https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/james-comey-doj-case-hearing-11-19-25?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49443813)

https://x.com/rparloff/status/1991189111227465778?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49443823)

preferably conservative ones to ensure no taint of liberal bias

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49444747)

Normally it’d be fixable, but this thing got filed within days of the SOL. There’s a default rule that gives them tolling, but I’m not sure it applies here. There was literally no indictment returned.

Love TRUMP, still do, etc. But spellbinding. And honestly, very on brand. This is all part of demeaning and debasing the establishment.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49447310)

Attacking the GJ process is such a low-yield area of inquiry that almost no defendant bothers to look into it at all (so maybe this mistake has happened and it just never got noticed, I dunno). I don't know if it's come out how the defense found out about any of this, because 6(e) is pretty hardcore on GJ secrecy. My *GUESS* would be that a grand juror who found the case memorable -- bear in mind that they rubber stamp shitloads of these indictments every time they meet, so it's only the fact that this case happened to involve the fucking former FBI director that would make this in any way memorable (if this happened to D'Anjello the Drug Dealer no one would ever notice) -- got home and saw the Comey indictment on TV and was like "hey wtf we no-billed that?" and illegally tattle-taled to the media/defense (in which case, I 100% expect the TRUMP admin to prosecute that juror, not flame).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49447606)

So while my "this is vintage TRUMP admin" conclusion stands, it's likely they'll get to proceed on or at the very worst get a do-over on, the indictment, since that is virtually always the case for almost any defect.

I'll reiterate that this is absolutely great stuff and only deepens my regard for TRUMP's absolute Buttfucking of institutional expertise.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49452671)

Is there a claim that there was a substantive deception of the court?

Or is this just them screwing up admin bullshit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49444766)

OH THE HUMANITY. Libs are so right this is the most corrupt administration in history. Crazy that this happened in our lifetime! In 2025!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49444767)

It's like they're saying somewhat cheated at golf - and we're trying to figure out if they moved their ball when no one was looking, or if they forgot to sign their score card before turning it in.

Seems like this is a forgetting to sign your score card scenario. I'm not really here to weigh in on what the correct next steps are, just that it doesn't appear to be any malfeasance here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49444795)

https://x.com/rparloff/status/1990458821324771711?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49445764)

Judge already is enraged about that and has extremely serious concerns about that not withstanding the fact she lacked capacity and notwithstanding this latest revelation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49445479)

How would obtaining an indictment on counts 2 and 3, then getting the foreman to sign an indictment showing the GJ indicted on counts 2 and 3 prejudice Comey?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49447288)

https://x.com/rparloff/status/1990458821324771711?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49447332)

https://x.com/AlexPfeiffer/status/1991598374903325105

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49447492)

i'm still confused. megyn kelly says it was done correctly.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49447538)

On November 20, the government filed a notice “to correct the record regarding statements during the hearing held on November 19, 2025.” ECF No. 206 at 1. Contrary to the government’s prior statements, it now claims that “the grand jury voted on—and true-billed—the two count indictment.” Id. But its only support for that claim is the transcript of the foreperson’s exchange with Judge Vaala during the return proceeding—specifically, the foreperson’s response of “[y]es” to the judge’s question of whether the grand jury “voted on the one that has the two counts.” ECF No. 206-1 at 4. That response was ambiguous: It could have meant that the grand jury voted to approve a new two-count indictment, or it could have meant that the grand jury voted to approve Counts Two and Three of the original indictment. Thus, the government incorrectly asserts that there is no “ambiguity” or “doubt” about the foreperson’s response. ECF No. 206 at 3. Indeed, if the exchange were as clear as the government now maintains, then the government presumably would have invoked it in prior filings and representations to the Court. Instead, it repeatedly indicated that the grand jury did not vote on the two-count indictment. See supra at 10-11.

If anything, the government’s recent Notice to Correct the Record simply raises a host of additional potential problems with these proceedings. To the extent a government attorney presented the new two-count indictment to the grand jury, that presentment was apparently not recorded—which violates Rule 6(e)(1)’s requirement that “all proceedings . . . be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(1).2 To the extent someone else presented the new two-count indictment to the grand jury, it is unclear who that would be and what instructions they would have given—which is why only “attorney[s] authorized by law to conduct proceedings under these rules as a prosecutor” may present to the grand jury. Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(b)(1)(D). And to the extent a new two-count indictment was simply handed to the foreperson, then the absence of an experienced legal advisor could have led the foreperson to misunderstand that the grand jury must vote again on the new indictment—and would have left the grand jury without any legal instructions at all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49450289)

https://x.com/lawofruby/status/1991989009094983704?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5799928&forum_id=2Ã#49450285)