COMEY CASE CLOSED....

www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-tosses-ca...osecutor-2025-11-24/

WASHINGTON, Nov 24 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday dismissed criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, finding that the U.S. Attorney hand-picked by President Donald Trump to bring the cases was unlawfully appointed, in a ruling that dealt a major blow to the Justice Department's efforts to pursue perceived political enemies of the president.
The ruling throws out two cases Trump had publicly called for as he pressured Justice Department leaders to move against high-profile figures who had criticized him and led investigations into his conduct

COMEY CALLED IT....SAYING IT WAS BULLSHIT AND BIASED BASED.,AND HE WOULD BE EXONERATED.

Looks like Republicans here forgot to dot their i's and cross their tees.

Incompetence? Hopefully they learn from this experience and craft better cases against their enemies next time.

From the Reuters article in HA's link . . .

Currie found that Halligan "had no legal authority" to bring indictments against either Comey or James. But Currie dismissed the cases "without prejudice," giving the Justice Department an opportunity to refile the cases with a different prosecutor at the helm.

Now, a true reporter, looking to convey important facts, would have placed this tidbit of information in the same paragraph as the one in which they reported that the charges had been dismissed.

In other words, the dismissal had not a thing to do with the substance of the filing . . . despite this "reporter" from Reuters and HA seeking to convey otherwise . . . Comey hasn't even come within a galaxy's width of being "exonerated" at this point.

reason.com/2025/11/20/a-rookie-procedura...he-case-against-him/

OH, IT WAS MORE THAN THAT...SHE SCREWED UP,DID NOT DO DUE DILIGENCE AND THE JUDGE QUESTIONED THE REASON FOR GRAND JURY NOT HEARING ALL EVIDENCE.....SO YOUR ASSESSMENT IS SOMEWHAT OFF BASE.

And yet, the judge dismissed the complaint "without prejudice" meaning it can be refiled. You see, the complaint wasn't dismissed for evidentiary reasons . . . which means Comey hasn't been exonerated of anything at this point, despite your attempts to mis and dis inform in that regard.

Comey is still looking up at the blade hanging over his head awaiting a properly appointed prosecutor to release . . . that's the substance of the ruling.

It’s not over, no matter what the Democrat media says. The evidence against both of those people is solid and any one of us would face jail time.

PrintSmith wrote: And yet, the judge dismissed the complaint "without prejudice" meaning it can be refiled. You see, the complaint wasn't dismissed for evidentiary reasons . . . which means Comey hasn't been exonerated of anything at this point, despite your attempts to mis and dis inform in that regard.

Comey is still looking up at the blade hanging over his head awaiting a properly appointed prosecutor to release . . . that's the substance of the ruling.

www.cbsnews.com/news/comey-case-indictme...department-handling/


OH PLEASE....JUST READ THE FACTS, THERE WAS A SCREW UP AND THAT THEN CAUSED THE TIME THRESHOLD TO BEE INVALID....

Lemons said the second indictment was given straight to the judge, and argued it was not a "new" indictment, but had been edited only to reflect the grand jury's decision to charge Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.

Nachmanoff pressed Lemons further, asking if the second indictment was never shown to the entire grand jury. The prosecutor said that was correct. Lemons was not at the proceedings before the grand jury in September. Halligan presented the case by herself.

While Lemons answered most of the judge's questions, Halligan briefly appeared before Nachmanoff to tell him that only the foreperson and another grand juror were in the courtroom when the indictment was presented to the magistrate judge.

One of Comey's attorneys, Michael Dreeben, said moments later that the Justice Department had just acknowledged the indictment was never presented to the grand jury and never returned.

"There is no indictment that Mr. Comey is facing," Dreeben said, adding this is a "threshold basis" to dismiss the case with prejudice, which would prohibit prosecutors from re-filing charges. He said there should be no charges against his client because the five-year statute of limitations for Comey's alleged offenses has now expired.

www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situati...ue-in-the-comey-case

Let me translate this exchange, for those who don’t speak the somewhat rarified language of federal court oral arguments, into the vernacular:

THE COURT: Holy shit, dude! You’ve got like ten motions to dismiss that seem like winners, plus a bunch of other stuff. What order do you want me to handle these in?

DREEBEN: I feel you, my man. Do the vindictive prosecution motion and the fact that Halligan isn’t lawfully appointed first. And maybe throw in that the illegally appointed U.S. attorney didn’t even bother to present the indictment to the grand jury? The other stuff is dope too but it’s a little less foundational.

Here’s what absolutely never happens on this docket: Never does a document land that might plausibly suggest to a reasonable person that, well, Comey lied to Congress or obstructed a congressional investigation.

Never.

And yet, The Situation continues tomorrow.

COMEY IS COGNIZANT THAT TRUMP IS TRYING ALL AVENUES OF REVENGE....HIS DEMEANOR IS EXACTLY THE SAME....I ASSUME THIS WILL NOT BE OVER SOON...BUT THE FACT STILL REMAINS, I AM NOT GUILTY,SO I WILL JUST WAIT FOR THE JUSTICE SYSTEM TO WORK IT'S WAY THRU THE BULLSHIT.

Irony?

After Comey & Biden's DOJ targets conservatives with RussiaGate, he gets offended when he is targeted for targeting?

Does he think he is immune to the rules he enforces? Does he think he is like a member of Congress who typically make themselves exempt from the laws they pass?

I know that you take everything Dreeben said as gospel HA, but obviously the judge wasn't similarly afflicted because the complaint was dropped "without prejudice", which, in the "somewhat rarified language" of our court system means that the the dismissal is procedural, not evidentiary, in origin.

Know what the judge didn't rule? That Dreeben's argument that the statute of limitation had expired was valid and that charges could not be refiled. Know what else the judge didn't rule? That Dreeben's argument that a "threshold basis" existed and that the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice was valid.

Instead, the judge ruled that the complain was being dismissed "without prejudice", meaning it could be refiled, which renders your acceptance of the lawyer's arguments as definitive of something being without merit.

Comey hasn't been exonerated by the court of anything with the dismissal of the complaint on procedural grounds. The only ruling the judge made was that the prosecutor who brought the case was incapable of bringing the case because they hadn't been properly appointed. That's it, that's all the ruling says, the prosecutor can't prosecute the case because they aren't a prosecutor and they must be a prosecutor to prosecute the case.