Comey case VERY likely to be dismissed.

Jarod said:
The Department of Justice made so many mistakes and the procurement of the indictment against Comi, that case is very likely to get dismissed. Such a dismissal is very rare in the federal system, however, such incompetence historically has been very rare with the Department of Justice.

If it happens, the Trumper will scream that it was the deep state and liberal judges.

Make me wonder if the legal experts knew the case was crap and indicted him anyway so they could complain about the deep state.
Click to expand...

The whole thing is obviously part of Trump's Vengeance Tour 2025. Facts and reality are not important. Hanging the threat of imprisonment over the target's head IS.
 
TOP said:
Is he innocent?
Click to expand...

Fuck off, stalker. Get back to your angry, hangry spider's web and gossip some more while we adults discuss this. Scoot!

OiKVfuA.jpg
 
TOP said:
My question was to Jarod the lawyer... There must have been evidence...
Click to expand...
Why do you believe there must have been evidence?

I have not seen the evidence, if there is any, the Grand Jury apparently only heard hearsay from a single DOJ investigator. Which was likely evidence.

It really does not matter if there was evidence, until it is determined if the indictment is legitimate.
 
Jarod said:
Why do you believe there must have been evidence?

I have not seen the evidence, if there is any, the Grand Jury apparently only heard hearsay from a single DOJ investigator. Which was likely evidence.

It really does not matter if there was evidence, until it is determined if the indictment is legitimate.
Click to expand...
OK...do you think the indictment was not legitimate?Screenshot_20251119_094457_Chrome.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here is what i wrote in the other thread...


---------

Omg this is laughable.​


it is all embarrassing but so very predictable as to what happens if you think Magats are smart and can do anything without serious error or lying.

This one really cracks me up

"...the prosecutor appears to have suggested the grand jurors could assume the government had additional evidence that would be presented later at trial — language that can improperly lower the prosecutor’s burden in a grand-jury probable-cause determination..."

Note this Comey indictment barely passed getting the bare minimum 12 of 23 votes. One less vote and it fails.

Now imagine Halligan saying to the Grand Jury 'oh do not worry, trust us we have a lot more evidence you are not seeing that will be presented at trial so you can make this determination considering that'. FLOL.

Why would any Prosecutor ever waste time presenting any evidence to a Grand Jury. Just go in, with the weight of the office behind you and tell the GJ to trust you, you have lots of evidence that will be put out in court. :rofl2:
 
Ai Summary:

the judge’s written 24-page memorandum opinion (Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick, Nov. 17, 2025) lists a set of specific factual and legal concerns — essentially eleven discrete findings — that together led him to conclude there is a reasonable basis to suspect the grand-jury process in the Comey case may have been infected by serious errors or misconduct.


Short summary: the judge did not say “the case is dismissed”; he found a reasonable basis to challenge the integrity of the grand jury process and ordered the government to produce the grand-jury materials so Comey’s lawyers can examine them. The judge’s findings focus on (a) how certain evidence was obtained and used (including possible Fourth Amendment/warrant and privilege problems), (b) an agent who had access to potentially privileged material testifying to the grand jury, (c) problematic prosecutor statements to jurors, and (d) unexplained gaps/irregularities in the grand-jury record. Bluesky Social+1
Click to expand...



  1. Reasonable basis to challenge whether the Richman warrants were executed consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the issuing court’s orders.
    (Judge questions whether the searches/seizures that produced key materials were lawfully carried out.) Bluesky Social
  2. Reasonable basis to challenge whether the government exceeded the scope of the original Richman warrants (2019–2020) by seizing/preserving material beyond what the warrants authorized.
    (The opinion flags possible over-seizure of items not within the predicate offenses listed in those warrants.) Bluesky Social
  3. Reasonable basis to challenge whether the government had lawful authority to search/review the Richman materials anew in 2025.
    (Judge questions whether a fresh, lawful predicate existed for re-opening/using those old materials for this new prosecution.) Bluesky Social
  4. Reasonable basis to challenge whether the 2025 seizure of Richman materials included information beyond the scope of the original warrants.
    (A restatement focusing on the 2025 actions specifically — i.e., the later seizure may have swept in extra material.) Bluesky Social
  5. The circumstances surrounding any potential Fourth Amendment / court-order violations provide a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law.
    (Judge flags that the handling may have been more than negligent.) Bluesky Social
  6. There is a reasonable basis to show the defense was prejudiced by the government’s use of the Richman materials in presenting the grand jury case (given how central those materials were to the prosecutors’ presentation).
    (If improperly obtained or out-of-scope material was central to the presentation, that can prejudice the defendant.) Bluesky Social
  7. Reasonable basis to challenge whether the government took sufficient steps to avoid collecting and reviewing privileged materials (and why Comey wasn’t afforded an opportunity to assert privilege before indictment).
    (Judge is troubled that privilege claims weren’t handled earlier / separately.) Bluesky Social
  8. Reasonable basis to challenge whether privileged information was used (directly or indirectly) to prepare and present the grand-jury case.
    (Because the sole grand-jury witness had been exposed to privileged material shortly before testifying.) Bluesky Social
  9. The way potentially privileged information was disclosed (and the witness’s continued participation after exposure) gives a reasonable basis to suspect willful or reckless disregard of privilege protections.
    (Agent-3 saw some privileged materials and nonetheless testified — the judge found that highly irregular and troubling.) Bluesky Social
  10. The prosecutor (identified in coverage as Lindsey Halligan)
  11. made statements to the grand jurors that could form the basis to challenge whether the grand-jury proceedings were infected with constitutional error.
    (The opinion says the prosecutor appears to have made at least two “fundamental misstatements of law” — including implying a defendant could not invoke the Fifth Amendment without adverse inference and suggesting jurors need not rely only on the evidence presented to them because the government had more evidence.) Democracy Docket+1
  12. The grand-jury transcript and audio likely do not reflect the full proceedings — there are unexplained gaps/irregularities (notably around the preparation/presentation of a second indictment) that cast doubt on the completeness and accuracy of the record.
    (Judge notes timeline problems: a three-count submission was initially sought, one count was rejected, then a two-count indictment was returned — but the transcript/audio don’t show the necessary subsequent presentation or communications, suggesting missing material or unexplained events.) Reddit+1



