Fact-Check Summary
The claim that the grand jury “properly voted on James Comey’s indictment, foreman claims in blow to defense” mischaracterizes a complex, disputed sequence of events. Initial federal filings and sworn testimony indicated that the full grand jury never saw the final indictment. The DOJ later reversed its position, citing a transcript that purportedly proved a proper vote. Judges, however, noted a critical unrecorded gap during which the supposed vote occurred, and ultimately dismissed the indictment due to the prosecutor’s unlawful appointment, undermining the entire process. Thus, the claim is misleading and overstates both the certainty and legal consequence of any “proper” grand jury vote.
Belief Alignment Analysis
This post presents its claim as settled fact while ignoring contradictory evidence, procedural irregularities, and judicial findings that cast doubt on its accuracy. It does not support constructive civic engagement or transparent, inclusive discourse. Instead, the framing as a “blow to defense” suggests a partisan posture, undermining public trust in due process and democratic institutions by glossing over judicial concerns and the indictment’s ultimate dismissal for serious legal defects.
Opinion
While government records eventually asserted that a vote occurred, the initial admissions, missing records, and later dismissal on grounds of unlawful prosecutorial appointment mean the claim should be viewed with skepticism. Amplifying disputed procedural claims as definitive misinforms the public and fails to honor democratic principles of accuracy, fairness, and institutional accountability.
TLDR
Despite DOJ’s later reversal, the available facts do not conclusively show a proper grand jury vote. The claim is misleading, given the critical evidentiary gaps and the dismissal of the indictment due to an unlawfully appointed prosecutor.
Claim: Grand jury properly voted on James Comey’s indictment, foreman claims in blow to defense.
Fact: Initial sworn statements contradicted the claim; the DOJ later reversed its position, but key court record gaps and judicial findings of procedural defects undermine the assertion. The indictment was ultimately dismissed as invalid due to prosecutorial unlawfulness.
Opinion: The post presents a misleadingly simplified and partisan account that omits crucial legal findings and undermines public understanding of due process.
TruthScore: 3
True: The government ultimately asserted via filings that a vote occurred and cited a transcript allegedly confirming this.
Hyperbole: The claim that this is a “blow to defense” overstates both the procedural outcome and the legal significance of the alleged vote.
Lies: The assertion that the vote was definitively proper ignores unexplained gaps, judicial doubt, and core procedural defects, creating a misleading impression.