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 and Trump reversed justice. Full stop. Go outside please.

---

Lol.

eater of the list said:

---

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.

---

To me it reads that there was some initial confusion, or that the foreperson was mistaken or didn't fully understand the question. But if you read through, it becomes clear that...

1. For some reason the GJ gave the 3 count that they didn't indict on count 1. As well as the 2 count truebill indictment. The judge made it seem like this is not normally what happens? I do not know.
2. The judge was asking them about the 3 count indictment and the foreperson mentions 1 count. I think they were mistaken on what the question was, or something.
3. The judge then asks about the 2 count. He asks if this is the correct indictment, and if the GJ did indeed vote on the 2 count and if it is the true indictment.

It was a little winding, but if I can read correctly, seems like the judge ended up fixing everything in the end.

In reply brief seeking disclosure of grand jury minutes, Comey's attys observe that the grand jury's deliberations in his case (2 hr 12 min) lasted longer than the presentation (2 hr 10 min). https://t.co/FLCCewKeff pic.twitter.com/bqNU84QQ4m

— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) November 21, 2025

unmade bed said:

---

The reasonable position is:

- the facts are contested, therefore conduct a trial
- the legal standards are high, no kidding
- the indictment is under serious procedural scrutiny, supposedly but let the facts out at trial
- and no court has tested the evidence. therefore conduct a trial

---

Don't allow the weasels to win, but that's the American way for leftist scoundrels.

HTownAg98 said:

---

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.

---

Our legal system is not founded on justice, the resulting hot circle of garbage is our corrupt process that only enriches lawyers. Refereed by lawyers.

bobbranco said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

The reasonable position is:

- the facts are contested, therefore conduct a trial
- the legal standards are high, no kidding
- the indictment is under serious procedural scrutiny, supposedly but let the facts out at trial
- and no court has tested the evidence. therefore conduct a trial

---

Don't allow the weasels to win, but that's the American way for leftist scoundrels.

---

Some issues are matters of law that get decided by the judge, not the jury. Procedural issues get decided by the judge.

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 and Trump reversed justice. Full stop. Go outside please.

---

They did not get what they deserved. A blind squirrel can find that nut!

Not surprised.

NEW: A federal judge has dismissed both indictments against Tish James and Jim Comey after determining Lindsey Halligan’s appointment is unlawful. Unbelievable. pic.twitter.com/sPOgyu5iEO

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) November 24, 2025

And the case is officially dismissed:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-comey-case-dismissed-judge-lindsey-halligan/

Quote:

---

Washington A federal judge on Monday ordered the criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James to be dismissed on the grounds that Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney who secured their indictments, was unlawfully appointed to the role.
The rulings from U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie are a significant victory for Comey and James, who both argued their prosecutions are retaliatory and motivated by President Trump's efforts to punish his political foes. The Justice Department is likely to appeal the decisions and ask for them to be halted.

Currie ordered the indictments to be dismissed without prejudice, which would allow prosecutors to seek charges again.

---

Still room for other cases though.

Without prejudice. Cure it and refile

Yep . . . .

Bolton's still going down, right?

So it still looms as a legal jeopardy within the statue of limitations and all that is needed is to resolve the prosecutor issue.

torrid said:

---

Bolton's still going down, right?

---

My hunch is yes. Bolton's been playing fast and loose with classified materials for a long while.

Quote:

---

So it still looms as a legal jeopardy within the statue of limitations

---

Comey's attorney are arguing the SOL expired in September based on the facts of the original grand jury indictment.

Can this be appealed?

jt2hunt said:

---

Can this be appealed?

---

Yes. The SoL, assuming it's still in place, is tolled until the final judgement of the case, which includes appeals. DOJ has six months after the final judgment to re-indict.

torrid said:

---

Bolton's still going down, right?

---

Bolton's case is in Maryland, so Halligan wasn't involved with that one.

Such ineptness. How long has it been since we've had a legitimate a DOJ?

Logos Stick said:

---

Not surprised.

NEW: A federal judge has dismissed both indictments against Tish James and Jim Comey after determining Lindsey Halligan’s appointment is unlawful. Unbelievable. pic.twitter.com/sPOgyu5iEO

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) November 24, 2025

---

It is only "unbelievable" if you completely paid no attention at all to this case.

Turley wrote how this a real possibility when the charges first came!

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3562005/replies/71009924

DOJ does not have the A TEAM working on this stuff.

I dont believe we even have an A Team.

Hoyt Ag said:

---

I dont believe we even have an A Team.

---

Nor a team.

I'm not sure why even have a DOJ, period.

YouBet said:

---

Such ineptness. How long has it been since we've had a legitimate a DOJ?

---

I said a few pages back this looks like it was purposefully sabotaged.

ANYONE that is a lawyer at DoJ, Bondi, Sauer, Blanche, etc. could have presented the case to the grand jury. They knew about the problems with the Halligan appointment as interim and that this would be a motion raised by Comey. Yet they still let her (who has zero criminal or federal court experience) handle this alone.

Quote:

---

I said a few pages back this looks like it was purposefully sabotaged.

ANYONE that is a lawyer at DoJ, Bondi, Sauer, Blanche, etc. could have presented the case to the grand jury. They knew about the problems with the Halligan appointment as interim and that this would be a motion raised by Comey. Yet they still let her (who has zero criminal or federal court experience) handle this alone.

---

I am reminded of an episode of Breaking Bad wherein Mike talks of half measures never working out for long. No half measures. And I feel that was done here. Half assed this indictment.

Im Gipper said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Such ineptness. How long has it been since we've had a legitimate a DOJ?

---

I said a few pages back this looks like it was purposefully sabotaged.

ANYONE that is a lawyer at DoJ, Bondi, Sauer, Blanche, etc. could have presented the case to the grand jury. They knew about the problems with the Halligan appointment as interim and that this would be a motion raised by Comey. Yet they still let her (who has zero criminal or federal court experience) handle this alone.

---

Hard to argue against it. I'm not remotely a legal expert but even I saw this coming. You don't put a novice attorney on a case this high profile and this politically charged. Just stupid.

Both these POS individuals who clearly did **** they shouldn't have are going to walk now. The two tier justice system continues on.

Well... there could be a silver lining in that the charges against Comey needed to be brought fast. Halligan did that, at this cases peril.

But instead of a week or two to get it together, now they have had since the original indictment and eventually 6 more months to put forward an airtight case if possible.

Or am I understanding procedure wrong?

Great analogy, but "half" is being generous!



More like 1/32nd measure.

will25u said:

---

Well... there could be a silver lining in that the charges against Comey needed to be brought fast. Halligan did that, at this cases peril.

But instead of a week or two to get it together, now they have had since the original indictment and eventually 6 more months to put forward an airtight case if possible.

Or am I understanding procedure wrong?

---

Even if true, I'm going to out on a limb and bet they don't even pursue it. And even if they do it will get dragged out to the point that it dies on the vine and everyone moves on and forgets.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I said a few pages back this looks like it was purposefully sabotaged.

ANYONE that is a lawyer at DoJ, Bondi, Sauer, Blanche, etc. could have presented the case to the grand jury. They knew about the problems with the Halligan appointment as interim and that this would be a motion raised by Comey. Yet they still let her (who has zero criminal or federal court experience) handle this alone.

---

I am reminded of an episode of Breaking Bad wherein Mike talks of half measures never working out for long. No half measures. And I feel that was done here. Half assed this indictment.

---

Never half-ass two things. Whole ass one thing. -Ron Swanson.

I think it's far from clear that Judge Currie's order (including language below) prevents re-indictment.
18 USC 3288 specifically provides that when a felony indictment "is dismissed for any reason **after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has… https://t.co/qBeMTcaQoU

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) November 24, 2025

Im Gipper said:

---

Great analogy, but "half" is being generous!



More like 1/32nd measure.

---

Pretty sure you and I could have put together a much more robust indictment but that needed to be done by Rosenstein or Barr years ago.

I agree with Whelan's assessment. This Order does not preclude going that route.

will25u said:

---

Well... there could be a silver lining in that the charges against Comey needed to be brought fast. Halligan did that, at this cases peril.

But instead of a week or two to get it together, now they have had since the original indictment and eventually 6 more months to put forward an airtight case if possible.

Or am I understanding procedure wrong?

---

No, I think you're more or less correct. The outstanding issues are the selective/vindictive prosecution motions. If those get granted, it most likely results in a dismissal with prejudice.