It was overturned based on the appointment of the specific prosecutor, not on the basis of its own merit. We know this.
But that's not what I asked you - do you think they should not bring charges against Comey, and that they're just harassing him?
If the Grand Jury felt there was enough evidence to bring two charges against him, before the judge ruled the prosecuting attorney was not appointed legally, why would you feel it's harassment?.
I have no idea whether James Comey is guilty of the previously overturned charges against him or if this was or is harassment. Unless a new indictment filed, his guilt or innocence and whether this is harassment remains unknown. Unfortunately, if he is not guilty, he most likely will still be on the hook for all the past an additional legal expense he incurred to defend himself.
Below is my post you responded to asking, why would I feel it is harassment and do I think they should not bring charges against James Comey. Nowhere in this post did I say anything about either of these issues.
James Comey was investigated multiple times by the Justice Department and the IRS during and after Trump's first term, stemming from the Russia investigation and his handling of sensitive information.
I assume you read that prosecutor Lindsey Halligan neglected to present the full grand jury with the final, two-count indictment after they rejected one count, instead having only the foreperson and one other juror sign it, and also made prejudicial legal statements, like suggesting Comey would have to testify to prove innocence and that the government had stronger evidence for trial, undermining the grand jury's role and burden of proof.
When you consider Halligan's omissions and prejudicial statements, it begs the question; would the grand jury have indicted Comey if Halligan had not committed these obvious legal errors as a result of either her own ineptness or intentional misconduct?
