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
In a recent turn of events, former FBI Director James Comey is seeking dismissal of his criminal case, alleging vindictive prosecution driven by President Trump’s hostility. Comey’s legal team has filed motions in federal court, arguing the indictment is flawed, particularly citing the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan. Furthermore, Comey’s lawyers claim Halligan’s actions should be nullified due to her improper installation, violating federal law. The charges, related to Comey’s 2020 Senate testimony, were filed just before the statute of limitations expired, adding further complexity to the situation.
Read More
U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff denied the Justice Department’s motion for a protective order that would have limited James Comey’s access to discovery, citing that the proposal would hinder the defendant’s ability to prepare for trial. The judge’s decision reinforces his commitment to avoid delays in the case, as evidenced by the swift litigation schedule he set at Comey’s arraignment, including a January 5 trial date. This stance contrasts with the plans of the Trump-installed prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, who has secured a two-count indictment against Comey for allegedly lying to and obstructing Congress. Halligan recently secured an indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose prosecution Trump also called for.
Read More
In a recent ruling, a federal judge in Virginia denied the Justice Department’s request for extended discovery deadlines in the case against former FBI Director James Comey. The court ordered prosecutors to provide all discovery materials to the defense by October 13. This decision came after disagreements between the prosecution and defense regarding evidence sharing, with the judge emphasizing fairness and the need to keep the trial on schedule. The first round of motions is due on October 20, with a trial date set for January 5, 2026.
Read More
Donald Trump’s Truth Social message to Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging her to prosecute his political enemies without delay, was intended as a private communication but was inadvertently posted publicly. This message, sent just days before James Comey’s indictment, reveals the reshaped Department of Justice under Trump’s administration. Comey’s legal team is expected to argue the prosecution is vindictive based on Trump’s explicit direction, which could be a key factor in the case. Furthermore, the administration is targeting other Democratic officials and progressive groups.
Read More
The revelation of a message could create significant legal challenges for Trump and the DOJ, potentially providing grounds for James Comey and others to dismiss indictments. Comey’s attorney is reportedly exploring a dismissal based on “vindictive prosecution,” arguing the charges stem from animus rather than legitimate legal reasons. Even though motions for vindictive prosecution are uncommon, Comey’s case is strengthened by Trump’s public animosity. Further communications between Trump and DOJ officials could further demonstrate the prosecution’s vindictiveness.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker