Behind the Comey Indictment: What the Law Says and What We Don’t Know

1. 85

   Sharlee01posted 2 months ago

   James Comey Indictment: Legal Perspectives
   
   On September 25, 2025, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury on two felony charges of making false statements and obstruction related to his 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The indictment alleges that Comey denied authorizing anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source for the media, despite evidence suggesting otherwise. If convicted, Comey faces up to five years in prison
   
   Legal Analysis: Strengths and Weaknesses
   
   Strengths of the Prosecution:
   
   Grand Jury Indictment: The indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicating that there was sufficient evidence to charge Comey with the alleged offenses. Interestingly, the grand jury reportedly convened on September 24 and returned the charges the very next day. While unusual, this one-day session to see the evidence could suggest that prosecutors had prepared a strong case, and that there may be additional evidence not publicly disclosed.
   
   Specific Allegations: The charges are specific, citing Comey's statements under oath during his 2020 testimony, which the prosecution contends were false and obstructed the congressional investigation.
   
   Weaknesses and Challenges:
   
   Lack of Direct Evidence in Public: The indictment does not provide direct evidence that Comey authorized the leaks, relying instead on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of others.
   
   Potential for Legal Defenses: Comey’s legal team may argue that his statements were truthful, that he did not have the authority to authorize leaks, or that the charges are politically motivated.
   
   Previous Investigations: An earlier investigation by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General found that Comey violated FBI policies by retaining and sharing memos but did not find evidence of criminal conduct.
   
   Possibility of Undisclosed Evidence -- The Comey Case: Grand Jury Action and Potential Evidence We Haven’t Seen
   
   While the public indictment lacks certain details, it is very possible the prosecution possesses additional evidence that has not been disclosed. This could include classified documents, witness testimony, or other materials that strengthen the case against Comey. The rapid ONE-DAY grand jury session to review and return charges is seen as unusual, but one might surmise that the evidence presented was compelling enough for the grand jury to act quickly.
   
   The legal case against James Comey presents both strengths and weaknesses. While the grand jury’s swift decision to indict suggests some level of evidence, the lack of direct public proof and the potential for robust legal defenses may complicate the prosecution’s efforts. The possibility of undisclosed evidence could tip the scales, but until such information is made public, the ultimate outcome remains uncertain.
   
   Response from Comey: In a video posted to social media, Comey declared his innocence and vowed to fight the charges, stating, "I'm not afraid". His arraignment is scheduled for October 9, 2025.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Willowarborposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "While the grand jury’s swift decision to indict suggests some level of evidence,..."
      
      Why would that be the conclusion? A point that you left out is only 14 of 23 jurors thought there was enough to indict  (on two of the three counts) after hearing a one-sided presentation.   Not promising for unanimous verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt after vigorous defense at trial....
      
      Looks like it's off to a hilariously great start
      
      
      The case won’t likely even make it to a jury. The judge will grant a motion to acquit for lack of evidence.
      This was just a distraction from the Epstein files
      
      Whoever eventually goes in front of a judge with this BS is going to be completely excoriated and probably deserves sanctions.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         My Esotericposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

         That is a very good point! I didn't realize that the grand jury almost did not indict - as you said, that shows just how weak Trump's case is.
         
         As the saying goes, a half decent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich - and here that dolt Trump put in could even get one of the charges though.
         
         This is going to be fun watching Comey and James make mincemeat of Trump and Bondi.

         replyreport
   2. 67

      TheShadowSpecterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      What bewilders me, Sharlee01, is how James Comey was able to hold on to his security clearance after President Trump fired him from his position as FBI Director.  It's as though Comey knew how to slip under everyone's radar, even the presisdent's.  In any event, Comey has gotten away with enough crap.  I hope he gets assigned T.S. Ellis III as his judge in his Federal criminal trial.  T.S. Ellis III has a reputation of being the toughest Federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, and he has made it known how much he hates it whenever FBI officials lie, especially under oath.  Comey is sure to get the maximum sentence if he gets tried in T.S. Ellis III's courtroom.  Comey will be crying throughout the entire courtroom proceedings.  It'll go down in history as the first time that a former FBI Director has ever had to serve time behind bars for his crimes.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Sharlee01posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

         I get what you mean about accountability. T.S. Ellis III is known for being a tough, no-nonsense judge who doesn’t tolerate dishonesty, so if Comey ever faced trial in his courtroom, it would definitely be a serious and high-profile situation. It would certainly be historic to see a former FBI Director held fully accountable.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            My Esotericposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            Should we hold Trump fully accountable first? Comey didn't incite an insurrection did he, but Trump did and you seem willing to let him off the hook.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               Trump HAS been held accountible...for telling peaceful demonstrators to continue to be peaceful and talk to their legislator.
               
