A cavalcade of incompetence or deceit? – You decide

The indictment of former FBI director, James Comey continues to raise eyebrows and tempers. For good reason. A formal charge of a serious crime by a US grand jury is no trifling matter. That said, the speed with which the clumsy and manipulative process is a story that needs to be told. First, here is James Comey’s statement following the indictment:

“My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either. Somebody that I love dearly recently said that fear is the tool of a tyrant, and she’s right. But I’m not afraid and I hope you’re not either. I hope instead you are engaged, you are paying attention, and you will vote like your beloved country depends on it. And it does. My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I’m innocent. So let’s have a trial and keep the faith.”

Writing for CBS News, Jacob Rosen and Joe Walsh describe the indictment process:

“U.S. Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala expressed confusion and surprise at some points during the seven-minute court session when a federal grand jury impaneled in Alexandria, Virginia, returned the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey Thursday night.

According to a transcript of the proceedings obtained by CBS News, Judge Vaala asked the newly named interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan — a former Trump personal lawyer — why there were two versions of the indictment.

A majority of the grand jury that reviewed the Comey matter voted not to charge him with one of the three counts presented by prosecutors, according to a form that was signed by the grand jury’s foreperson and filed in court. He was indicted on two other counts — making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding — after 14 of 23 jurors voted in favor of them, the foreperson told the judge.

But two versions of the indictment were published on the case docket: one with the dropped third count, and one without. The transcript reveals why this occurred.

“So this has never happened before. I’ve been handed two documents that are in the Mr. Comey case that are inconsistent with one another,” Vaala said to Halligan. “There seems to be a discrepancy. They’re both signed by the (grand jury) foreperson.”

And she noted that one document did not clearly indicate what the grand jury had decided.

“The one that says it’s a failure to concur in an indictment, it doesn’t say with respect to one count,” Vaala said. “It looks like they failed to concur across all three counts, so I’m a little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that are inconsistent.”

Halligan initially responded that she hadn’t seen that version of the indictment.

“So I only reviewed the one with the two counts that our office redrafted when we found out about the two — two counts that were true billed, and I signed that one. I did not see the other one. I don’t know where that came from,” Halligan told the judge.

Vaala responded, “You didn’t see it?” And Halligan again told her, “I did not see that one.”

Vaala seemed surprised: “So your office didn’t prepare the indictment that they —”

Halligan then replied, “No, no, no — I — no, I prepared three counts. I only signed the one — the two-count (indictment). I don’t know which one with three counts you have in your hands.”

“Okay. It has your signature on it,” Vaala told Halligan, who responded, “Okay. Well.”

Vaala also noted that the court session began unusually late, at 6:47 p.m. Thursday evening, telling the grand jurors “I don’t think we’ve ever met this late” as she thanked them for their service.

More detail and context is found in the CBS story here.

In a Substack post political ecologist James Greenberg voices a growing complaint regarding the US justice system.

“Justice in America is breaking. Not in its statutes or codes, which still sit on the books, but in the trust that makes them real. Prosecutors are supposed to pursue evidence, not enemies; courts should weigh facts, not loyalties. I used to teach a comparative course in law and development, and the lesson was always the same: once that trust erodes, law becomes theater. That is where we are headed.

The indictment of James Comey, pursued at Donald Trump’s urging, is more than a dispute between two men. It is a battle over whether the American judiciary will remain a neutral arbiter or become an instrument of retribution. Trump wants to transform the Department of Justice from an independent institution into an extension of his will. Comey, who refused to pledge personal loyalty and later confirmed Trump’s pressure to halt the Russia investigation, has become both symbol and target. The revival of charges—earlier dismissed for lack of grounds—cannot be understood outside this political frame.

[. . .]

Comey’s case is less about old disputes than about rewriting the script of Trump’s presidency. By going after a former FBI director, he signals that defiance itself is criminal. For anyone who studies authoritarian systems, this is a familiar maneuver: law is turned from a shield for citizens into a weapon against them. Trials become ritual performances, staged to demonstrate loyalty and vengeance. The target is not only the accused but everyone watching.

[. . .]

Trump’s assault on the judiciary has been steady, cumulative. He has called judges “so-called,” branded rulings as partisan, and accused prosecutors of corruption. Each step chips away at legitimacy. The Comey indictment is another blow: a message that courts and prosecutors are simply tools of politics. Delegitimize the referee, and only loyalty counts; truth dissolves into performance.

[. . .]

For ordinary citizens the erosion can be hard to see. Life goes on. Judges still wear robes, hearings still convene. Yet symbols matter. Once the courtroom becomes a theater of power, the public’s ability to tell the difference between real adjudication and political stagecraft fades. Trust—already worn thin—begins to collapse. And fear does the rest. When prosecutors hesitate, when judges weigh not only law but personal risk, when citizens decide silence is safer, the system disciplines itself. Fear spreads like contamination through an ecosystem.

The indictment of Comey is not just about one man or one office. It marks how far the judiciary has been dragged into the theatre of loyalty. Trump’s attack on the courts is an attack on the very trust that sustains democracy. Whether that trust endures may decide if democracy itself does.

Visit the takenote.ca HOME page for a colourful display of hundreds of other blogs which may interest or inspire you