Grand Jury ≠ Case Closed: The Truth About the Comey Indictment

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles responds to a common pushback: “Didn’t a grand jury indict James Comey? Doesn’t that settle it?”Short answer: no.This episode breaks down the legal reality behind grand jury indictments and why they do not validate the strength, propriety, or legitimacy of a criminal case.If you haven’t watched the prior analysis, start here:* Todd Blanche’s Misdirection on the Comey Indictmenthttps://natecharles.substack.com/p/todd-blanche-comey-indictment-undisclosed-evidence-analysis* The 8647 Indictment Is Authoritarian, Full Stophttps://natecharles.substack.com/p/trump-doj-comey-8647-first-amendment-true-threat-analysisTopics covered:* What a federal grand jury actually does (and doesn’t do)* Why indictments are a procedural requirement—not a stamp of approval* The difference between grand juries and trial juries* The low threshold of probable cause* Prosecutorial control over grand jury proceedings* Why “a grand jury indicted him” is not a meaningful defense of a case* The prosecutor’s independent ethical duty under ABA Model Rule 3.8* Why an indictment does not cure a politically motivated or legally defective prosecutionReferenced case law:* United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992)Key takeaway:A grand jury indictment is a constitutional prerequisite in many cases—but it is not a safeguard against weak, selective, or improper prosecutions.A grand jury indictment proves only probable cause—not that the case is justified, sound, or beyond scrutiny. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe