HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

cslifer said:

---

That "legal nonsense" is pretty important and you would dang sure want it all to apply if it was you or a family member accused of something.

---

Of course! If my mother was a serial killer I would totally want her to go free because of technicalities even though she was absolutely the killer.

Makes sense.

We are not talking about a legal defense by Comey as in "he acted in self defense" or "he factually did not lie" or "he has immunity based on x, y and a as per the law, Constitution". We are talking about the serial liar and traitor skirting because someone forgot to refresh the table of contents on an appendix to an exhibit that may or may not be presented in the case sort of technicality.

Get real with the "if it was your family member" nonsense.

---

He's making these arguments now because now is when you make them. Every single criminal defendant would do exactly the same thing, regardless of how baseless the claim may be. He'll make the "I factually didn't lie" claim at the appropriate time.
Your dismissiveness of the process and procedure is just a hot circle of garbage. If the process doesn't matter, then we're playing Legal Calvinball, and no one wants that.

---

I don't recall you given the Trump legal teams such wide berths in mounting their defenses over the past few years. Maybe I missed those arguments in support of their efforts to have cases dismissed.

The process and procedure have been *******ized to favor the well-connected and wealthy. Is that really justice? I don't think the average American thinks so.

Every single defendant may try the same thing if Abbe Lowell was provided to them gratis as counsel.

Justice matters, not the process.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

txwxman said:

---

LOL at Trump's blonde fetish backfiring on him. No one could have predicted that Trump's preference for looks over competence would end badly. /s

---

It's hilarious that an FBI director was leaking classified information to the press!

---

Another thing this DoJ failed on. Should have indicted him for leading classified information. 8 year Statute of Limitations.

twelve12twelve said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

cslifer said:

---

That "legal nonsense" is pretty important and you would dang sure want it all to apply if it was you or a family member accused of something.

---

Of course! If my mother was a serial killer I would totally want her to go free because of technicalities even though she was absolutely the killer.

Makes sense.

We are not talking about a legal defense by Comey as in "he acted in self defense" or "he factually did not lie" or "he has immunity based on x, y and a as per the law, Constitution". We are talking about the serial liar and traitor skirting because someone forgot to refresh the table of contents on an appendix to an exhibit that may or may not be presented in the case sort of technicality.

Get real with the "if it was your family member" nonsense.

---

He's making these arguments now because now is when you make them. Every single criminal defendant would do exactly the same thing, regardless of how baseless the claim may be. He'll make the "I factually didn't lie" claim at the appropriate time.
Your dismissiveness of the process and procedure is just a hot circle of garbage. If the process doesn't matter, then we're playing Legal Calvinball, and no one wants that.

---

You don't have to explain that to him, he understands the law more than any other lawyer in existence. Some say he is the hardest working SOB in Law, Accounting, and whatever else he decides he is an expert in for that day.

---

It's good to get the recognition I deserve.

And given what supposed lawyers understand about the law and justice, I think I am pretty well reasoned in my assessment.

flown-the-coop said:

---

twelve12twelve said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

cslifer said:

---

That "legal nonsense" is pretty important and you would dang sure want it all to apply if it was you or a family member accused of something.

---

Of course! If my mother was a serial killer I would totally want her to go free because of technicalities even though she was absolutely the killer.

Makes sense.

We are not talking about a legal defense by Comey as in "he acted in self defense" or "he factually did not lie" or "he has immunity based on x, y and a as per the law, Constitution". We are talking about the serial liar and traitor skirting because someone forgot to refresh the table of contents on an appendix to an exhibit that may or may not be presented in the case sort of technicality.

Get real with the "if it was your family member" nonsense.

---

He's making these arguments now because now is when you make them. Every single criminal defendant would do exactly the same thing, regardless of how baseless the claim may be. He'll make the "I factually didn't lie" claim at the appropriate time.
Your dismissiveness of the process and procedure is just a hot circle of garbage. If the process doesn't matter, then we're playing Legal Calvinball, and no one wants that.

---

You don't have to explain that to him, he understands the law more than any other lawyer in existence. Some say he is the hardest working SOB in Law, Accounting, and whatever else he decides he is an expert in for that day.

---

It's good to get the recognition I deserve.

And given what supposed lawyers understand about the law and justice, I think I am pretty well reasoned in my assessment.

---

Whatever you say

Who says they won't?

I don't think an actual conviction or even trial is what success looks like here for Team Trump.

Some good can come of it even if it's not the justice being sought, the justice America deserves.

I want to get Comey as much as anyone here. As well as a lot of other bad actors.

But I also still believe that to move forward the INDIVIDUAL not the government should have their rights protected rigorously.

This whole case has been a mess from the beginning. But if the DOJ/Halligan have done things that violate Comeys rights then they need to be held to account. Whether that be the case is thrown out or given back to another grand jury or whatever.

If the judge is an activist judge trying to just let Comey skate, there are remedies above the DC that the DOJ can pursue if they have done things correctly.

The government has more and more trampled on the individual and collective rights of Americans. Individual rights need to be protected.

flown-the-coop said:

---

cslifer said:

---

The law is the law, and the legal system only really works if we apply the same rules to everyone. Hating someone's politics doesn't mean that they don't have the same legal rights as your own mother. If the DOJ screwed up, they screwed up. That's all there is to it.

---

That's funny.

But that also shows we do not have a justice system at all when Comey and his DNC paid for attorney can dissect every sentence structure for a technical defect but the poor single mother who left her 12yo alone for 10 minutes goes to prison because the DNC didn't want to pay for her attorney.

People should want justice. Comey walking on technicalities is NOT justice, no matter how cute the attorneys want to be.

---

Trump and many others do/have done this for forever. If it is available in the legal system for someone to do... have at it.

will25u said:

---

I want to get Comey as much as anyone here. As well as a lot of other bad actors.

But I also still believe that to move forward the INDIVIDUAL not the government should have their rights protected rigorously.

This whole case has been a mess from the beginning. But if the DOJ/Halligan have done things that violate Comeys rights then they need to be held to account. Whether that be the case is thrown out or given back to another grand jury or whatever.

If the judge is an activist judge trying to just let Comey skate, there are remedies above the DC that the DOJ can pursue if they have done things correctly.

The government has more and more trampled on the individual and collective rights of Americans. Individual rights need to be protected.

---

Great post!

Quote:

---

This whole case has been a mess from the beginning. But if the DOJ/Halligan have done things that violate Comeys rights then they need to be held to account. Whether that be the case is thrown out or given back to another grand jury or whatever.

---

Just to be clear, the evidence Halligan is using was not obtained by her. FBI got it several years ago and memory holed it. So problems with how it was collected, predated her involvement.

Now, was it deliberately mishandled to render it inadmissible? Doesn't matter at this point.

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

cslifer said:

---

That "legal nonsense" is pretty important and you would dang sure want it all to apply if it was you or a family member accused of something.

---

Of course! If my mother was a serial killer I would totally want her to go free because of technicalities even though she was absolutely the killer.

Makes sense.

We are not talking about a legal defense by Comey as in "he acted in self defense" or "he factually did not lie" or "he has immunity based on x, y and a as per the law, Constitution". We are talking about the serial liar and traitor skirting because someone forgot to refresh the table of contents on an appendix to an exhibit that may or may not be presented in the case sort of technicality.

Get real with the "if it was your family member" nonsense.

---

He's making these arguments now because now is when you make them. Every single criminal defendant would do exactly the same thing, regardless of how baseless the claim may be. He'll make the "I factually didn't lie" claim at the appropriate time.
Your dismissiveness of the process and procedure is just a hot circle of garbage. If the process doesn't matter, then we're playing Legal Calvinball, and no one wants that.

---

I don't recall you given the Trump legal teams such wide berths in mounting their defenses over the past few years. Maybe I missed those arguments in support of their efforts to have cases dismissed.

The process and procedure have been *******ized to favor the well-connected and wealthy. Is that really justice? I don't think the average American thinks so.

Every single defendant may try the same thing if Abbe Lowell was provided to them gratis as counsel.

Justice matters, not the process.

---

He's entitled to the same process everyone else is. That's not a controversial take.

Maybe we could create a federal program, call it the Defender Services Program, or something like that. Then, you get Congress to fund it properly so criminal defendants can have the same level of advocacy as an Abbe Lowell. You and I both know that second part isn't happening.

(This isn't to disparage public defenders, as they do an excellent job for not excellent pay. A public defender would have better experience handling the Comey case for DOJ than Halligan.)

Trying to make up for my sleep deprived horrible post before.

will25u said:

---

I want to get Comey as much as anyone here. As well as a lot of other bad actors.

But I also still believe that to move forward the INDIVIDUAL not the government should have their rights protected rigorously.

This whole case has been a mess from the beginning. But if the DOJ/Halligan have done things that violate Comeys rights then they need to be held to account. Whether that be the case is thrown out or given back to another grand jury or whatever.

If the judge is an activist judge trying to just let Comey skate, there are remedies above the DC that the DOJ can pursue if they have done things correctly.

The government has more and more trampled on the individual and collective rights of Americans. Individual rights need to be protected.

---

Because this deserves another blue star.

will25u said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

cslifer said:

---

The law is the law, and the legal system only really works if we apply the same rules to everyone. Hating someone's politics doesn't mean that they don't have the same legal rights as your own mother. If the DOJ screwed up, they screwed up. That's all there is to it.

---

That's funny. We most certainly do not apply the same rules to everyone, but your point is taken.

But that also shows we do not have a justice system at all when Comey and his DNC paid for attorney can dissect every sentence structure for a technical defect but the poor single mother who left her 12yo alone for 10 minutes goes to prison because the DNC didn't want to pay for her attorney.

People should want justice. Comey walking on technicalities is NOT justice, no matter how cute the attorneys want to be.

---

Trump and many others do/have done this for forever. If it is available in the legal system for someone to do... have at it.

---

Is challenging the appointment of Halligan truly in the spirit of justice for the individual? Given how partisan the judiciary is / has become?

I understand the technicalities and I understand they can be fatal to a case. But let's stop pretending that is justice when the DOJ under Biden failed to do their job to manipulate SOL issues and then the Senate undercuts the ability of POTUS to make appointments in order to slot their own preferences in in order to get favorable political decisions.

Sorry, that is actually not protecting the individual rights of America's citizens when you let Comey and friends skirt on violating those same rights.

Mine is a fundamental position on justice. This thread can return to its usual programming or legal technicalities and writing scripts for The Rainmaker tv series.

Will25u, always appreciate your unbiased takes including this one.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This whole case has been a mess from the beginning. But if the DOJ/Halligan have done things that violate Comeys rights then they need to be held to account. Whether that be the case is thrown out or given back to another grand jury or whatever.

---

Just to be clear, the evidence Halligan is using was not obtained by her. FBI got it several years ago and memory holed it. So problems with how it was collected, predated her involvement.

Now, was it deliberately mishandled to render it inadmissible? Doesn't matter at this point.

---

Wait a second, are you saying here that it's not the prosecutor's job to understand what kind of evidence is and isn't appropriate to use in court proceedings?

HTownAg98 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

She won't be disbarred but this will give Bondi an excuse to fire her.

---

The real person that should be fired is Bondi for putting someone with zero criminal law experience in charge of a grand jury proceeding. Halligan can go back to policing woke stuff at the Smithsonian.

