Truncated in parts to make it easier to read:
Quote:
First... The judge was trying to rush the whole GJ information release to get around the DOJ appealing his ruling.
No doubt, it was very rushed! Moreso because likely pissed off about the perceived shenanigans from DOJ. The magistrate knows he can't prevent the appeal. Comey did get his wish of quick briefing schedule, which is appropriate given trial in 7 weeks.
Quote:
Second... Richman as Comey's council. I don't know why the DOJ didn't bring this up. They KNEW he was conflicted with Comey.
Did you mean Fitzgerald? Richman represented Comey in . Not in this case over the " leak classified/secret information to the press."
The "Fitzgerald conflict" is shaping up to be one of the tXitter lawyers v. actual lawyers on the case issues. DoJ would have long ago filed a motion to disqualify Fitzgerald if they thought there was any real conflict.
Quote:
Strike 1 & 2: This whole point seems shaky to me. The old evidence was lawfully seized years ago, so does Comey have the right to complain about a search on Richman's computer, it wasn't even his stuff. I'm guessing the prosecution has every right to look at evidence already in their possession? And here is where Richman as Comey's lawyer is causing issues. Richman can't be objective in defending Comey if SOL has not elapsed on all possible Artic Haze charges(Espionage Act?).
Richman is not defending him in this case. Prosecution does not have the right to use everything in their possession. That is the key fight here. Did DoJ used privileged communications in a separate grand jury investigation in this case? Its comes down to what the government had the right to
search versus the right to
seize. Quote:
Strike 3: The agent immediately reported that he might have seen something protected. The judge also admitted when he went over the GJ documents that he "...did not immediately recognize any overtly privileged communications..." The DOJ has been asking to set up a taint team to deal with this, but the judge sidestepped the whole taint team issue with just wanting to release it all to Comey.
That is a headscratcher for sure. (Even with the rest of the judge's explanation). On the taint team issue, its too late in terms of what was presented to the grand jury.
Quote:
Strike 4: Seems like to me the judge is speculating what the jurors thought. He is reading a transcript of the prosecutors comments during the GJ proceedings. "The prosecutor's statement that [REDACTED] may have reasonably set an expectation in the minds of the grand jurors..." Seems pretty speculative on the judges part.
Windy City Ag Strike 4 was "The government prosecutor (Lindsey Halligan) makes two statements to the jurors that are misleading, prejudicial, and fundamental misstatements of the law." These are enormous no-nos.
I get what you are saying, but that is the judge's job in this situation to "speculate". When a potentially improper statement is made to the grand jury, the court can't go back and poll them to ask "how did this make you feel?"
Quote:
Strike 5: Seems pretty meh to me. Seems like a minor paperwork issue or clerical issue? Does this really affect whether the indictments voted on by the GJ are valid? Seems like the judge is making a mountain out of a mole hill here.
With all due respect, and it's a lot because you are one of my favorite posters, you are way off on this. The "Strike 5" was "The prosecutors delivered multiple and competing indictments to the Magistrate judge. The second indictment was likely never presented to the Grand Jury based on the following…
This is an enormous issue if it is true the returned indictment is not she same as the charging document presented to the grand jury It does not per se mean something improper happen, but it certainly should make everyone raise an eyebrow that the facts even suggest that may have happened. It is definitely enough to warrant release of the grand jury materials under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii).
NOTE: None of this is to say the magistrate got it right. I have not read all the briefing, just his order.
I completely get the "if this was a republican, there would be no problem with any of this" position. There is plenty to suggest that may be the case.
But if what this judge is intimating happened did in fact happen, then this case should be dismissed. Halligan is completely incompetent to handle his job. I can't even blame her really, she was thrown into a job she was not qualified for and had zero experience in.
I'm Gipper
