By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Justice Department admitted in court that the grand jury was not presented with the final indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, potentially weakening the prosecution. This admission follows concerns regarding the case’s presentation, including the absence of a record of the grand jury reviewing the indictment. Furthermore, only the foreperson and a second grand juror were present for the indictment’s return. Comey, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of making a false statement and obstructing Congress, was fired by then-President Trump in 2017 amid an investigation.
Read the original article here
Justice Department says the full grand jury in the Comey case didn’t review a copy of the final indictment, and frankly, that’s just a mess. It’s the kind of mess that makes you question the very fabric of how things are done. The input content uses some pretty strong language, but the underlying sentiment seems to be one of profound disappointment and, dare I say, disgust with the Justice Department’s handling of this whole affair.
The core issue here is this: the grand jury, the body responsible for deciding whether enough evidence exists to formally charge someone with a crime, didn’t actually see the final version of the indictment against James Comey. Instead, a revised indictment was submitted to the judge as if it had been signed off by the entire grand jury. This raises serious questions about the integrity of the process.
It sounds like the grand jury considered a draft of the indictment, and then the prosecutor, after some modifications, presented a different document to the court, as if the grand jury had approved it. This feels like a significant procedural error, at best. Some feel this could even be a criminal offense. The core of the issue is, the grand jury didn’t approve the final document, but the court was led to believe they did.
The sheer incompetence is startling. It’s hard to imagine how this could have happened. The input strongly suggests a lack of care and attention to detail. The judge’s comments about “fundamental misstatements of the law” and “investigative missteps” are a red flag and make it very difficult to defend the actions of the prosecution. The judge’s perspective is: the government’s actions raise real concerns and deserve thorough examination by the defense.
It’s tempting to try and dissect exactly *how* this happened. Did the prosecutor simply miss a step? Did they intentionally try to circumvent the process? Was it a combination of both? Regardless, the fact that the revised indictment wasn’t presented to the full grand jury is problematic. Some people think it’s likely criminal, but even if it’s not, the error is pretty egregious.
There seems to be a lot of frustration over perceived political motivations. There is suspicion of a politically driven prosecution. The content suggests the timing and the unusual circumstances of the indictment make some believe this whole thing smacks of a witch hunt. And, whether you agree with that assessment or not, the mishandling of the indictment only strengthens that perception.
It’s hard to ignore the broader context here. The input content references the actions of former FBI Director James Comey in relation to the Clinton investigation and the investigations into Trump. These are politically charged issues, and it’s clear the context of the indictment adds an extra layer of complexity and scrutiny.
The discussion emphasizes the potential consequences of these procedural errors. Some believe this should be grounds to dismiss the charges outright. It’s a huge problem. It’s a breach of trust, and it undermines the entire process. The input highlights that these are not mere formalities; they are fundamental elements of the legal process.
The input also points out how quickly public confidence can erode, and that it can be a slow process to rebuild. The actions taken here have definitely damaged the Justice Department’s reputation.
It’s hard not to be struck by the strength of the opinions expressed in the input. The use of words like “incompetence,” “illegitimate,” and “witchhunt” underscores the gravity of the concerns. It’s clear that many people view this case as a prime example of the Department of Justice not doing its job.
The case has a lot of components that point to a failure to follow the rules of the law, which is what is expected of the Justice Department. Some see a political motivation. The issues with the grand jury and the indictment will likely have serious consequences for the case itself and for the individuals involved. This incident highlights a need for greater scrutiny and accountability within the DOJ.