By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge has criticized the Justice Department for “disturbing investigative missteps” in the case against former FBI Director James Comey, ordering prosecutors to provide all grand jury materials to defense lawyers. Judge William Fitzpatrick cited “fundamental misstatements of the law,” the use of potentially privileged communications, and unexplained irregularities in grand jury transcripts as reasons for concern. These issues raise questions about the integrity of the proceedings, prompting the judge’s unusually strong stance. The ruling comes amid other challenges to the indictment, including concerns over the appointment of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan.
Read the original article here
Judge scolds the Justice Department for “profound investigative missteps” in the Comey case, a situation that really makes you wonder about the quality of the team assembled here. It’s hard not to be struck by the sheer incompetence on display. The judge’s words, they really cut to the heart of the matter, pointing out “fundamental misstatements of the law,” the inappropriate use of potentially privileged communications, and some unexplained irregularities in the grand jury proceedings transcript. What really stands out is the disturbing pattern of “profound investigative missteps” that threatened to undermine the entire grand jury process. You have to ask yourself, how much is this going to cost the taxpayers? It feels like we’re just seeing a repeat of the same old song and dance.
The core issue here is that there was no real crime committed by either Comey or James. It just feels like a nakedly stupid weaponization of the justice system, and it makes you question the motives behind the whole charade. We’re talking about a legal process that seems to have been deliberately undermined. Honestly, a legal team made up of fictional characters like Lionel Hutz, Barry Zuckercorn, and Charlie Kelly would likely have presented a more competent case to the Grand Jury. The fact that the Judge highlighted these concerns, points to a deeper issue regarding the integrity of the process.
Let’s be clear: this whole thing smells fishy from the start. It looks like it was all about the headline, the initial indictment, and the intention to embarrass Comey. The administration’s apparent goal was to use the Department of Justice as a tool for retaliation. The goal was to tie him up in court, wasting resources and time on bogus charges. The ultimate outcome, it seems, wasn’t the goal. It was the initial news story, the public indictment of Comey that mattered.
The defense lawyers had sought the grand jury materials because they were concerned about the irregularities in the process. The prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury had no prior prosecutorial experience. It feels like they are not hiring the best people. If this is the best, what does that say about his other hires and his decision-making in general?
It seems like the investigation itself was riddled with problems. The charges, as it turns out, were based on a direct order. This doesn’t seem to be a real investigation at all, but rather, a political exercise. The entire thing seems to be built on an order from Trump, and the charges had no basis in evidence or law. This is nothing more than a smokescreen for larger issues.
The judge’s findings also include the use of potentially privileged communications in the investigation and unexplained irregularities in the transcript of the grand jury proceedings. And it should be noted that the person who reviewed Comey’s privileged communications with his lawyer was then the only witness to the grand jury. That is just not how it’s supposed to go.
The prosecutor apparently told the grand jury that they did not need to indict based on the evidence, because the government had better evidence for the trial. It sounds like they are working to secure an indictment through fraud/perjury, not evidence. It seems obvious that the goal wasn’t actually justice. It was always just about the theater of it all. It is disheartening to see how these people are behaving. They need to be disbarred.
In conclusion, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that this was a deeply flawed process, driven more by political motives than any commitment to justice. The Judge’s criticisms are a clear indicator of the investigative failings.