---

Nm

🚨 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… pic.twitter.com/DApY2adjnZ

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) November 20, 2025

pic.twitter.com/rV6G71HKDO

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) November 20, 2025

I can't stand the "game" our Judicial System has become and the players don't care. No matter the sin...in the end, all is forgiven and forgotten. What a joke!

Quote:

---

Wait a second, are you saying here that it's not the prosecutor's job to understand what kind of evidence is and isn't appropriate to use in court proceedings?

---

Let me explain. There is a vast difference between grand jury proceedings and actual criminal trials based upon a grand jury indictment. Huge difference. What would be inadmissible in a trial can be produced in grand jury proceedings. And the reason is the grand jury is only tasked with a finding of probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Grand jury proceedings are not adversarial, meaning no defense is allowed to even be present to cross examine or object to any evidence being presented to the grand jury.

Once an indictment comes down, then the higher burden of proof, higher level of due process, challenges to evidence with a presiding judge making those determinations come into play.

To explain further, my comment at whether any case that could be brought against Comey was deliberately sabotaged by Wray's FBI is irrelevant at this point. It is what it is. Can't put the s*** back in the horse.

Can someone explained to me why the magistrate Judge made a big deal about the indictments and timestamps, etc. The doj had already given him the whole grand jury transcript?

Apparently he isn't the only one not to read it!

You've got the filings from DoJ stating initially the whole grand jury didn't see the final indictment:

UPDATE: So, it appears Comey grand jury may have left by the time the 2nd version of the indictment was brought to the foreperson and deputy. But DOJ says no harm, no foul because jury already approved those counts. Doc: https://t.co/FMbFu21sOM Earlier: https://t.co/ZiaFXTQdWg pic.twitter.com/wSJF8ejh8s

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) November 19, 2025

You've give AUSA saying yesterday they didn't see it:

NEW: In a new filing, DOJ now claims that the two-count indictment against Jim Comey was shown to the full grand jury after all, despite this exchange between a DOJ lawyer and Judge Michael Nachmanoff: pic.twitter.com/Xsok4M2lpY

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) November 20, 2025

Now today, there a filing purporting to correct all of that.

It is probable that despite what the pundits are pushing, it's still not clear at all what actually happened!

From the transcript of the GJ it seems pretty straight forward. The GJ Judge seems to have had the Foreperson on the GJ set the record straight.

The GJ voted on the first 3 count. First count was rejected, other two accepted. Halligan took the first count out and gave the whole GJ the two count. They voted and true billed the 2 count indictment.

The judge then fleshed it all out on the transcript to ensure that the whole GJ voted to true bill the 2 count in court and verified with the foreperson that they did vote on the two count and it was signed.

I have not read the entirety of the transcript, but:

Quote:

---

Halligan took the first count out and gave the whole GJ the two count.

---

If it's so straightforward why did the DoJ lawyers get it so wrong?

Im Gipper said:

---

I have not read the entirety of the transcript, but:

Quote:

---

Halligan took the first count out and gave the whole GJ the two count.

---

If it's so straightforward why did the DoJ lawyers get it so wrong?

---

I don't know, but they should get their ducks in a row if they want to make this case. It is easy to understand at least for me if you read the transcript.

Also the GJ gave both the 3 count and follow on 2 count to the judge. Which maybe is not normal? I don't know. But seems like the judge straightened it out.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459120/206/1/united-states-v-comey/

THE FOREPERSON: So the three counts should be just

4 one count. It was the very first count that we did not agree

5 on, and the Count Two and Three were then put in a different

6 package, which we agreed on.

7 THE COURT: So you --

8 THE FOREPERSON: So they separated it.

9 THE COURT: Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

10 So you voted on the one that has the two counts?

11 THE FOREPERSON: Yes.

Thanks for the link!

N/m found the answer!

Im Gipper said:

---

Thanks for the link!

Do we know if the magistrate and/or DoJ lawyers had that before today?

