Thread by @realjusthuman

🧵United States v. Comey

Another filing from Halligan seeking to clarify the grand jury proceedings that have been the focus of scrutiny over recent days and really, since day one in this case—as the just-filed Transcript of Return of Grand Jury Indictment Proceedings shows.

https://twitter.com/realjusthuman/status/1991354296575881370

For reference, here are the "no true bill" 3-count and the "true bill" 2-count indictments.

As you can see, Count Two and, uh, the other Count Two of the 3-count are IDENTICAL to Count One and Count Two of the 2-count.

Both were filed, as both were presented in open court.

The notice accompanying the transcript says

"The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively refutes [the] claim [that there was an issue with the grand jury voting process] and establishes that the grand jury voted on—and true-billed—the two-count indictment."

The judge asked the foreperson about the failure to indict on the 3 counts version.

Foreperson: "So the three counts should be just one count. It was the very first count that we did not agree on, and the Count Two and Three were then put in a different package, which we agreed on."

"So they separated it."

Judge: "So you voted on the one that has the two counts?"

Foreperson: "Yes."

According to the transcript (and another filing I'll show further down the thread), it seems the 3-count was presented by Halligan to the grand jury.

They voted to indict on Count 2 and Count 3, not Count 1.

Then the two counts were "separated" and, according to the foreperson, voted on by the grand jury.

Makes sense.

But that seems at odds with what Halligan said in court to Judge Nachmanoff just yesterday.

Reporting from the courtroom was that Halligan confirmed that the full grand jury DID NOT see the 2-count version of the indictment, which is now the charging instrument in this case.

Square this 👇

With this 👇

And square what was reported to be said in the hearing, the transcript from the proceeding when the indictment was returned, with Halligan's own declaration from a week ago 👇

AND the prosecution's filing from last night 👇

There's a lot of agreement between them, but also some... disagreement.

The foreperson clearly says they voted on the 2-count version.

Halligan said in the hearing that the grand jury never saw the 2-count version.

And what prosecutors put in the filing from last night which says Halligan edited the 3-count into a 2-count and the foreperson, "as the representative of the Grand Jury, endorsed the revised two-count indictment by signing it..."

Now square all that with this section from the return proceeding transcript 👇

Halligan "reviewed the one with the two counts that our office redrafted" and "did not see the other one. [Does not] know where that came from."

"only signed the one [with] two-count."

Now, back when the indictment was returned, they figured it out, and really, it isn't THAT complicated.

Like, this was pretty easy to sort out.

A 3-count indictment was presented. It took ~2 hours.

The grand jury deliberated for ~2 hours.

They found probable cause to indict on Counts 2 and 3, but not Count 1. A "mixed" return. 14 grand jury members voted to return an indictment on those two charges.

Halligan's office redrafts a version of the indictment that has only Counts 2 and 3, now renumbered as Counts 1 and 2.

The foreperson signed the failure report and the new version.

That's odd; the judge had never seen that, and it came across as a discrepancy. It is resolved with a handwritten note and the statements on the record.

All good.

But WHY has it taken multiple filings, inquiries from three (truly four) judges, and many weeks to get to the understanding that we now have of the return of this indictment?

And what is this exchange about?

I suspect Maggie Cleary may know.

And I think it goes back to the weirdness of there being 2 Count Two's on the 3 Count version and Halligan's signature being copied and attached to both.

This issue is not put to bed.

I'm pretty I understand what took place, and I think Halligan has mostly recovered the situation.
Still some weirdness and discrepancies, though.

Comey's team informed the court tonight this will be the subject of a forthcoming motion to dismiss.

Here's my video brief on the matter.

Links used in thread

2-Count indictment
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

3-Count indictment
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

Halligan declaration
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

Notice (clarification filing)
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

Notice correcting the record
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

Return of indictment transcript
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

Filing with footnote that Defense will be filing motion to dismiss on this issue
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

POLITICO article reporting on hearing
politico.com/news/2025/11/1…