By Matt Underwood The recent ruling by a judge ordering the Department of Justice (DOJ) to hand over grand jury materials to James Comey is a significant development, raising serious questions about the integrity of the prosecution’s case. The judge’s decision, underpinned by a “disturbing pattern” of conduct, underscores deep concerns about the way the DOJ handled the investigation and the presentation of evidence to the grand jury. It’s a situation that has many people, including those following this situation closely, questioning the motives and the competence of those involved.
The judge specifically cited two statements made by the prosecutor to the grand jurors as particularly troubling. These statements, according to the judge, amounted to “fundamental misstatements of the law”. One of these misstatements implied that Comey didn’t have the right to refuse to testify under the Fifth Amendment, thereby possibly leading grand jurors to believe that Comey, and not the government, bore the burden of proving his innocence. The second comment, as described by the judge, suggested that the grand jurors shouldn’t rely on the evidence before them, hinting at the existence of other, potentially more compelling evidence that would be presented later at trial. It’s safe to say the judge didn’t pull any punches; in essence, it looks like the prosecution was accused of misleading the grand jury.
Adding to the complexity of the situation is the revelation that the prosecution may have improperly handled evidence, including potentially privileged communications seized from Comey’s attorney. This evidence was gathered five years prior in a separate, closed investigation. Moreover, the judge highlighted that the grand jury only found probable cause on two out of the three initial charges. The prosecutor then reportedly prepared a second indictment with only two counts, which wasn’t actually presented to the grand jury for deliberation. This creates a procedural tangle and raises the specter of potentially fabricated evidence.
The timeline of events further deepens the suspicion. The time between the prosecutor learning that the grand jury had rejected a count and the presentation of the second indictment in court seemed impossibly short, raising questions about whether the grand jury actually reviewed and approved the final indictment. If the proper procedures weren’t followed, it would put the case in a legal gray area where the indictment presented in court was not the same document the grand jury deliberated on.
The implications of this ruling are far-reaching. If the judge’s concerns are substantiated, the case could be dismissed, potentially with prejudice, meaning it can’t be brought up again. This highlights the dangers of using loyalty over competence. It also feeds into concerns about the potential politicization of the justice system and the use of prosecutorial power to target political opponents, as those familiar with the legal processes have observed and noted.
The judge’s order for the DOJ to turn over grand jury materials to Comey appears to be a direct response to a pattern of alleged misconduct. The judge’s actions, and the rationale behind them, suggest a serious re-evaluation of the investigation is needed. This ruling isn’t just about Comey; it’s about the fairness and integrity of the legal system itself.