Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Alibaba (BABA)
No. of Recommendations: 18
The clearest way to understand the extraordinary nature of the indictment on Thursday of James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, is to offer up a simple recitation of the facts.
An inexperienced prosecutor loyal to President Trump, in the job for less than a week, filed criminal charges against one of her boss’s most-reviled opponents. She did so not only at Mr. Trump’s direct command, but also against the urging of both her own subordinates and her predecessor, who had just been fired for raising concerns that there was insufficient evidence to indict.
——New York Times
No. of Recommendations: 1
...who had just been fired for raising concerns that there was insufficient evidence to indict.
And yet, the Grand Jury issued an indictment. And in pretty short time too.
The Google net sifter:
Donald Trump demanded that his Justice Department prosecute James Comey on September 22, 2025. A grand jury in Virginia then issued an indictment on September 25, 2025, just three days later.
Details of the indictment and timeline:
Trump's demand: On September 22, Trump called on his Department of Justice to act "now" to prosecute Comey and other political adversaries. This was issued on his social media platform, Truth Social.
Indictment issued: The federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted Comey on two felony counts on September 25. The charges were making false statements to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.
Statute of limitations: The indictment was filed just days before the five-year statute of limitations was set to expire for Comey's September 30, 2020, testimony that was the focus of the charges.
Controversy: The speed of the indictment following Trump's public pressure raised concerns about political interference in the Justice Department. The case was reportedly advanced by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump appointee with no prior prosecutorial experience, who overruled career prosecutors who had found insufficient evidence.
I could be pretty confident that the DOJ has a brief compiled. But, seems that Grand Juries can take weeks, months, before making a decision on an indictment. Three days? If the case was as weak as the others in the prosecutor's office had believed, what would have happened if the Grand Jury had refused to issue an indictment? The speed that the Grand Jury acted, would indicate an open and shut case.
Something is hinky
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 0
A grand jury only hears the prosecution's side of the argument.
Reporting is that Lindsey Halligan went in by herself, apparently nobody else in her office wanted to touch it. More resignations are expected.
No. of Recommendations: 4
I would put my money on the presentation to the grand jury being the hinky part of this process.
Before Trumplethinskin, prosecutors were held to the standard that in addition to getting an indictment, they also had to be confident that they could get a conviction that would be upheld on appeal.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-f...
JM 9-27.220 sets forth the longstanding threshold requirement from the Principles of Federal Prosecution that a prosecutor may commence or recommend federal prosecution only if he/she believes that the person will more likely than not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by an unbiased trier of fact and that the conviction will be upheld on appeal. I think that has effectively been thrown out like so much of the Constitution by the Pedophile in Chief and the complicit Congress.
No. of Recommendations: 18
The speed that the Grand Jury acted, would indicate an open and shut case.
No, it doesn't.
It is beyond easy to get an indictment from a grand jury. All the presumptions, and all the procedural rules, lean in favor of the prosecution. That's why the other thread has the "ham sandwich" in it - a reference to the old adage that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, if he was so inclined.
The grand jury is not there to decide the merits of a case. Only to determine if there's sufficient probable cause.
Actually, what's probably more indicative of the weakness of the case is that the DOJ failed to get an indictment on one of the three counts they brought forward. Again, given how easy it is to get indictments from a grand jury, that's not the sign of a strong case.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The speed that the Grand Jury acted, would indicate an open and shut case.
Something is hinky
Indeed. I'm sure there's no possibility at all that Halligan's team presented facts in dubious ways that favored the strength of the evidence. <sarcasm>
No. of Recommendations: 0
The grand jury is not there to decide the merits of a case. Only to determine if there's sufficient probable cause.
My interpretation of what the previous prosecutor was saying was they didn't have probable cause.
But then, I don't even play a lawyer on TV.
So, why do I hear about Grand Juries that work on a case for substantially longer periods?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 6
If the case was as weak as the others in the prosecutor's office had believed, what would have happened if the Grand Jury had refused to issue an indictment? The speed that the Grand Jury acted, would indicate an open and shut case.
Prosecutor to Grand Jury:
Here’s our evidence. But we’re on a timeline. The statute of limitations runs out in four days and the president is very eager to prosecute this case. He’s already fired one prosecutor and has promised to make life difficult for anyone who stands in the way. Anyway-a true bill from you isn’t a conviction. You can let a jury sort it out.
Highly irregular?
What about this case is “regular”?
No. of Recommendations: 6
So, why do I hear about Grand Juries that work on a case for substantially longer periods?
Grand juries serve different functions.
Grand juries are sometimes used to investigate crimes. The grand jury has the power to issue subpoenas, take witness testimony, consider additional evidence, and serve as an investigative arm to determine whether (and by whom) a crime has been committed. Some grand juries are empaneled to investigate either an entire criminal enterprise or even a particular category of crimes (say, investigating and organized crime family or the drug trade down by the docks), where they are expected to deal with many different interrelated cases that result in multiple criminal proceedings. Those processes can take some amount of time.
But grand juries are also just there to review and authorize indictments (including all felony indictments) that the prosecutor's office want to bring. There's always at least one grand jury empaneled that a prosecutor can run to when they need an indictment issued. That role can (and does) happen very quickly - it's just the prosecutor going into the jury with their case file and asking for an indictment.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Something is hinky
MAGA "not grand" jury would convict anyone/anything Spankee told them to do.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Grand juries serve different functions.
Thanks for the clarification. Of course, that invites the question, why bother with a Grand Jury, if there is nothing to investigate, but only a rubber stamp to be applied to the prosecutor's presentation?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 8
Of course, that invites the question, why bother with a Grand Jury, if there is nothing to investigate, but only a rubber stamp to be applied to the prosecutor's presentation?
There's a short and a long answer. Short answer - it's required under the Constitution. All federal felony indictments have to go through a grand jury. Many state indictments also have to be issued by a grand jury. The prosecutors don't have the option to just issue an indictment on their own, even for the strongest cases.
Long answer - the grand jury historically served the important purpose of serving as a check against the rather immense power of the state in choosing whether to prosecute someone. The Founders recognize that the power to even begin a criminal case was really significant. So in the same way they required that a jury of one's peers be necessary in order to convict someone, they required that a jury sign off on the indictment phase as well. This was intended to be a material check by the People against the power of the State.
In practice, that check has been eroded over time. Citizens are generally inclined to give prosecutors a lot of deference and trust, moreso than during the immediate post-colonial days. That's largely because the nature of prosecutors has changed. We switched from appointed to elected prosecutors in most states during the mid-1800's, which created additional checks for the People on prosecutorial power. The development of the professional and apolitical prosecutor's office has also materially reduced concern about abuse of this power. There's now an enormous cultural presumption among the citizenry that when the prosecutor is presenting a case for an indictment, they've got a reason for doing it.
Grand juries still serve as a check against that power from time to time. The "sandwich assault" case got rejected by the grand jury it was presented to, and even in the Comey prosecution the grand jury rejected one of the charges. So it's not 100% a rubber stamp. And obviously, if the public starts to perceive that prosecutors are bringing cases for reasons other than a professional assessment that a probable crime has been committed by the suspect, we may start to see more charges rejected.
No. of Recommendations: 1
And obviously, if the public starts to perceive that prosecutors are bringing cases for reasons other than a professional assessment that a probable crime has been committed by the suspect, we may start to see more charges rejected.
That is what the ex-prosecutor on Amanpour last night was warning about: the loss of credibility by the DOJ, from pursuing Trump's political revenge cases. Then what? Take a page from Bush #43's book, and tag everyone as an "enemy combatant", to get around Constitutional guarantees? The Bush junta held Jose Padilla, a US citizen and a civilian, arrested in the US, in a military prison, for about thee and a half years, before transferring him to a civilian prison and filing charges against him. Padilla was an unsavory character, but, if they can do it to him, they can do it to any of us.
Steve
