Media Push To Sink Comey Indictment Was Based On A Lie

Earlier this week, reports from various media outlets claimed that the grand jury that indicted former FBI Director James Comey did not see the final indictment. ABC News, The Guardian, and The New York Times all cited U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan's statements in court, suggesting that only the foreperson and one other juror had reviewed the final indictment. However, the Department of Justice has since refuted these claims, stating that the official court transcript contradicts the media's interpretation.

In a court filing, the DOJ clarified that the grand jury did indeed review the final indictment, which included two counts against Comey: false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. The confusion arose from a misinterpretation of the proceedings by the magistrate judge, who suggested that the grand jury had not seen the final version of the indictment.

Mike Davis, a former Supreme Court law clerk, explained that the issue stemmed from an administrative correction that removed one count from the indictment after the grand jury had approved the other two counts. He emphasized that this adjustment was neither unusual nor improper. The transcript indicates that the grand jury voted on the two-count indictment, confirming that they did not reach a consensus on the first count.

The DOJ's filing stated, "any assertion that the grand jury 'never voted on the two-count indictment' is contradicted by the official transcript." This assertion has led to questions about the accuracy of the initial media reports, which suggested a significant irregularity in the indictment process.

Halligan defended her comments in court, stating that when taken in full context, they do not imply any misleading of the grand jury or impropriety. She argued that the magistrate judge's interpretation was flawed and did not reflect the actual proceedings.

As the situation unfolded, some media outlets attempted to portray the DOJ's clarification as a reversal of their earlier position. However, it appears that the initial reports may have stemmed from a misunderstanding of the court proceedings rather than a deliberate misrepresentation by the DOJ.

Comey's indictment has sparked considerable debate, with critics suggesting that the charges are politically motivated. Supporters of the indictment argue that it is a necessary step in holding public officials accountable for their actions. The case continues to draw attention as it progresses through the legal system, with implications for both Comey and the broader political landscape.

As the narrative develops, it remains to be seen how the media will address the discrepancies in their reporting and whether further clarification from the DOJ will alter public perception of the indictment process against Comey.