Scylla And Charybdis

NEW: In a new filing, DOJ now claims that the two-count indictment against Jim Comey was shown to the full grand jury after all, despite this exchange between a DOJ lawyer and Judge Michael Nachmanoff: pic.twitter.com/Xsok4M2lpY

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) November 20, 2025

A statement made in open court by the DOJ attorney on November 19, 2025.

Today, DOJ says the transcript of the 9/25/25 proceedings before Magistrate Judge Lindsay Vaala, at which the indictment was returned, "conclusively refutes that claim and establishes that the grand jury voted on – and true-billed – the two-count indictment." pic.twitter.com/E1clfGMMj8

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) November 20, 2025

A statement made on 9/25/25. Which is not the testimony elicited from the same witness when she testified before Judge Nachmanoff. I don’t mean there’s perjury involved, I mean Nachmanoff established that the revised indictment was not voted on, it was just approved by the foreperson. So the assertion of the DOJ does not “conclusively refute” anything. 

The DOJ argument is Twitter brain level nonsense.

Absent access to the transcript (TBH, if I found it, would make me more tedious and obsessive), we have this summary of the last court hearing:*

2. After deliberations, the foreperson informed the EDVA grand jury coordinator that there were not enough votes to indict on Count 1 of the three-count indictment.

However, the entire document was then marked as though the GJ declined to return an indictment on all counts.

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) November 19, 2025

4. But that 2nd indictment was never presented to or voted on by the grand jury

Instead, the foreperson and Halligan signed it, and it was handed up in open court.

The result is that the operative indictment in the Comey case is one that the grand jury did not actually vote on.

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) November 19, 2025

"Did not actually vote on" is the operative problem with the indictment, the one that raises the jurisdictional issue the parties are now briefing.

That confused the magistrate because there seemed to be a facial discrepancy between the two documents handed up by the foreperson.

So, for the record, she had the foreperson pencil in an amendment to the grand jury’s no bill report, specifying that the no bill was to Count 1.

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) November 19, 2025

Today, the judge asked how many grand jurors were present when the second indictment was handed up (and when the amendment to the report re: the original was made).

AUSA Lemons said only the foreperson and one other grand juror were present when the docs were handed up. https://t.co/wO7NnuDGuI

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) November 19, 2025

Note that simple statement destroys the single line of testimony before the magistrate 2 months ago, that DOJ is now relying on. And the DOJ still has this problem:

 

In simpler terms, the GJ proceedings appear to have been so riddled with errors of law as to violate the 5th and 14th amendments. That has yet to be established, but the Court is going to allow Comey to investigate it. Because the record establishes that GJ proceedings were THAT FUCKED UP! Which was not the record on 9/25 (however out of context that quote was).

The DOJ’s utter incompetence in this case is stunning.

*I had forgotten: we have this, too.