B-Man Posted 58 minutes ago Posted 58 minutes ago Is the Comey Prosecution on Thin Ice? Not As Thin As Some Might Have You Think By Susie Moore To borrow a phrase from a fellow Missourian, reports of the Comey prosecution's death have been greatly exaggerated. Former FBI Director James Comey, of course, was indicted in late September on two counts in relation to statements he made during a congressional hearing in September 2020: False statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the United States Government [18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)] Obstruction of a Congressional proceeding [18 U.S.C. § 1505] There was a bit of buzz on Wednesday afternoon following a hearing in the case on a motion by Comey's defense team to dismiss the charges against him on the basis of vindictive prosecution. Eastern District of Virginia Judge Michael Nachmanoff reportedly grilled Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers over a purported discrepancy between the indictment form presented to the grand jury and the final version filed in the case. This, in turn, produced rather ominous-sounding headlines like: Trump’s DOJ Admits Comey Grand Jury Never Saw Final Indictment Comey case hanging by a thread as judge squeezes DOJ over Halligan’s handling And that was on the heels of a Monday ruling by Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick ordering the DOJ to turn over grand jury materials to the defense — materials which normally would not be shared with the defense. All of which led to the inference that the Comey indictment wasn't long for this world. I read the reporting yesterday, and even began to write something up on the matter, but I hesitated because the only information I had to go on was reports of what was said in the hearing, and the court documents available at that point didn't shed much light on the situation. As it turns out, I'm glad I held off. Subsequent to the hearing, the DOJ filed its objections to Fitzpatrick's order regarding the disclosure of the grand jury materials, and then, earlier today, filed a notice correcting the record, both of which help establish that the grand jury did, in fact, return a true bill on two counts, those being the two listed above. Now, does that mean Judge Nachmanoff will see it that way? No. Nor does it guarantee the indictment will survive some of the other challenges raised against it. But for all the breathless proclamations that the grand jury never actually saw the indictment, and ZOMG! — folks should simmer down. They did. It just had an additional count in it that was subsequently removed because they didn't agree on that one. Nothing new or different was added. Something no longer pertinent was removed. https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2025/11/20/is-the-comey-prosection-on-thin-ice-not-as-thin-as-some-might-have-you-think-n2196418 The confusion arose from the fact that there were initially three counts, the first of which the grand jury did not agree on. It was the second and third counts that they returned an indictment on. So the indictment was amended to remove the (original) first count and include only the second and third counts (which became the first and second), and that was signed off on by the grand jury foreperson, with one other grand juror present. (The rest had apparently left for the day.) 1
Recommended Posts