               You call that "insurrection" but whatever the label, he was held accountable and paid the appropriate punishment.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  TheShadowSpecterposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Agreed.

                  replyreport
               2. 85

                  My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  So you are still one of the ones who refuses to believe their eyes and label what Trump did a peaceful protest?  To each his own, I suppose.
                  
                  Only 19% of "pure" independents see it your way. 48% are certain it was an insurrection and 33% aren't sure yet.

                  replyreport
         2. 67

            TheShadowSpecterposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Sharlee01?  Even if I were a diehard Democrat, I'd still want James Comey to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of thelaw.  He's symbolic of some of the most powerful people from the FBI, current and former, who have harmed innocent individuals.  He deserves to go to prison.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               Which innocent people did he harm?
               
               I suppose you could say he harmed ALL Americans because his last minute revelation of another line of inquiry on Clinton had a lot to do with Trump getting elected and taking America down with his corruption as president.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  TheShadowSpecterposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  The answer to your question is plain and simple.  Comey fell short of his call of duty to the American people by lying under oath during the Cross Hurricane hearings on the taxpayers' dime.  Now he has to face the music for it.  Federal prosecutors usually have a very high success rate at securing convictions, even against big shots like Comey.  If Comey weasels out of this one, he'll be extremely lucky if he does so.

                  replyreport
            2. 85

               Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               Jason,   I completely agree with this. From everything I’ve seen, James Comey crossed serious lines during his time leading the FBI, and accountability shouldn’t depend on political party. The Justice Department’s own Inspector General report from 2019 found that Comey violated FBI policy by leaking memos containing SENSITIVE government information, something that would have landed most federal employees in deep trouble. Beyond that, the way the FBI handled FISA warrants against Carter Page and the broader Russia investigation showed a complete disregard for fairness and transparency. Even people who aren’t Trump supporters should be able to recognize how dangerous it is when those in power bend the rules to target others. I think prosecution is the only way to restore trust in the system and prove that no one, not even former FBI directors, is above the law. He will have his day in court, and I, for one, hope to get answers.
               
               source on sensitive information---
               https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/29/politics … 20Politics

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  The DOJ had "twice looked into Comey's alleged leaks during Trump's first term and declined to prosecute." A more recent "monthslong investigation earlier this year also reportedly failed to establish probable cause."
                  
                  Even "the acting U.S. Attorney in Virginia appointed by Trump apparently refused to prosecute," which was the basis Of trump's rage post to Pam.... There's no case here.
                  
                  Interesting how the same case gets reopened despite multiple investigations finding nothing. Political vendettas masquerading as justice...

                  replyreport
      2. 85

         My Esotericposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

         He didn't. My money is on Comey and James making Bondi and Trump look like the fools that they are.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            TheShadowSpecterposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            But, see, if you watch a number of the videos on YouTube of the Cross Hurricane hearings, you'll see how corrupt the FBI has been for a long time and that James Comey was an instrumental part of that same corruption.  Sibel Edmonds and Coleen Rowley could both tell you that the FBI higher-ups are anything but honest.  Those two women were good, loyal employees of the FBI, and the FBI higher-ups destroyed their lives and threw them under the bus.  Robert S. Mueller III even promised Ms. Rowley that he would protect her from harm after she submitted her bombshell memorandum to him about how the FBI higher-ups mishandled 911 back when he was the FBI Director.  Anyone who has worked for the FBI in their situation can tell you that the FBI is nothing like the glamorous image that television shows and Hollywood have given it through the years.

            replyreport
   3. 85

      My Esotericposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      It is going to be a hoot watching Comey rip Trump apart in the political witch hunt. Now Leticia James will do the same.

      replyreport
   4. 81

      peterstreepposted 11 days agoin reply to this

      Now, what was it all good for?
      Nothing, absolutely nothing.

      replyreport
2. 85

   Sharlee01posted 2 months ago

   It’s very likely that if the court sets bail, James Comey would be required to pay it—or more likely, have it posted through a surety or bond- before being released pending trial. Here’s the breakdown:
   
   Federal Practice: In federal felony cases, defendants are usually offered release on conditions such as posting bail, surrendering passports, or following travel restrictions, unless the court finds they are a flight risk or danger to the community.
   
   James Comey is facing two felony charges—making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding—but these are nonviolent offenses. By law, he could be taken into custody, but given his high-profile status, strong community ties, and lack of any flight risk, it’s highly unlikely. Most likely, the court will allow pretrial release with conditions, which could include posting bail, travel restrictions, and check-ins. If bail is required, he would either pay it or post a bond. This is standard procedure for federal cases like his.
   
   As of now, there is no publicly available mug shot of former FBI Director James Comey following his indictment on September 25, 2025. Reports indicate that Comey voluntarily surrendered to authorities, and while a booking photo may have been taken, it has not been released to the public.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      My Esotericposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      There are no mug shots because Comey wasn't booked like Trump was.

      replyreport
3. 57

   Willowarborposted 8 weeks ago

   Lol, this case is a house of cards and it's going to fall fast...

   replyreport
4. 57

   Willowarborposted 8 weeks ago

   In court filing, James Comey argues the Justice Dept has turned over only a single page of discovery records in his case
   
   Comey is filing motion to dismiss by Oct 20 and is seeking court order for document production by feds...
   
   Well this is unraveling quickly.
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 85

      My Esotericposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      It is only going to get worse for those incompetent fools in DOIJ.

      replyreport
5. 57

   Willowarborposted 7 weeks ago

   Dear MAGA,
   The James Comey case will collapse and when it does, you’ll cry “activist judge” instead of admitting the truth.
   
   This is what fascism looks like.
   
   Even trump’s own U.S. attorney in 2025 refused to prosecute Comey, saying there wasn’t even probable cause, let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
   
   Now Trump has installed his former personal lawyer, Lindsey Halligan, to drag his political enemies into court. That’s not justice that’s weaponized prosecution....

   replyreport
   1. 67

      TheShadowSpecterposted 3 days agoin reply to this

      This is what fascism looks like?  James Comey is the biggest fascist there is.  He's another one of those FBI freaks who got booted out of his position as the FBI director for malfeasance.  I couldn't see anyone with a brain hiring him even to walk their dog at this point in time.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         My Esotericposted 3 days agoin reply to this

         ROFL. Thanks for the sarcasm.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            TheShadowSpecterposted 3 days agoin reply to this

            I'm actually serious.  I'm sick and tired of the lower-level FBI employees being treated so horribly while the big shots in the FBI practically can get away with murder.  What the FBI higher-ups did to Coleen Rowley and Sibel Edmunds was disgraceful.  They took most of Coleen Rowley's retirement away and they wrongfully terminated Sibel Edmunds merely because these women did the right thing and reported corruption within the agency.  It makes absolutely no sense to me that James Comey got to keep his security clearance after he was fired from the FBI.  I know I sound angry, but I've known a lot of people who have worked for the FBI and they have told me some horror stories about how the lower-level employees get treated so despicably while the big shots get away with everything and are coddled by the system even when they get fired.  It's mind-boggling.
            
            If Donald J. Trump had never been president, there would likely still have been bad things coming out about James Comey.  And he probably still would have been fired under a Democratic presidential administration.  It just would have taken a little longer to happen probably, but it would have happened.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               My Esotericposted 3 days agoin reply to this

               I didn't know anything about the women you brought up so I looked them, and Comey up.
               
               First, let me say you have a right to be angry, especially regarding Edmunds - she got royally screwed by the FBI and the Bush administration. But anger toward Comey may be misplaced.
               
               Apparently, their paths never crossed and he wasn't involved with anything to do with their whistleblowing.
               
               Rowley retired with full pension. Edmunds, on the other hand, was not rehired nor did she get any back pay. She filed civilly but the Bush DOJ claimed "state secrets" and her suit was dropped. No good deed goes unpunished.
               
               While crap like that happened at the FBI then, I don't think it comes close to the purge taking place in the FBI today.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  TheShadowSpecterposted 2 days agoin reply to this

                  Thank you, My Esoteric.  I do recall watching a video on YouTube in which someone interviewed Coleen Rowley, and it was revealed that she lost some of her retirement as a consequence of her whistleblowing despite that Robert S. Mueller, Jr. promised to protect her from harm in the agency throughout his tenure as the FBI Director.  She left the FBI without confronting the same indignities that Sibel Edmonds suffered, but she didn't get out of that agency completely unscathed and she did not deserve to lose any of her retirement as she did.
                  
                  Throughout the years I have learned about so many corrupt things happening among FBI higher-ups from my conversations with FBI employees.  And you're right about George W. Bush.  In passing the Patriot Act, he gave the FBI way too much power and authority to intervene in the lives of innocent people and invade their privacy.  It was not a good move on Bush's part.  He and his father were never the brightest bulbs in the bunch.  Thanks to him, our nation continues to be deep in debt to the People's Republic of China to this very day.  How he ever got into office in the first place is beyond my comprehension.  Conservative Republicans don't even like him.
                  
                  What was so outrageous about the case of Sibel *Edmonds is that even though she won her civil action, the FBI got it overturned on appeal somehow.  (*Note - I apologize for mispelling her surname in my last post.)   She put so much time, effort, and money into it, and she was the one who was in the right whereas the FBI was the one that was in the wrong.
                  
                  It has been a long time since the FBI had a good director running the show with that agency.  When Christopher Wray was at the helm, the FBI denied the female victims of Larry Nassar female FBI agents to interview them and the FBI sat on the case for a long time.  Then again, at least Mr. Wray had the decency to apologize to these victims.  No other FBI director that I know of has ever apologized for any mistake they have made.
                  
                  Like the previous FBI directors, there were so many things that stunk to high heaven about James Comey.  He left a very bad impression upon me after I saw him testify in the Cross Hurricane hearings on Capitol Hill.  Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein were very disgusted with him after he lied under oath.
                  
                  If the criminal charges against Comey that were dismissed without prejudice get refiled and he manages to weasel out of them once again this time, it won't surprise me in the least inasmuch as so many FBI higher-ups have gotten away with so many bad things and have never been punished for them.
                  
                  I recently found out that President Bill Clinton fired former FBI Director William S. Sessions in 1993.  It doesn't surprise me in the least, because former FBI Director Sessions was no asset to the American people.  Louie J. Freeh didn't make a very good replacement for him either.  I may not be a big fan of the Clintons, but I do have to give credit where credit is due; and President Clinton made the right choice in firing Mr. Sessions from the FBI.
                  
                  Whether Kash Patel can reform the FBI remains to be seen.  I was initially impressed with him when I first heard about him.  However, he is taking on a whale of an institution with way too many problems to tackle within a reasonable period of time.  The FBI higher-ups that he is presiding over are very vindictive; and every day that he deals with him, his life will be in danger.
                  
                  The FBI is an institution taht has been rotting from within for decades, and FBI directors have allowed it insofar as they have turned a blind eye to it all.  If Comey goes to prison for a long, long time, he will not be getting any pity parties from me.

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     TheShadowSpecterposted 31 hours agoin reply to this

                     "Whether Kash Patel can reform the FBI remains to be seen.  I was initially impressed with him when I first heard about him.  However, he is taking on a whale of an institution with way too many problems to tackle within a reasonable period of time.  The FBI higher-ups that he is presiding over are very vindictive; and every day that he deals with him, his life will be in danger."
                     
                     Sorry.  I meant to say, "The FBI higher-ups that he is presiding over are very vindictive; and every day that he deals with THEM, his life is in danger."
                     
                     In the next paragraph, I spelled "that" as "taht."  It was late last night when I posted the above response, and I was tired.  Typos get me when I least expect.

                     replyreport
6. 85

   My Esotericposted 7 weeks ago

   Doesn't it just BLOW your mind that an intelligent person can call, with a straight face, the ransacking and destruction of our Capitol with people threatening to KILL congress people and hang the vice president "peaceful" That is proof positive that person lives in an alternate reality.

   replyreport
7. 85

   My Esotericposted 4 weeks ago

   It seems to me that DOIJ is proving Comey's contention for him that he is being vindictively prosecuted in their filing to the judge.
   
   “None of the President’s social-media posts express a desire for the defendant to be penalized for exercising his First Amendment rights. Far from it,” they continued. “The President’s social-media posts are clear on why he thinks the defendant should be prosecuted: he thinks the defendant is ‘guilty as hell.’”
   
   ROFL,
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/03/politics … itia-james

   replyreport
8. 68

   IslandBitesposted 2 weeks ago

   DOJ admits not all grand jury members saw the final version of the indictment against James Comey
   
   The Justice Department admitted on Wednesday that not every member of the grand jury in former FBI Director James Comey’s case saw the final version of the indictment, an error that could get the case thrown out.
   
   The rare admission of fault from the administration came toward the end of a hearing on Comey's arguments that the case should be dismissed because he's the victim of a "selective and vindictive" prosecution.
   
   U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff pressed prosecutor Tyler Lemons on concerns about information that had been raised by two other judges about information that appeared to be missing from the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings in the case.
   
   The concerns centered on two separate indictments that been drafted — the first, which showed the grand jury had indicted Comey on two of three counts, and a second that had just the two counts.
   
   Lemons acknowledged that a grand jury coordinator had "edited" the first indictment, which was then signed by acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan.
   
   “The second indictment is a document that was never shown to the entire grand jury?” Nachmanoff asked. “Yes, that is my understanding,” Lemons responded.
   
   The judge then briefly questioned Halligan, a former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump with no prior prosecutorial experience.
   
   Halligan — who presented the case to the grand jury on her own just days after being appointed — said the foreperson and one other grand juror were with her when she presented the second indictment to a magistrate judge.
   
   The indictment was signed by the foreperson, but not reviewed by the entire grand jury, as the first one was, Halligan said.
   
   Nachmanoff also pressed Lemons on whether attorneys in Halligan's office had sent her a memo advising against charging Comey because of a lack of sufficient evidence to prove the case. NBC News and other news outlets have reported on the existence of a “declination memo,” but Comey's attorneys said they don't have proof of the document.
   
   Lemons repeatedly tried dodging the judge's questions on the issue.
   
   “At this point, my posture would be whether one existed would be privileged,” the prosecutor said.
   
   Nachmanoff said he’d been looking for a yes or no response, and asked Lemons if he was “not permitted by someone to answer.”
   
   Lemons eventually said he’d been directed by the deputy attorney general’s office to keep privileged information close to the vest. He acknowledged to the judge that there had been a memo from the prosecution team and he had reviewed it, but did not go into detail.
   
   
   
   What a circus!

   replyreport
   1. 85

      My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      My smile is beginning to hurt my face, it is so broad, ROFL.
      
      Trump and his lacky's Bondi and whoever the other idiot is are toast.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         peterstreepposted 11 days agoin reply to this

         Yes Trump is toast. Over and done with. Good for the history books.
         But basically because he ruined a good working economy with his tariff plan (which he profited from. As the deals with nations needs his approval.. That's pure extortion. airplanes, crypto currency and personal family deals.)
         People don't vote for a `person who is holding a Gatsby dinner while others live on foodstamps.
         Toast.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            My Esotericposted 11 days agoin reply to this

            So, what is the everyday European feeling about America and felon who is leading it  Are they feeling sorry for us that didn't vote for him?

            replyreport
            1. 81

               peterstreepposted 9 days agoin reply to this

               Simply. Trump can not be trusted. It's most clearly shown in his behavior towards Ukraine. Trump is owned by Putin. And sure as hell Putin has personal stuff about Trump that he can throw in the public domain any time. That's why Trump does what Putin says. With Ukraine he is stalling and stalling to give Putin what he wants. Europe can not trust Trump as he is siding with Russia.
               But for Europe it's, if Ukraine falls, which country is next. Drones are attacking European airports and ships. They are flying over Polish territory all the time.
               
               The tariffs where felt as backstabbing. And now Trump also threatened and is bulling the BBC into submission. The BBC once a independent news outlet has fallen and submitted into being a Trump bum-licker.
               Trump shows dictatorial tendencies by not allowing a free press to say whatever they want to say.
               Trump is strangling free speech by threatening with law suits.
               
               In short, Trump is seen as a president who is monetizing the presidency and who only thinks about himself. As long as you can personally do some bum licking (giving a private jet or crypto currency) everything is fine... He is the most corrupt president of the US in modern politics.
               
               Trump thinks in personal business deals, not in geopolitical ideology. That's how he treats peace plans. the Gaza plan is a business plan, building new hotels and houses... He thinks in real estate not in human costs. Same as the plan he wanted to do with Russia.

               replyreport
9. 85

   My Esotericposted 11 days ago

   This is another chapter in the saga of the clown called Donald the felon" Trump.
   
   "Federal judge dismisses indictments against Letitia James and James Comey, saying Lindsey Halligan appointment was unlawful"
   
   ROFL
   
   Trump and is girl Bondi - what a pair.
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics … -dismissed

   replyreport
10. 85

    Sharlee01posted 11 days ago

    I think it is very important to post the facts -- What the Ruling Actually Says
    
    Unlawful Appointment: Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that Lindsey Halligan was not lawfully appointed as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
    The Washington Post
    
    All Actions Invalid: Because of that defective appointment, the judge said “all actions flowing from … Halligan’s defective appointment” — including the indictments of Comey and James — are “unlawful exercises of executive power” and must be set aside.
    
    The Washington Post
    
    Dismissal Without Prejudice: Crucially, the dismissals are without prejudice, meaning the DOJ might be able to bring the cases again, under a proper appointment.
    opb
    
    Statute of Limitations Risk: For Comey, there’s some question whether re‑filing is even possible: some reports suggest the statute of limitations may have expired.
    The Washington Post
    
    For Comey, statute of limitations may block re-prosecution, depending on exactly when the alleged crimes occurred and when the original indictment was filed.
    The Washington Post
    
    Just mt view ---  I believe that this kind of error—appointing someone who legally was not authorized to prosecute these cases, goes far beyond a simple slip-up at the DOJ and reflects poorly on AG Bondi.  From what I’ve read, Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia did not comply with federal law, specifically the statutes governing how interim U.S. Attorneys can be appointed. Such appointments are only valid for a limited period, and after that, Halligan’s appointment bypassed these requirements, meaning she did not have the legal authority to bring these indictments.
    
    The judge ruled that because of this defective appointment, all actions she took, including indictments against Comey and James, were unlawful exercises of executive power. This was not a question of the merits of the cases, but purely a procedural and legal issue: the prosecutor simply did not have the authority to act.
    
    The dismissals were done without prejudice, so technically the DOJ could attempt to refile under a properly appointed prosecutor, but they now face significant hurdles, including potential statute-of-limitations issues, political scrutiny, and the logistical challenge of restarting grand jury proceedings.
    
    To me, this situation highlights a serious breakdown in oversight at the DOJ. It’s not just a technicality; it calls into question the judgment and management of high-level appointments in politically sensitive cases. The fact that this error occurred reflects poorly on AG Bondi, who bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring that such appointments are legally sound.
    
    I can only wonder if the case will be appealed.

    replyreport
    1. 85

       My Esotericposted 11 days agoin reply to this

       Bondi didn't have a choice. Trump told her to appoint his real estate lawyer and she did. She simply doesn't have the courage, morals, or ethics to stand up to Trump. An honest person would have resigned that be forced to follow an illegal order from Trump.
       
       Trump's mouthpiece says he will direct DOIJ to appeal.
       
       The other, much more serious defense of politically motivated prosecution became moot when the charges were dismissed. But, if Trump is stupid enough to try again, then that defense will be resurrected and most legal experts think it will succeed based on Trump's own words and texts.

       replyreport
11. 85

    My Esotericposted 11 days ago

    This bears memorizing by Trump defenders.
    
    A Marquette University Law School poll last week showed Americans said by 16 points (58%-42%) that the cases against Trump’s foes were not justified. That’s even as they said by 10 points that the indictments against then-former President Trump were justified.

    replyreport
12. 85

    My Esotericposted 3 days ago

    Boy, those clown at DOIJ and the FBI are sure gluttons for punishment. It seems they are going to try again at a grand jury, one that has now seen this shit-show and understand what the prosecution is trying to do. Hopefully, they will have nothing to do with it.
    
    https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/01/politics … ames-comey

    replyreport