James Comey under investigation for insulting the king

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I hope his career ends at the conclusion of this case. No integrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Todd Blanche really, really, really wants to be formally appointed to head the DOJ.

Blanche is facing serious resistant for his desire to become a member of Washington's most exclusive country club. This country club is where the money and true power flow. It is the country club of former presidents, billionaires, ambassadors, wizards of politics, etc. The membership is bipartisan and they are trying to bar Blanche from joining. I hope they are successful. Send a message.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/28/todd-blanche-metropolitan-club-00894299
https://politicalwire.com/2026/04/28/todd-blanche-blackballed-at-d-c-club/

Yes, rooting for the Metropolitan Club here (not a country club btw) makes me the most deep state east coast liberal elite person ever but I love this for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no love lost for Comey, but anyone who says that they believe the sum and substance of this case constitutes an actual threat is either a liar or a hopeless moron.

It's like saying someone who posts "F**** [insert name here]" could be prosecuted for a sexual assault threat. It's absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope his career ends at the conclusion of this case. No integrity.

For reference, North Carolina bar ethics on duties specifically pertaining to prosecutors.

https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-rules/rules-of-professional-conduct/31-38-advocate/38-special-responsibilities-of-a-prosecutor/

"Don't prosecute when you don't have probable cause" is literally the first one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope his career ends at the conclusion of this case. No integrity.

For reference, North Carolina bar ethics on duties specifically pertaining to prosecutors.

https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-rules/rules-of-professional-conduct/31-38-advocate/38-special-responsibilities-of-a-prosecutor/

"Don't prosecute when you don't have probable cause" is literally the first one.

Unfortunately the indictment "validates" probable cause.


Indictments mean nothing, but I'm mostly surprised they found MAGA majority grand jury willing to even grant that waste of government resources. Maybe the grand jury figured tying up Trump's goons in a farcical prosecution would generate more anti-GOP sentiment and deflect resources away from other cases

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love that they have to prove Trump was afraid of Comey. Haha! What a pssy.

No they don't. They have to prove intent to harm the President.

And anyway, until the President gets a ballroom, he is not safe

[Anonymous]

Angle angle to consider:

Comey was a corrupt Trump operative in 2016.

Maybe DOJ actually has information that Comey has influence in a part of Trump's Mafia, and was activating that wing to take action?

Every accusation is a confession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope his career ends at the conclusion of this case. No integrity.

For reference, North Carolina bar ethics on duties specifically pertaining to prosecutors.

https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-rules/rules-of-professional-conduct/31-38-advocate/38-special-responsibilities-of-a-prosecutor/

"Don't prosecute when you don't have probable cause" is literally the first one.

Unfortunately the indictment "validates" probable cause.


Indictments mean nothing, but I'm mostly surprised they found MAGA majority grand jury willing to even grant that waste of government resources. Maybe the grand jury figured tying up Trump's goons in a farcical prosecution would generate more anti-GOP sentiment and deflect resources away from other cases

That's why I'm suspicious of the Grand jury instructions. They improperly instructed the Grand Jury in their previous prosecution of Comey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope his career ends at the conclusion of this case. No integrity.

Given that he is ostensibly a prosecutor, yet appears to have never tried a case to verdict, I'm not sure if his career has begun in the first place.

[Anonymous]

What's next, are they going to indict Jenny for writing her name on the wall?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope his career ends at the conclusion of this case. No integrity.

For reference, North Carolina bar ethics on duties specifically pertaining to prosecutors.

https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-rules/rules-of-professional-conduct/31-38-advocate/38-special-responsibilities-of-a-prosecutor/

"Don't prosecute when you don't have probable cause" is literally the first one.

Unfortunately the indictment "validates" probable cause.


Indictments mean nothing, but I'm mostly surprised they found MAGA majority grand jury willing to even grant that waste of government resources. Maybe the grand jury figured tying up Trump's goons in a farcical prosecution would generate more anti-GOP sentiment and deflect resources away from other cases

That's why I'm suspicious of the Grand jury instructions. They improperly instructed the Grand Jury in their previous prosecution of Comey.

I'm a former AUSA and...I tend to agree. I understand that there is a very low bar for indicting, but I'm genuinely flummoxed that anyone, let alone 16 grand jurors, determined that the government had met that (low) standard. Unless there's something we don't know, like Comey was amassing a literal arsenal, I strongly suspect this grand jury may have been misled about the law, the facts, or both. I think this is especially likely given that the AUSA on the indictment appears to have essentially no prosecutorial experience, let alone high end federal prosecutorial experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's next, are they going to indict Jenny for writing her name on the wall?

Haha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's next, are they going to indict Jenny for writing her name on the wall?

Name and number, don't forget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that they have to prove Trump was afraid of Comey. Haha! What a pssy.

No they don't. They have to prove intent to harm the President.

And anyway, until the President gets a ballroom, he is not safe

You’re right. Trump isn’t a reasonable person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


"I don’t love it, but Comey is among the 10 people in the country most responsible for Trump becoming president in the first place. If someone is going to get targeted by unfair Trump prosecutions, he’s among the most deserving."

Yes. Better Comey than an innocent person. The indictment of Comey for the second time demonstrates the trope "Everything Trump Touches Dies." #ETTD

He might be deserving, but you can’t cheer it on in people you don’t like because either way it sets the precedent that the precedent that that the government can persecute and prosecute you because you hurt the presidents feelings.

Not only because you hurt the president's feelings, but because you refused to use your role as one of the most powerful law enforcement officials in our country to do illegal things at the president's command. THAT is what Comey did which 'hurt the president's feelings.'

+1 Trump isn’t pissed at Comey about Hillary, he’s mad that Comey refused to pledge loyalty to him.