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 More
Judge in Comey case blocks order mandating DOJ hand over grand jury evidence, and this is where it all begins. It seems like the legal world is buzzing with activity, and it’s all centered around the case of former FBI Director James Comey. The story gets interesting as a federal judge has stepped in, putting a temporary hold on a previous order that would have required the Department of Justice (DOJ) to hand over a mountain of grand jury evidence to Comey’s legal team.
The Justice Department immediately requested the stay, and it was granted by U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff.… Continue reading
US Judge orders DOJ to turn over Comey grand jury materials, citing ‘misconduct’.
So, it seems a US judge has ordered the Department of Justice to hand over all the materials from the grand jury related to the case against James Comey. The reason? The judge has cited “misconduct,” which, honestly, is a pretty serious allegation. This is just the beginning of what sounds like a messy legal situation, and it’s got a lot of people talking.
Now, from what I gather, there are serious concerns about the way the prosecution handled this whole thing. Apparently, there are allegations of missing grand jury testimony – specifically, about two hours worth.… Continue reading
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.… Continue reading
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 More
AP News reports that a federal judge has ordered prosecutors to provide James Comey’s defense lawyers with a wealth of investigation materials, expressing concern that the Justice Department may have “indict[ed] first” and investigated later. The judge’s order includes grand jury materials and evidence seized through search warrants, following arguments that Comey’s lawyers lacked access to crucial information gathered during the investigation into FBI media leaks. Comey, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of lying to Congress, claims the prosecution is vindictive and politically motivated. Furthermore, the judge granted a request for a transcript of grand jury proceedings, signaling potential irregularities and legal errors in the case.
Read More
“Sandwich man” gets off: DC jury nullification in the age of Trump. So, let’s talk about this “Sandwich Man” situation. It’s been a whirlwind, hasn’t it? This whole story, it’s become a perfect encapsulation of the political climate. The main thing here, and it’s a crucial distinction, is whether this is truly a case of jury nullification. Jury nullification, as some folks are rightly pointing out, is when a jury essentially says, “We believe the defendant did it, but we’re not going to convict them because we disagree with the law or the way it’s being applied.” That’s a very specific thing.… Continue reading
Federal grand juries in Washington, D.C., are repeatedly refusing to indict cases brought by the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney, Jeanine Pirro, under the Trump administration’s “federal crime crackdown.” This trend is exemplified by the case of Nathalie Rose Jones, who was accused of threatening Trump online; the grand jury returned “no bill” despite the charges. This reflects the grand jury’s resistance to the cases, as they are unconvinced by the evidence. The grand jury’s refusals have been occurring in multiple other cases as well, creating a rare clash between federal authority and local jurors.
Read More
Nathalie Rose Jones, arrested in August for allegedly threatening President Trump online, had charges against her refused by a grand jury in Washington D.C., according to her attorney. Judge Jeb Boasberg released Jones from GPS monitoring after she was initially detained, disagreeing with prosecutors who argued she made violent threats. Jones allegedly posted threatening messages online, including a Facebook post and an email, leading to her arrest when she traveled to D.C. for a protest. The U.S. Attorney’s office criticized the grand jury’s decision, suggesting it was politically motivated, and noted difficulties in obtaining indictments in other cases.
Read More
Prosecutors Fail to Secure Indictment Against Man Who Threw Sandwich at Federal Agent.
The fact that prosecutors couldn’t get a grand jury to indict the man who threw a sandwich is, frankly, quite amusing. It completely upends the old saying about any good prosecutor being able to indict a ham sandwich. It’s a clear sign that something unusual happened, whether it was the jury’s strong disagreement with the charges or the prosecutors’ attempt to manufacture a case where one didn’t exist. The whole situation is just ripe with irony. It’s either a powerful statement from the jurors, a “screw you” to the prosecution, or a sign the prosecutors overreached, attempting to secure an indictment on a flimsy basis.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood