I agree. It’s why they say you don’t wanna watch legislation or sausage being made.
I’ve never practiced criminal law and know nothing about it. I am unclear about that whole three count indictment being followed by the two count indictment. If the original indictment contained three counts, with the the grand jury not finding count one, but blessing count two and three, would that mean that the second and third counts were valid, and therefore did not need a redo?
Because one could argue that the first indictment was legit as far as the two counts the grand jury did find, with the crazy second indictment being brought after speaking to only two grand jury members being a superfluous moot process. And if two of the three counts were true-billed by the grand jury before the staff of limitations, then you would have six more months.
Normally, I could assume the fact that Halligan made the effort to get a second indictment was proof that the first indictment was rendered invalid when one of the three counts was not true billed. But she is such an inexperienced incompetent dumb fuck, that assumption would be a mistake.
if Halligan’s alleged fourth and fifth amendment violations (using privileged evidence between Comey and his attorney that was illegally put before the grand jury - and improperly telling the grand jury that it was up to Comey to give testimony about his innocence) are found to have occurred, then the first indictment is null for different reasons, and potentially not a legitimate indictment within the statute of limitations for that separate reason - regardless of whether the entire grand jury read the second indictment and voted.
Finally, if Miss Colorado is not a duly appointed interim attorney general, she had no authority to sign the indictment, or any indictment, and that nullity would also seem to prevent the six extra months provision.
I admit to being fascinated by all of this.