging document,” The Times wrote. The only problem? It’s not true. In a filing Thursday, the Department of Justice said: “The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively refutes that claim.” What really happened is that, as former Supreme Court law clerk and attorney for the Article III Project Mike Davis explains on X, “The confusion arises solely from the magistrate judge’s misinterpretation of the administrative correction removing Count One from the indictment after the grand jury returned a true bill on Counts Two and Three.” “That adjustment simply reflected the grand jury’s vote; it was neither unusual nor improper,” Davis said. In fact, the court transcript shows the court asking: “So you voted on the [indictment] that has two counts?” The foreperson said: “Yes,” later adding that “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 DOJ says such testimony “confirms that the grand jury failed to obtain concurrence on Count One, and that Counts Two and Three were placed into a separate two-count indictment that the grand jury approved.” According to the filing, the “Court acknowledged that two documents with the same case number had been presented, explaining: ‘concur across all three counts, so I’m a little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that are inconsistent.'” As the DOJ filing states, the transcripts show that “any assertion that the grand jury ‘never voted on the two-count indictment’ is contradicted by the official transcript.” Fox News reports that Tyler Lemons, the North Carolina-based federal prosecutor, said “the indictments were identical and that the second one was created as soon as the grand jury proceedings concluded and merely excised the one charge that the grand jury rejected.” Halligan said in a statement that: “When the U.S. Attorney’s comments are read fairly, fully, and in context – as the Code of Conduct requires – the conclusion is unavoidable: there was no misstatement of law, no misleading of the grand jury, and no impropriety whatsoever. The magistrate judge’s contrary finding rests on a misreading of the transcript and cannot support disclosure.” Of course, the same propaganda press that spread the hoax is now scrambling to pretend like it was the Justice Department that “reversed” itself rather than just admitting the obvious: The magistrate judge misunderstood what happened, and the media simply regurgitated that misinterpretation. “In a reversal from what the Department of Justice represented in court and in written filings Wednesday, federal prosecutors said Thursday that the full grand jury reviewed the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey,” Charalambous and Mallin wrote in a new piece. Comey was indicted by a grand jury on two counts: false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.
Gus Leonisky POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.
|
User login |
"the law is the law"....
An unelected, inferior-court activist judge tossed the grand jury indictment against disgraced former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday, arguing that federal prosecutor Lindsay Halligan was unlawfully appointed.
Judge Cameron Currie, a Clinton appointee, ruled Monday that Halligan was unlawfully appointed and that the indictments against both Comey and James are invalid.
“On September 25, 2025, Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, appeared before a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. Having been appointed Interim U.S. Attorney by the Attorney General just days before, Ms. Halligan secured a two-count indictment charging former FBI Director James B. Comey, Jr. with
making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding,” Currie wrote.
Currie then stated, “I agree with Mr. Comey that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid. And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.”
Halligan was appointed to the role in September after Erik Siebert stepped down, reportedly after refusing to seek indictments against Comey and James. Attorney General Pam Bondi then authorized Halligan as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Upon assuming her role, Halligan secured a two-count grand jury indictment against Comey for charges of making false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.
Comey challenged, amongst other things, Halligan’s appointment as unlawful.
The government argued, however, that unless the Senate explicitly refused to confirm Halligan, then Bondi was within her authority to appoint Halligan as lawful interim attorney.
Comey’s team, however, argued that Section 546 “limits the total tenure of the Attorney General’s interim appointments to 120 days” and therefore “precludes an additional appointment by the Attorney General after the expiration of that 120-day period.”
Comey’s team argued, therefore, that Halligan’s appointment was unlawful because the district court had the “exclusive authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney” once Seibert resigned.
“Mr. Comey has the better reading of the statute,” Currie wrote.
Currie then cited Section 546 and said that subsection (d) provides “a single option for how subsequent interim appointments may be made: ‘If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district’ — and only the district court — ‘may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.'”
Currie ruled that Halligan, therefore, “has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025.”
“All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside,” Currie ruled. Currie also dismissed James’ indictment with a similar order.
James was indicted in October for allegedly lying to her lending bank and a homeowner’s insurance company in a mortgage fraud scheme.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/11/24/judge-says-us-attorney-lindsey-halligan-cant-prosecute-comey-because-trump-appointed-her/
READ FROM TOP.
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.
Gus Leonisky
POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.