The revelation that most of the grand jury that purportedly indicted James Comey never saw the indictment that became the basis of his criminal case raises a necessary questionL Was Comey actually indicted?
That’s the focus of my post-hearing analysis with former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman of
.For the government, the issue is a paperwork matter: A grand jury presented with the first draft indictment declined to indict on the first count and returned a true bill on counts two and three. (The first document itself said that the grand jury “did not concur in finding an indictment in this case,” but a handwritten notation states that this refers to “Count 1 only.) The revised second indictment, in their telling, reflects the intent of that grand jury panel — even if only the foreperson and one grand juror actually saw the document.
Comey’s attorney Michael Dreeben sees it differently. If most of the grand jury didn’t even see the charging document, then there “is no indictment that Mr. Comey is facing” and the statute of limitations has lapsed, according to Dreeben.
U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff appears to have anticipated the issue and asked the parties to brief a precedent that could decide it: Gaither v. United States.
Harry explains how it could form a separate basis to challenge Comey’s indictment, along with motions to dismiss based on prosecutor Lindsey Halligan’s allegedly unlawful appointment, vindictive prosecution, roughly a dozen other alleged defects in the grand jury process, and more.
Watch the full video at the top of the thread, and look out for highlights from the hearing later.
