🧵United States v. Comey
NEW filing by US Attorney Halligan clarifies that "the foreperson of the grand jury 'reported that 12 or more grand jurors did not concur in finding an indictment' as to proposed 'Count 1 only,'" but did concur on Counts 2 & 3.
So she made an edit.
The 3-count indictment was edited into a 2-count indictment, numbers adjusted, and the foreperson signed the new one.
"Fed. R. Crim. P. [] Rule 6 simply does not require a successive-voting procedure where there is a mixed return from the grand jury on a multi-count indictment."
"Thus... the grand jury here “pass[ed] on the actual terms of [the] indictment,” consistent with Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."
And dismissal is not warranted.
"Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent addressing changes to indictments also support the argument that nothing improper occurred in this case."
Well, the way Halligan explains it here in this 7-page filing goes a long way towards recovering the situation she is in with this case as concerns the grand jury proceeding that led to the indictment against Comey.
And this explanation may resolve one (out of eleven) findings from Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick's Order on disclosure of grand jury materials.
It will be very interesting to read the defense's perspective on it and what Judge Nachmanoff decides.
This case does not lack for drama, LOL.
It's a lot of fun to follow.
: )
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.