This is madness.
That is all

Original post was intended as a reply to a different thread.

My reply below applies here too
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220680187#post6

They can't even tie it into the grand juries' findings?

All within a week? A rush job that can’t get out of the gate and headed up by an inexperienced person who doesn’t or can’t decline the offer to bring the case in the first place because of pride or loyalty.
O, boy! This is gonna be interesting 🤨

Probably pulled together from what some FOX News shill was accusing Comey of back in 2020.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220680187#post9

There was reporting that the indictment was coming early in the week, so there must have been leaks that Halligan was presenting to a grand jury.

Back in 2020, they were obsessed with discrediting Comey. The ONLY "smoking gun" they could come up with then was the notion that Comey "authorized" McCabe's leak of the status of the investigation into the Clinton Foundation in 2017.

In response to Sen. Ted Fucking Cruz (to use his full name), Mr. Comey stated simply, and by all subsequent investigation, truthfully, that he had never authorized a leak of information.

It was a pretty simple set of facts to present, so wouldn't take long, particularly because what Halligan presented undoubtedly excluded the fact the accusations had already been investigated and dispensed with, or the fact that her predecessor was fired for refusing to pursue an indictment because there was no "there" there.

AI summary:

Here is a summary.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/09/comey-indictment-problem-fbi-trump-revenge/

Would that surprise anyone?

We need to stop with talking about the regime like it is this all powerful juggernaut.

47 and the minions in his regime are weak, cack-handed bunglers who are sowing chaos and misery. They are incapable of solving anything more complex than a wordle puzzle.

And 47 has never built anything that benefited anyone but himself or one of the other bullies on his "playground" that he plays sniveling sidekick to.

At least the vast majority of judges in courts at every level, with the tragic and intolerable exception of the six black-robed traitors on SCOTUS.

call the jury foreperson in and question them about what all went on.

that they couldn't get an indictment on, into the record to muddy the waters? Or is she just that dumb and careless?
One is cunning, and the other is clueless. Personally, I hope for one, but be prepared for the other.

Does this mean that the judge has a document that implies that the jury did not indict on ANY of the counts, and a conflicting document that says that they agreed to indict on two counts? Are they on the same date and time? How is this possible? Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but this would seem to imply that Halligan fabricated one of these documents, presumably the one that shows two indictments by the grand jury. If so, that would have huge repercussions. Damn, this gets confusing.

More on that here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220680187#post24

I know people like her would probably be happy to fabricate if they thought they could get away with it, but she is so inexperienced she'd just be too clueless about chances of being caught.

I'm guessing that she did manage to get 14 of 23 to vote a "true bill" on two of the counts presented, particularly since I have little doubt she excluded the fact the accusations had already been investigated and dispensed with, or the fact that her predecessor was fired for refusing to pursue an indictment because there was no "there" there.

Grand juries are prosecutors instruments. While they can be highly selective in what to present (they are only required to present exculpatory evidence in certain jurisdictions) any prosecutor who gives a shit about convicting on an indictment is motivated to present relevant facts, even if some of those facts could undermine the case. Getting an indictment that will be tossed on the first motion to dismiss that includes those "adverse" facts is not a "win," unless the prosecutor cares only for political "points" scored with the indictment, and cares about nothing else (i.e., can confidently count on getting a pardon when charged with malicious prosecution).

My speculation:
Maybe she got a "no-bill" from one grand jury and submitted a modified case to a new grand jury, got a "true bill" on two of the counts presented, and incompetently got all the paperwork fouled up.

Such resubmissions after a "no-bill" generally require new evidence and approval from the relevant U.S. Attorney's Office. Since she is that relevant office, all bets on needing reasonable grounds to resubmit are off.

It really helps to get feedback from knowledgeable posters who understand how the process works. I had no idea that you could present to more than one grand jury (with ‘new evidence’) for an indictment. Absent deliberate intention to deceive, I guess you have to conclude that the prosecutor screwed up. Personally, if it was me and this was the biggest test of my professional career, I would have taken every precaution to make sure that I didn’t blow it. This administration continues to surprise with its incompetence.

We've been abandoned. And most don't know it.

I thought we could confuse Your Honor with several different stories and then you'd get a headache and do whatever we asked"