Perjury and obstruction of justice. Two charges up to 5 years of prison time each.

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Perjury and obstruction of justice. Two charges up to 5 years of prison time each.

---

His chance of going to jail is the same as Trump's- zero

Anarchistbear said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Perjury and obstruction of justice. Two charges up to 5 years of prison time each.

---

His chance of going to jail is the same as Trump's- zero

---

……which is the same chance any of the hack prosecutors left at the DOJ have of surviving the law and motion stage of the case. At the first court appearance Halligan initially couldn't find the correct courtroom and when the judge called the matter she stood at he wrong end of the counsel table.

bearister said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Perjury and obstruction of justice. Two charges up to 5 years of prison time each.

---

His chance of going to jail is the same as Trump's- zero

---

……which is the same chance any of the hack prosecutors left at the DOJ have of surviving the law and motion stage of the case. At the first court appearance Halligan initially couldn't find the correct courtroom and when the judge called the matter she stood at he wrong end of the counsel table.

---

They are all hacks. How many convictions of Trump did the previous administration get? The DOJ should be shut down. It's a waste of time and money

Anarchistbear said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Perjury and obstruction of justice. Two charges up to 5 years of prison time each.

---

His chance of going to jail is the same as Trump's- zero

---

The two charges against Comey are clear with video evidence.

No one really knows what Trump was charged with.

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Perjury and obstruction of justice. Two charges up to 5 years of prison time each.

---

His chance of going to jail is the same as Trump's- zero

---

The two charges against Comey are clear with video evidence.

No one really knows what Trump was charged with.

---

Evidence doesn't matter. The Comeys of the world are a protected class

Jack Smith would have convicted Trump……and if Bondi is dumb enough to prosecute Smith we will all get to see the evidence he had against Trump because it will be relevant to Smith's defense.Trump will be called as a defense witness at trial.

Dream on with the rule of law ****

Jim Comey: A Man of Many Faces, None Of Which Are Speech Martyrshttps://t.co/nKWE2gu3pn pic.twitter.com/mEiBSeeWeV

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) October 2, 2025

The prosecution of James Comey is the latest End of Democracy panic, so press mania is expected. A group letter signed by 42 retired judges, however, takes a grotesque step, turning Comey into a speech martyr:

For the first time in American history, the bedrock First Amendment right of American citizens to disagree with their president and their government and to express their views and opinions on any matter they wish including their president is under unprecedented attack by the President of the United States.

The Trump era being a time of soaring virtue-signaling and boundless partisanship, there's been no shortage of open letters. Our own Greg Collard put together a painstaking compilation earlier this year. A few already earned places in history books for sheer dishonesty (the "51 Spies" letter comes to mind), but this new effort shatters the Guinness shamelessness record.

Judges stayed quiet as colleagues handed down sentences after the government charged people like John Kiriakou, Daniel Hale, Terry Albury, and Chelsea Manning with the Espionage Act for talking about torture, war crimes, our "targeted killing" drone assassination program, and other minor state peccadilloes. Apparently Justices also had to keep mum when thousands were removed from the Internet for disagreeing with the previous administration on issues like Covid. But trespassing on the "speech" of James Comey was a bridge too far.

What these justices are calling "First Amendment" activity is concocting pretexts for investigation, leaking classified information, perjury, and false accusation. They're arguing officials should be able to smear with impunity. Recapping Comey's "speech":

Long before Trump had time to view Comey as a "perceived" political enemy (as judges describe him), the former FBI head in late 2016 was signing applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court asking for monitoring of former Trump aide Carter Page. These applications relied on the dossier of paid Clinton campaign researcher Christopher Steele, which Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz later called "central and essential" to the granting of those warrants.

Comey signed three separate applications, including after the FBI terminated Steele "for cause" for talking to the media, and after the Bureau learned his primary claims were false or unfounded. Comey still told Senators under oath in 2020 that "in the main," the investigation was conducted "by the book," and he was "proud of the work."

Comey's "speech" therefore included taking part in an ongoing deception of judges, clearly an important principle for the 42 retirees. Later that same year, in December of 2016, Comey worked with CIA Director John Brennan and National Intelligence Director James Clapper to assemble an "Intelligence Community Assessment" that would conclude Russia and Vladimir Putin meddled in the 2016 election after developing a "clear preference" for Trump. Despite an absence of evidence serious enough that NSA Chief Michael Rogers threatened to pull out, Comey signed off on that document, too, which was published on January 6, 2017.

Comey wrote memos about his interactions with President-elect Donald Trump that included scenes of him telling his soon-to-be-boss on January 6th, 2017 that "we were not investigating him":

In Comey's lofty A Higher Loyalty, he described how the idea of telling Trump he wasn't under investigation went over with FBI General Counsel Jim Baker. After all, the "Crossfire Hurricane" probe that Comey would announce to great fanfare was still open:

After extensive discussion with my team, I decided I could assure the president-elect that the FBI was not currently investigating him. This was literally true. We did not have a counterintelligence case file open on him. We really didn't care if he had cavorted with hookers in Moscow, so long as the Russians weren't trying to coerce him in some way.

The FBI's general counsel, Jim Baker, argued powerfully that such an assurance, although true, could be misleadingly narrow: the president-elect's other conduct was, or surely would be, within the scope of an investigation looking at whether his campaign had coordinated with Russia. There was also the concern that the FBI might then be obligated to tell President Trump if we did open an investigation of him. I saw the logic of this position, but I also saw the bigger danger of the new president, who was known to be impulsive, going to war against the FBI.

Comey told Trump "we're not investigating" him, then told himself this was "literally true" because the conversation was about prostitutes and Comey didn't care about that, "so long as the Russians weren't trying to coerce him." Yet he was memorializing Trump's answers and sending them not just to his Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki, but other FBI personnel like Andrew McCabe who were part of the "Crossfire Hurricane" probe (McCabe even signed the fourth Page warrant application after Comey was fired). In other words, Comey's meeting with Trump was part of the ongoing investigation of Trump. Some of the first words he spoke to his future boss were lies, like that theirs was a private conversation, not written down within five minutes of the meeting's end and e-shared for investigatory purposes:

When Comey said "we're not investigating you," he was lying about past and present. In an August 17th, 2016 national security briefing Trump received as a major-party candidate, an FBI agent was detailed to watch Trump and National Security aide Michael Flynn as part of the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation. In other words, even though "Crossfire Hurricane" had been launched on the thinnest of pretexts and Trump himself had never done anything that remotely justified making him the subject of undercover FBI surveillance, Comey's FBI was already spying on him, in the summer of 2016:

The FBI dolts who decided to use a national security briefing for "investigative purposes" before a presidential election were asked if it ever occurred to them that such activity might have a "chilling effect" on future briefings, if the episode ever became public. Former General Counsel Jim Baker told Horowitz's office that "he did not recall that issue being discussed." This was one of many issues Horowitz took issue with in his report, in addition to the 17 "significant" inaccuracies and errors with the FISAs Comey was "proud" (in the main) to have signed. Regarding the fake briefing:

The FBI's use of such briefings for investigative purposes potentially interferes with this expectation and could frustrate the purpose of future counterintelligence briefings.

Recapping:

The FBI under Jim Comey repeatedly submitted phony research created by Hillary Clinton researcher Christopher Steele to FISA judges in order to obtain electronic surveillance of a presidential candidate. The Bureau fired Steele as a source for talking to the media after the October 31, 2016 publication of a Mother Jones story hinting that Trump had been "cultivated" by Russians for five years and subject to "blackmail," but waited a year to punish the other FBI source for that story, Baker. Comey then signed off on placing the same bogus information in a highly classified annex to the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, which afforded him the opportunity to brief President-Elect Trump about its existence.

Days later, news organizations that had the Steele reports but until then had sat on them as unconfirmable bull**** reported the "blockbuster" news that the same material had been presented to Trump by four of the nation's top intelligence chiefs, including Comey. Now the material was printable, no longer bull**** but "allegations" that "Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump." Shortly after that, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Comey announced that he had been "authorized" to disclose what he had not in his first meeting with Trump: that the FBI was "investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government." He didn't tell Congress or anyone else that the material that was sending the world into chaos that Trump was in the thrall of blackmailing Russians had by then been determined by FBI agents interviewing the original source of those stories to be "rumor and speculation" and "just talk."

Not content to smear only one side, Comey also attempted to deflect criticism from Democrats that he'd dealt too harshly with Hillary Clinton.

In a 2017 Senate hearing, Comey testified that he asked "a friend of mine to share [information] with a reporter." Also, FBI memos from its "Arctic Haze" leak investigation show the Bureau knew "Comey also hired Richman so Comey could discuss sensitive matters, including classified information… Comey also used Richman as a liaison to the media."

One of the stories the FBI investigated was in the New York Times and published just before Trump fired him. Called "Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election," one passage quoted Richman as saying "Jim sees his role as apolitical and independent," while another disclosed the hottest of hot stuff:

The Times found that this go-it-alone strategy was shaped by his distrust of senior officials at the Justice Department, who he and other F.B.I. officials felt had provided Mrs. Clinton with political cover. The distrust extended to his boss, Loretta E. Lynch, the attorney general, who Mr. Comey believed had subtly helped play down the Clinton investigation.

His misgivings were only fueled by the discovery last year of a document written by a Democratic operative that seemed at least in the eyes of Mr. Comey and his aides to raise questions about her independence. In a bizarre example of how tangled the F.B.I. investigations had become, the document had been stolen by Russian hackers.

This passage referred to documents covered in Racket earlier this summer that were somehow obtained by Russians that was supposedly written by then-DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. One passage read, "the political director of the Hillary Clinton staff, Amanda Renteria, regularly receives information from Loretta Lynch of the Department of Justice, on the plans and intentions of the FBI."

Comey was deeply concerned this document might leak out, telling interviewers from the Inspector General's office:

I could picture emails rocketing around the Internet of… someone at the Atlantic Council saying, "I just had lunch with Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She told me Loretta Lynch is controlling Jim Comey."

Comey told the IG his decision to make such an early statement about the "Midyear Exam" investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server was fear that this document might come out. He was so concerned, in fact, that according to two FBI witnesses Comey's Chief of Staff Rybicki and Principal Deputy General Counsel of National Security and Cyberlaw Trisha Anderson that Comey drafted his soon-to-be infamous "exoneration" statement of Clinton "in the spring" or in "May" of 2016, before his team interviewed her.

There is every reason to believe, in other words, that classified information was leaked to let Democrats know Comey hadn't just said a few unkind things about Hillary's email practices in the summer of 2016, but in fact been a good boy and sat on much more damaging material about Loretta Lynch.

Meanwhile, according to Comey's own testimony, he had his "friend" speak to the media about Trump's alleged comments saying "I hope you can let this go" with regard to the Flynn investigation, in the hopes it would "prompt the appointment of a special counsel" in the Trump case. Mueller was indeed appointed, assigned to continue the Comey investigation into "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" an investigation that to date produced zero evidence of collusion, and lasted as long as it had only thanks to fraudulent FISA applications, whose contents were also leaked to the public.

Comey was a key player in the production and dissemination of phony evidence that created a false national security crisis in which the world was led to believe a sitting president was a stooge of Vladimir Putin. There is no "free speech absolutist" alive who'd count perjury and classified leaks as protected First Amendment activity. In Comey's case there's the additional novelty of classifying false information that was then leaked, to produce a desired political effect. This was comprehensive abuse of federal investigative machinery, and Trump was not the only victim. If there was such a thing as defamation of the entire United States, Comey would be liable.

I testified earlier this week that Americans have become numb to surveillance, but we've also gotten used to the spectacle of security officials lying their faces off to Congress and parachuting into cushy sinecures with networks or think-tanks after they finish their public deceptions. That's insulting enough, but listening to judges wrap such behavior in the First Amendment is beyond obscene. They just keep finding new floors, don't they?

Magat loser John Durham has already exonerated Comey. Will be a fun trial if you enjoy laughing at magats.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-counsel-john-durham-undercut-case-james-comey/story?id=126164120

1. I wonder how the prosecution team will perform? and

2. I wonder how Trump will perform when he is called as a defense witness and cross examined?

Here's a list of all republicans arrested under the Joe Biden administration:

Donald J. Trump
Waltine “Walt” Nauta
Carlos De Oliveira
Stephen K. Bannon
Peter K. Navarro
Thomas J. Barrack Jr.
Matthew Grimes
Rudy Giuliani
Mark Meadows
John Eastman
Kenneth Chesebro
Sidney Powell…

— TMK (@TheMagaKing2_0) October 7, 2025

HawaiiBear33 said:

---

Here's a list of all republicans arrested under the Joe Biden administration:

Donald J. Trump
Waltine “Walt” Nauta
Carlos De Oliveira
Stephen K. Bannon
Peter K. Navarro
Thomas J. Barrack Jr.
Matthew Grimes
Rudy Giuliani
Mark Meadows
John Eastman
Kenneth Chesebro
Sidney Powell…

— TMK (@TheMagaKing2_0) October 7, 2025

---

TMK misspelled Republican criminals.

Pam Bondi has been handed overwhelming evidence:
– The Russia hoax, exposed by Tulsi Gabbard.
– Jack Smith’s illegal spying on sitting U.S. senators.
– Mortgage fraud committed by Letitia James.
– Mortgage fraud committed by Adam Schiff.
– Mayor Brandon Johnson and Governor JB…

— TMK (@TheMagaKing2_0) October 6, 2025

I guess Pam better get busy finding prosecutors that have tried even one case, civil or criminal, through jury verdict to oar the windmill chasing prosecutions.

She better start preparing Trump because he will be called as a defense witness in the cases.

See the difference between popping off and dealing with the reality of the situation? Popping off is fun; Realty, not so much.

bearister said:

---

See the difference between popping off and dealing with the reality of the situation? Popping off is fun; Realty, not so much.

---

What situation are you referring to? Jack Smith and the FBI spying on Republican Senators?

I am talking about a castrated DOJ that cannot field a competent trial attorney as well as about cases where Trump will be on the witness stand in front of a jury, unless the case is dismissed, to avoid him having to testify.

For the sake of argument, let's say all the targets in all of the revenge prosecutions are guilty. You still need prosecutors to secure the convictions. Your team don't got'em, Clyde.

You got DUPED again.
Shocker.

Trump mainly cares about winning news cycles each day and each week. When the charges quietly get dropped months from now, other doctored up stories will be in the headlines. If there's much talk about Comey, the narrative will be that the deep state got another criminal off the hook.

Comey was in court today. In looking at this thread the right wingers post a lot of material from other people but say little to nothing themselves about the quality of the prosecution.

Does anybody here, in your own words, think Comey will be found guilty in this trial?

btw, Comey's lawyer has said they will be filing for vindictive prosecution.

The MAGGATS cant think for themselves.
They speak thru memes and cut and paste.

Do the lawyers here think the vindictive prosecution filing will have some success with the news today that when senile Trump posted online for Bondi to prosecute Comey, the senile Trump thought he was sending a message privately to Bondi.

dajo9 said:

---

Comey was in court today. In looking at this thread the right wingers post a lot of material from other people but say little to nothing themselves about the quality of the prosecution.

Does anybody here, in your own words, think Comey will be found guilty in this trial?

btw, Comey's lawyer has said they will be filing for vindictive prosecution.

---

James Comey Was Sure He Was Above The Law. Supporters Hope He's Right

As James Comey is arraigned, new documents show the FBI under his watch criminally investigated first, and looked for reasons laterhttps://t.co/cVxqhRiNBL pic.twitter.com/cQOiXeVxip

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) October 8, 2025

Link to Full Article

Quote:

---

While social media and legacy press raged over Bari Weiss, and Republicans thundered over new documentation showing Special Prosecutor Jack Smith monitored the phone records of eight GOP Senators, Iowa's Chuck Grassley released a disturbing document as part of his opening statement to a Senate Oversight hearing. He revealed that on March 2, 2017, FBI agent Timothy Thibault part of a now-disbanded political investigation unit called CR-15 wrote a draft letter detailing interest in investigating Donald Trump:

Somehow a FBI HQ DAD at CD side received information CR-15 was leaning toward open a case on the Trump campaign… What we are doing: Aggressively seeking out open-source information, HUMINT info that could predicate a case.

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!8x82!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F36bc908e-3c46-4e43-9c15-2346bed0935f_1406x782.png

Aggressively seeking… info that could predicate a case.

"Obviously, everything is reversed here," a spokesperson for Grassley's office said. "You're supposed to follow a lead to start a case, not start a case in search of a lead."

