By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a surprising turn of events, prosecutors in the James Comey case admitted the two-count indictment against the former FBI director was never presented to, nor voted on, by a grand jury. Judge Michael Nachmanoff pressed the prosecutors for details regarding the revised indictment after the grand jury rejected an initial count. The court found that the revised version was presented to a magistrate judge, instead of the grand jury. The discovery raises questions about the legitimacy of the indictment and has potentially significant consequences for the case, with the statute of limitations potentially preventing a refiling of charges if the current case is dismissed.
Read the original article here
Due to Botched Paperwork, Comey May Never Have Been Properly Indicted… that’s quite a headline, isn’t it? It seems we’re dealing with a situation far more complex than a simple clerical error. What we’re talking about here is potentially the circumvention of due process, a deliberate act of, shall we say, “creative” legal maneuvering. And the consequences could be significant.
The crux of the matter appears to be this: the indictment against James Comey, the former FBI director, may never have been properly presented to, or voted on by, a grand jury. Think about that for a moment. This isn’t just a minor oversight. It’s a fundamental breach of the legal process. The grand jury’s role is critical; they are supposed to review evidence and determine if there’s enough probable cause to move forward with charges. If that process was bypassed, or if the paperwork was intentionally manipulated, we’re talking about something far more serious than “botched paperwork.”
The question naturally arises: how did this happen? Was it incompetence, or something more sinister? Some suggest this was intentional, a deliberate effort to circumvent the grand jury and push through the indictment. Given the timing—the prosecutor taking the job and, shortly after, seemingly acting on direct instructions to prosecute—the suspicions are understandable. The speed with which things moved raises eyebrows. How could a new prosecutor, presumably needing time to familiarize herself with the case, reach an independent conclusion so quickly?
If this deliberate intent to deceive the grand jury is true, this isn’t just a “botch”; it’s a profound violation of the law. This is a very serious issue, and the ramifications could be severe. The charges against Comey could be dismissed, potentially with prejudice, meaning they could not be brought again. This could not only undermine the case itself, but potentially open a window of civil suits for Comey as well.
It’s a stark reminder of the importance of due process, the importance of checks and balances within the legal system. It is meant to be a fair and just system. This is meant to protect individuals from overreach and ensure that the government doesn’t have unchecked power. It seems that this was not done here, which should shock all involved in the legal proceedings.
The term “botched paperwork” seems like a massive understatement. If a forged indictment was submitted to the court, that’s not a clerical error. That’s fraud. A fraudulent attempt to indict a political rival. The fact that this could happen, and that it potentially went unnoticed for a time, speaks volumes about the priorities and competence of the individuals involved. Some of the most interesting arguments come from the thought that this shows either staggering incompetence, or outright corruption. It is hard to know which of those is worse for the public.
This entire situation has the potential to shake public confidence in the integrity of the Justice Department and the fairness of the legal system. It makes you wonder how widespread these problems might be. It makes you wonder what else is happening behind the scenes that we don’t know about. And it serves as a wake-up call, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and a commitment to upholding the rule of law. It should also be noted that with the statute of limitations in play, even if the charges are dismissed, the administration will still be in a bad position.
The potential for this to result in double jeopardy is fascinating. It’s almost comical how the best hope for the survival of democracy rests on the ineptitude of some who seem hell bent on destroying it. The media has a duty to reflect the truth, even if it is not popular. This includes calling out corruption and illegal activities from the current government and making sure the public understands exactly what is happening in this case.
This case is a cautionary tale, a lesson in the dangers of politicizing the legal system. It’s also a demonstration of how a lack of competence can undermine even the most corrupt intentions. It’s a mess, to be blunt, and it all revolves around the possibility that James Comey may never have been properly indicted.