Who’s getting indicted this week?

Bam, almost all of your telegram links are private channels. No one sees the shit you're sharing Originally Posted by HDGristle

Shhh... don't tell him

Admonished and curb kicked ..but allowed to go back and make a bigger asshole of herself. Almost all the good DOJ attorneys have been fired or quit. Judges are patient but they are not going to bend over backwards for an overly aggressive doj and their incompetent attorneys Originally Posted by eyecu2

The courts are the only line of defense left against this fascist fucking clown car

Comey will soon be walking away unscathed.

This is what happens when the dumbest president in US history fires all the competent lawyers and replaces them with loyalist airheads...

...trump's DOJ can't even indict a ham sandwich



https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...aring-11-19-25

...trump's DOJ can't even indict a ham sandwich



https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...aring-11-19-25 Originally Posted by jayzee43

Hmm... it seems the full grand jury DID approve the original indictment against Comey, except for one count. The revised indictment was not shown to the full grand jury, only to the foreman. Sloppy, but correctable.

"...prosecutors said that instead of presenting a new indictment to the grand jury after it declined to approve one of the counts, Halligan simply brought an altered version to the magistrate’s courtroom for the grand jury’s foreperson to sign."

It's crazy trump would want to indict Comey anyway. trump owes his entire first term to Comey (and Putin, of course).

Hmm... it seems the full grand jury DID approve the original indictment against Comey, except for one count. The revised indictment was not shown to the full grand jury, only to the foreman. Sloppy, but correctable.

"...prosecutors said that instead of presenting a new indictment to the grand jury after it declined to approve one of the counts, Halligan simply brought an altered version to the magistrate’s courtroom for the grand jury’s foreperson to sign." Originally Posted by lustylad

That ain't how it works. You either show your cards and get a yes or return back to go and start over. Do not collect 200 dollars. Plus there is testimony that Halligan stated that the jury didn't need to know the other evidence as it was within the bounds of the law and the DOJ was in possession of it. Also she misstated the laws that were being addressed for the jury to consider.

If you're getting arrested for speeding, it's a different statute than running the stop sign. Halligan doesn't know what the fuck she's doing - and this is going to be Comey walking away. Tish James will be next

That ain't how it works. You either show your cards and get a yes or return back to go and start over... Originally Posted by eyecu2

I'm not a lawyer and neither are you.

The original indictment had 3 counts. The grand jury agreed with 2 of them - making a false statement, and obstructing a Congressional proceeding. So why can't they go back and "get a yes" on a 2-count indictment without having to convene a whole new grand jury?

Another Democrat bites the dust


Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick from Florida has been indicted for allegedly stealing $5 million in FEMA funds and making illegal campaign contributions. The indictment claims she and her co-defendants misappropriated disaster relief funds intended for COVID-19 vaccination staffing to benefit her congressional campaign.
Go.com U.S. Department of Justice

If you're getting arrested for speeding, it's a different statute than running the stop sign. Halligan doesn't know what the fuck she's doing - and this is going to be Comey walking away. Tish James will be next Originally Posted by eyecu2

Yep. Same for Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and anyone else these incompetent losers have a beef with. These bogus "indictments" will be nothing more than a speed bump for all involved. This is what happens when you fire all the qualified people.

I'm not a lawyer and neither are you.

The original indictment had 3 counts. The grand jury agreed with 2 of them - making a false statement, and obstructing a Congressional proceeding. So why can't they go back and "get a yes" on a 2-count indictment without having to convene a whole new grand jury? Originally Posted by lustylad

Umm, because it's against the law?

A 1969 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that a full grand jury must consider an indictment for it to be considered valid.

Umm, because it's against the law?

A 1969 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that a full grand jury must consider an indictment for it to be considered valid. Originally Posted by jayzee43

So... all they need to do is reconvene the original grand jury and ask them to approve the (amended) 2-count indictment, right?

So... all they need to do is reconvene the original grand jury and ask them to approve the (amended) 2-count indictment, right? Originally Posted by lustylad

Apparently, yes. Why don't they?

So... all they need to do is reconvene the original grand jury and ask them to approve the (amended) 2-count indictment, right? Originally Posted by lustylad

There was a time for that... this isn't it. Halligan already has enough procedural issues to contend with without adding more.

Apparently, yes. Why don't they? Originally Posted by jayzee43

You said they broke the law. Make up your mind. Sounds like a technicality to me. But you keep trying to blow it out of proportion.

It would be helpful for all future hearings if there were real consequences for lying to Congress under oath.