  • (a) Fifth Amendment misstatement: the prosecutor apparently told grand jurors they could draw a negative inference if a witness or target exercised their right not to testify — but federal law forbids grand jurors from drawing such an adverse inference. The judge called that a “fundamental misstatement of law.” Democracy Docket
  • (b) Suggesting jurors needn’t rely only on the record before them: the prosecutor appears to have suggested the grand jurors could assume the government had additional evidence that would be presented later at trial — language that can improperly lower the prosecutor’s burden in a grand-jury probable-cause determination. Democracy Docket



  • The judge’s full memorandum opinion (William E. Fitzpatrick, Nov. 17, 2025) — the primary source for the findings. (CourtListener PDF / court docket). Bluesky Social
  • Reuters coverage summarizing the decision and its practical effects (order to produce grand-jury materials). Reuters
  • Associated Press / Washington Post / Al Jazeera reporting on the judge’s rebuke and the specific concerns about Halligan’s statements and privileged materials. AP News+1



  • The judge identified serious, specific factual and legal problems (the eleven findings above) that give Comey’s team a reasonable basis to challenge the fairness and constitutionality of the grand-jury presentation.
  • Because of those findings, Fitzpatrick ordered delivery of the grand-jury materials to the defense so Comey’s lawyers can probe further — a highly unusual remedy.
  • The government has asked that the magistrate’s order be stayed and is disputing parts of the judge’s factual account; the matter is under further review. News coverage and the opinion itself are the best places to track how the fight over these findings proceeds. Bloomberg+1
 
And just as i predicted in that other chat, you now see @TOP suggesting, 'Comey should just allow it go to trial regardless, even if it gets dismissed'...

--------------

QP prior post...

Yup. I have seen dozens of legal experts all say this case is dead and there are many issues that would kill it and not just one or two mistakes or deliberately illegal acts.

So at this point what you will soon see is magats switch to arguments of 'getting the case dismissed via these type of errors is not the same as going to court and winning' pushing the idea that Comey and James should be the apparent first defendants in court history who could get a terrible case kicked but who told their lawyers, 'no i won't to go court regardless'.

------------

Which is so laughably stupid to say that only magats like TOP could say it and repeat it.
 
TOP said:
OK...do you think the indictment was not legitimate?
Click to expand...

I do not know the facts yet, as to the grand jury procedure. If some of the possibilities suggested by the order granting Comey access to the GJ material, it is clearly very possible the indictment is not legit. Its clear standard procedure was not followed, but that does not necessarily mean the indictment will be declared illegitimate.

She, the prosecutor, told the judge she returned to the GJ to get the legitimate indictment recertified by grand jury. This would have required her to have the new indictment drafted, the arguments re-presented to the GJ, have them deliberate, then have her get the new indictment to the Judges chambers, down the street, within the 7 minutes of time that existed between when the first indictment failed and the second was issued.

There are other very serious 5th Amendment arguments on Comey's side as well.
 
If they later announced a statute of limitations time limit precludes another grand jury to convene, you swamp creatures will win another one

go shit stains. hiss-boom-bahhh
 
You far left loons are a hoot.

Comey’s investigation of Hillary just before the election was part of the reason she lost.

Now, you love him.

Too funny.
 
Jarod said:
I do not know the facts yet, as to the grand jury procedure. If some of the possibilities suggested by the order granting Comey access to the GJ material, it is clearly very possible the indictment is not legit. Its clear standard procedure was not followed, but that does not necessarily mean the indictment will be declared illegitimate.

She, the prosecutor, told the judge she returned to the GJ to get the legitimate indictment recertified by grand jury. This would have required her to have the new indictment drafted, the arguments re-presented to the GJ, have them deliberate, then have her get the new indictment to the Judges chambers, down the street, within the 7 minutes of time that existed between when the first indictment failed and the second was issued.

There are other very serious 5th Amendment arguments on Comey's side as well.
Click to expand...
Okay, thanks for the reply....Keep us posted...
 
QP! said:
And just as i predicted in that other chat, you now see @TOP suggesting, 'Comey should just allow it go to trial regardless, even if it gets dismissed'...

--------------

QP prior post...

Yup. I have seen dozens of legal experts all say this case is dead and there are many issues that would kill it and not just one or two mistakes or deliberately illegal acts.

So at this point what you will soon see is magats switch to arguments of 'getting the case dismissed via these type of errors is not the same as going to court and winning' pushing the idea that Comey and James should be the apparent first defendants in court history who could get a terrible case kicked but who told their lawyers, 'no i won't to go court regardless'.

------------
Screenshot_20251119_094457_Chrome.jpg
Which is so laughably stupid to say that only magats like TOP could say it and repeat it.
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20251119_094457_Chrome.jpg
 
Earl said:
You far left loons are a hoot.

Comey’s investigation of Hillary just before the election was part of the reason she lost.

Now, you love him.

Too funny.
Click to expand...
I do not love or hate him, just think all Americans should be treated equally under the law, despite what the President thinks of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top