---

As far as I know, the doj gave the whole whole grand jury transcript to the judge in camera weeks ago? I at least know that the judge did have the transcripts and that the doj gave it to him

will25u said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Thanks for the link!

Do we know if the magistrate and/or DoJ lawyers had that before today?

---

As far as I know, the doj gave the whole whole grand jury transcript to the judge in camera weeks ago? I at least know that the judge did have the transcripts and that the doj gave it to him

---

It looks like (but not clear) that this portion of the transcript was newly received by all.

See Dkt. #148, 158, 177 all discussing DoJ being required to submit grand jury transcripts.


The whole things is a giant mess, and this transcript just make it all look so sloppy.

I haven't been keeping up with this at all, but it appears that we've got a corrupt security state career bureaucrat who's clearly guilty of trying to subvert and overthrow the duly elected POTUS, but he can't even be charged with one blatantly obvious crime of perjury because we have corrupt magistrate judges protecting the deep stater. Meanwhile, the low IQ brainwashed useful idiots are spiking their TDS football and rambling about the president having a blonde fetish as if that makes treason ok.

It speaks volumes when the judiciary itself is up to its eyeballs in lawfare against the Constitution and the President. They will protect anyone on the left, while anyone on the right, like all the J6ers and Trump's attorneys have no rights or protections, and get treated worse than murderers.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

It speaks volumes when the judiciary itself is up to its eyeballs in lawfare against the Constitution and the President. They will protect anyone on the left, while anyone on the right, like all the J6ers and Trump's attorneys have no rights or protections, and get treated worse than murderers.

---

J6s got what they deserved and Trump reversed justice. Full stop. Go outside please.

Thankfully some of them are getting the justice they deserve because they're ****ing morons.
https://fox17.com/news/local/florida-fugitive-arrested-in-franklin-on-multiple-child-sex-crime-charges-tennessee-news-google-trends
https://patch.com/illinois/lagrange/summit-man-once-accused-firing-gun-u-s-capitol-riot-picked-kidnapping-sex-assault
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article285704241.html

ETFan said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

It speaks volumes when the judiciary itself is up to its eyeballs in lawfare against the Constitution and the President. They will protect anyone on the left, while anyone on the right, like all the J6ers and Trump's attorneys have no rights or protections, and get treated worse than murderers.

---

J6s got what they deserved

---

Some may have. Most did not. None of them had their constitutional rights honored.

Thank goodness J6 came along so it could erase 9-11 from his memory!

txwxman said:

---

LOL at Trump's blonde fetish backfiring on him. No one could have predicted that Trump's preference for looks over competence would end badly. /s

---

Your misogeny is showing...

will25u said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

I have not read the entirety of the transcript, but:

Quote:

---

Halligan took the first count out and gave the whole GJ the two count.

---

If it's so straightforward why did the DoJ lawyers get it so wrong?

---

I don't know, but they should get their ducks in a row if they want to make this case. It is easy to understand at least for me if you read the transcript.

Also the GJ gave both the 3 count and follow on 2 count to the judge. Which maybe is not normal? I don't know. But seems like the judge straightened it out.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459120/206/1/united-states-v-comey/

THE FOREPERSON: So the three counts should be just

4 one count. It was the very first count that we did not agree

5 on, and the Count Two and Three were then put in a different

6 package, which we agreed on.

7 THE COURT: So you --

8 THE FOREPERSON: So they separated it.

9 THE COURT: Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

10 So you voted on the one that has the two counts?

11 THE FOREPERSON: Yes.

---

In one continuous 7-minute proceeding, the following occur:

• The indictment is announced as two counts.
• A second document appears showing three counts.
• The foreperson says the three-count document should have only one count, even though the judge is holding a three-count version signed by the foreperson.
• The prosecutor says she drafted three counts, then says she only signed the two-count version, then says she does not know where the three-count version came from even though the judge says it has her signature.

The transcript just feels weird, like it was spliced together.