---

1. How will Halligan's crack team of battle hardened prosecutors perform at trial?

2. Will Trump be a good witness in front of the jury when he is called to the witness stand by defense counsel or will he go full Col. Jessup/Capt. Queeg?

bearister said:

---

Jack Smith would have convicted Trump……and if Bondi is dumb enough to prosecute Smith we will all get to see the evidence he had against Trump because it will be relevant to Smith's defense.Trump will be called as a defense witness at trial.

---

If Jack Smith wants to insist that his prosecutions of Trump were totally apolitical, he should probably find a different interviewer than Andrew Weissman of the Mueller Russiagate hoax, and should also probably try a different venue other than Russigate Ground Zero MSNBC. https://t.co/1dGIQa63KP

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 15, 2025

"If Jack Smith wants to insist that his prosecutions of Trump were totally apolitical, he should probably find a different interviewer than Andrew Weissman of the Mueller Russiagate hoax, and should also probably try a different venue other than Russigate Ground Zero MSNBC."

1. Jack will find a different interviewer: His defense attorney when he examines Jack on the witness stand regarding all the evidence he compiled against Trump in the two criminal prosecutions he was handling;

2. He will find a different venue: In Federal court in front of a jury.*

*Provided Bondi can field a prosecutor that can:

a) Not get lost at the federal courthouse and find the proper courtroom; b) knows what side of the counsel table they are supposed to stand on; c) can keep the case from being dismissed at the law and motion stage; and d) can keep Trump's head from exploding on the stand when he is called as a defense witness.

bearister said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Perjury and obstruction of justice. Two charges up to 5 years of prison time each.

---

His chance of going to jail is the same as Trump's- zero

---

……which is the same chance any of the hack prosecutors left at the DOJ have of surviving the law and motion stage of the case. At the first court appearance Halligan initially couldn't find the correct courtroom and when the judge called the matter she stood at the wrong end of the counsel table.

---

This case is going tits up on the beauty queen already.

Federal judge warns Justice Department it may be veering close to mishandling evidence in Comey case | CNN Politics https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/05/politics/james-comey-justice-department-evidence

The magats here seem to be losing enthusiasm for the Comey indictment. Weird.

By way of update, the Judge has taken the unusual step of giving grand jury proceedings to the defense because of signs of prosecutorial misconduct.

Potential misconduct includes:
- Abuse of Comey's attorney client privilege
- Failure to get a relevant warrant for purposes of investigation (instead they relied on an old warrant for a different matter)
- Mistatements on the law from the prosecutor to the grand jury
- An inference to the grand jury that the government has additional evidence not shared with them
- Potential misinformation provided to the Court about communications with the grand jury

What is disappointing to me is that I was looking forward to a trial and a humiliation of Trump's attorneys by a jury - just like John Durham before. I was also looking forward to Comey being subjected to at least some questioning about how he mistreated Hillary and threw the election to Trump. But it is starting to look like this case will get dismissed before it ever gets to a jury.

Is there grounds for a criminal investigation or civil proceeding against the prosecution? I don't know. I'm no lawyer.

Prosecutorial immunity is broad. If the beauty queen exceeds the boundary of that, Trump will pardon her (Trump will have to grant blanket pardons for all who carried out his unlawful orders.)
Comey could sue the government for malicious prosecution upon resolution of the matter in his favor but it is a high standard to clear.

The beauty queen could get her ticket yanked by applicable state bars for ethics violations and Trump can't help her with that.

Advocacy group wants prosecutor Lindsey Halligan investigated, alleging "abuse of power" in charges against Comey and James - CBS News https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lindsey-halligan-bar-complaint-comey-james-trump/

dajo9 said:

---

MAGA seem to be losing enthusiasm for the Comey indictment. Weird.

---

They have?

🚨James Comey LIED to the FISA Court 17 times in order to get the phone tap on Trump to kickoff the Russiagate investigation!!

If there's any justice this a$$hole will be wearing orange soon!!👇 pic.twitter.com/nGe7s1ImSd

— Michelle #AmericaFirst (@MichelleRM68) November 17, 2025

How do you think Trump will perform in front of the jury when he takes the stand as a key defense witness?

dajo9 said:

---

The magats here seem to be losing enthusiasm for the Comey indictment. Weird.

