Phil Holloway

Yes, yes.

That's correct.

So my analysis hinges upon what the facts are, and we're going to play hypothetical.

The original story was it was just the grand poobah of the grand jury and one other grand juror who approved the final version.

Let's assume that those are the facts for one moment.

I also don't take exception to a judge stepping in because my feeling is a judge is always there to ensure that due process is happening.

And put aside Comey for a second.

Let's say this is one of your loved ones in federal court, and you learned not these particular facts, but you learned somehow the whole grand jury didn't approve the final indictment, that it was just the head guy and someone else with him who approved that final document.

You're doggone right you'd have me argue that there's a defect there and something needs to be done.

Yes, and it might not, right?

Just so we're clear, legally, a court may find that it's totally okay.

But the argument will be

that the law requires the entire body of the grand jury to approve whatever's ultimately there for prosecution.

And if you cut corners because you want to get Comey, be prepared to have the law changed so they can cut corners on someone you really love and care about.

I've never heard anything like that.

Doesn't mean it's not valid.

I've never spoken with Comey.

I don't know what his defense is.

I know that the obligation of his attorneys is to argue everything that could possibly get him off of these charges.

That's their job.