LOS ANGELES (OC).–U.S. District Court Judge Michael Nachmanoff questioned U.S. Atty. Lindsey Halligan over why the full grand jury did not see the complete indictment against former FBI Director James Comey. Comey’s Attorney Michael Dreeban wanted Comey’s case tossed out because of malicious prosecution where President Donald Trump singled out Comey because he’s on Trump’s enemy’s list. Dreeban said the failure of the government to present the final case to the complete grand jury was grounds for dismissing the case, not just that it was a baseless prosecution. All the fake news is heavily invested in seeing Comey’s case tossed out because for at least two years, Comey was the primary source of leaks to the press about Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. How ironic that Dreeban argues to Judge Nachmanoff that Trump has weaponized the government against the defendant.
Halligan asked the grand jury to return a three-count indictment of Comey, until one of the counts was tossed out by the grand jury for whatever reason. But U.S. magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick questioned why Halligan did not present the two-count indictment to the full grand jury, knowing she had already presented the three-count indictment. Calling it “profound investigative missteps,” Fitzpatrick appeared leaning toward tossing Comey’s case out. But Fitzpatrict also know that despite the technicalities, there are serious charges of Comey lying to Congress about whether he ordered anyone in his office to leak stories to the press. Whether Comey or anyone in his office leaked to the press, Trump fired Comey May 8, 2017, outraging Democrats who hoped that Comey would find Trump guilty of Russian collusion. No one pushed more fake stories than the press.
Halligan admitted that the entire grand jury saw the three-count indictment, until the grand jury tossed out one of the counts. Halligan said the jury foreman saw two-count indictment with no need for the entire grand jury to see the indictment with one count missing. Comey’s attorney Dreeban asked Judge Nachmanoff to toss out the case. Nachamanoff said “the issues are too weighty and too complex” to rule from the bench. Dreeban pursued the argument that the government engaged was “improperly vindictive” in its prosecution of Comey. “The president’s use of the Department of Justice to bring a criminal prosecution against a vocal and prominent critic in order to punish and deter those who would speak out against him violates the Constitution,” Dreeban said. So, when Nachmanoff heard that, he realized the other points of law were insignificant.
Imagine the audacity of Comey’s attorney arguing that Trump was the one engaged in malicious prosecution. Nachmanoff knows the history of Comey opening up a counterintelligence investigation into Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign all based on fraudulent probable cause. Comey got his probable cause from Trump’s rival in the 2016 presidential race, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Comey used Hillary fake “Steele Dossier” to open a criminal investigation into Trump. Even after Trump fired Comey May 8, 2017, the Justice Department knew that there was no probable cause to investigate Trump. Yet former Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein acquiesced to Democrats and appointed former Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Trump. Mueller knew from Day One there was no probable cause to investigate Trump.
Can you imagine Comey’s attorney Dreeban turned the entire scenario on its head accusing Trump of using the DOJ to go after Comey? Vindictive prosecutions don’t usually fly with judges as a basis to toss out grand jury indictments. Nachmanoff heard Dreeban quote Trump saying the DOJ must press ahead with Comey’s indictment. “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation,” Trump said. ‘JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED NOW!!” Trump said. With a statute of limitations running out, that’s all Trump referred to, not on the merits of the case. Dreeban wanted the judge to see that Trump was engaged in political prosecution of Comey. “If this is not a direction to prosecute,” Dreeban said to Nachmanoff. “I’d really be at a loss to say what is.” Dreeban would just have to go back to when Comey prosecuted Trump on bogus probable cause.
Showing that most legal arguments are nothing more than feeble excuses, Dreeban tried to turn the DOJ’s prosecution on its head, accusing it of politically persecuting Comey. No one’s more guilty of abusing his office while FBI Director, using Hillary’s faked dossier to as probable cause to investigate Trump. How Comey’s attorney can turn things around now is anyone’s guess. Nachmanoff hinted that he wasn’t buying the malicious prosecution argument, realizing that Comey did far worse to Trump when he ran the FBI. Calling Halligan a neophyte doesn’t detract from the fact that there’s plenty of probable cause to indict Comey. No one is more invested in Comey getting off than the fake news. How many phony stories about Trump’s alleged ties to the Kremlin? Halligan has nothing to do with Comey’s corrupt FBI when he went after Trump for pure politics.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