By way of update, the Judge has taken the unusual step of giving grand jury proceedings to the defense because of signs of prosecutorial misconduct.

Potential misconduct includes:
- Abuse of Comey's attorney client privilege
- Failure to get a relevant warrant for purposes of investigation (instead they relied on an old warrant for a different matter)
- Mistatements on the law from the prosecutor to the grand jury
- An inference to the grand jury that the government has additional evidence not shared with them
- Potential misinformation provided to the Court about communications with the grand jury

What is disappointing to me is that I was looking forward to a trial and a humiliation of Trump's attorneys by a jury - just like John Durham before. I was also looking forward to Comey being subjected to at least some questioning about how he mistreated Hillary and threw the election to Trump. But it is starting to look like this case will get dismissed before it ever gets to a jury.

Is there grounds for a criminal investigation or civil proceeding against the prosecution? I don't know. I'm no lawyer.

---

Nonsense.

Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick--appointed by partisan DC-area Democrat judges in 2022--is going out of his way to carry water for James Comey.

Fitzpatrick--through his highly irregular ruling--is grasping at straws to make his findings that Lindsey Halligan… pic.twitter.com/pWMQ5FBF7M

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) November 17, 2025

The Deep State protect their own.

Hillary ‘Clinin’? Comey Misspelled Clinton’s Name to Hide Records from Searches | Ben Sellers, Headline USA

'The FBI has long behaved as if it should be allowed to do whatever it wants. This must end...'

Evidence released last week in the case against disgraced former FBI… pic.twitter.com/e1Y1wzDoT5

— Owen Gregorian (@OwenGregorian) November 17, 2025

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MAGA seem to be losing enthusiasm for the Comey indictment. Weird.

---

They have?

---

MAGA heads be exploding!






Trump target James Comey's charges may be tossed over 'disturbing pattern'

"A federal judge grilled the prosecutors pursuing charges against James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, on Wednesday, interrogating them with a series of questions that underscored irregularities in the case, including that the full grand jury did not see the indictment it was supposed to have approved…….

At one point, Ms. Halligan admitted that she had never shown the second and final version of the Comey indictment to the full grand jury before the foreperson signed the charging document. Mr. Comey's lawyers immediately seized on that irregularity, calling it another reason to dismiss the case entirely.

At another point, one of Ms. Halligan's subordinates, Tyler Lemons, acknowledged that someone in the deputy attorney general's office had instructed him not to discuss in open court whether his predecessors had or had not written a memo laying out their reasons for not bringing charges, because that was privileged information.

In the end, Mr. Lemons, appearing unnerved under questioning, confessed that the prosecutors who had previously handled the case had indeed written a draft of a memo declining prosecution……

The most surprising development might have been the government's admission, first delivered by Mr. Lemons, that Ms. Halligan had never showed the revised indictment in the case the one that was ultimately used to charge Mr. Comey to all of the grand jurors. Grand jurors have to vote on indictments to approve them, but Mr. Lemons told Judge Nachmanoff that only the foreperson formally approved the second charging document, a move that could in theory cripple the case.

When Ms. Halligan first went into the grand jury, she had initially sought a three-count indictment against Mr. Comey. And after the grand jurors rejected one of the charges, she did not re-present the case with only two counts, but simply had the original indictment redrafted to reflect the failure of a third……

The government's team consisted of Ms. Halligan, a former White House aide and personal lawyer to Mr. Trump who is working on the first criminal case of her career. She was accompanied by Mr. Lemons and another assistant U.S. attorney, Gabriel Diaz, both of whom have experience with criminal proceedings but were brought in from a U.S. attorney's office in North Carolina after no one in the Alexandria office would take the job."

Lindsey Halligan Admits Grand Jury Never Saw Final Comey Indictment - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/19/us/politics/comey-vindictive-prosecution-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/19/us/politics/comey-vindictive-prosecution-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.2U8.bqTn.XH0HSxyvLRg9&smid=nytcore-ios-share



*Attorney Lemons is going to be fired henceforth and forthwith for refusing to misrepresent and lie in court, which are prerequisites for Trump personal attorneys (which every prosecutor in the DOJ is).