James Comey Indictment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, dont do this. Even if Comey is a d1ck, this is still a politically motivated prosecution. There is a reason the other attorney wouldn't indict. We do not have e to like the victims of Trump's vengeance tour. If its wro g for one, it's wrong for all. Don't be Maga.

+1. He's purposefully picking awful people like Comey and Bolton to go after first because Democrats don't want to defend them. But once he shows he can use DOJ to go after enemies, he won't stop with awful people like them.

+1. Although I don't really like Comey or Bolton I 100% don't think we should be using the DOJ to go after them. I hope that none of the US attorneys in those offices will go before a court and I hope the indictments fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing will come of this. At this point, the judiciary has a modicum of integrity and they tend to follow the rules. If the Barbie-US Attorney comes up with an indictment, it will be full of lies and will be tossed immediately, even by a Trump-appointed judge. Trump's associates are criminals, but the judges, even the very conservative ones, are generally willing to follow the law.

One name: Aileen Cannon.

She won't be the judge in these cases, but I do think the Trump admin's next step is to figure out how to get these cases to friendly forums and friendly judges. I think that is going to be tough for them, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serves James Comey right. He practically handed 2016 to Trump on a plate and this is the thanks he gets. 😂

Not sure why Trump is mad at him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing will come of this. At this point, the judiciary has a modicum of integrity and they tend to follow the rules. If the Barbie-US Attorney comes up with an indictment, it will be full of lies and will be tossed immediately, even by a Trump-appointed judge. Trump's associates are criminals, but the judges, even the very conservative ones, are generally willing to follow the law.

One name: Aileen Cannon.

She won't be the judge in these cases, but I do think the Trump admin's next step is to figure out how to get these cases to friendly forums and friendly judges. I think that is going to be tough for them, however.

They’re trying to do that already by not bringing the “case” against Comey in DC where the testimony occurred or Alexandria where he testified (remotely during Covid) but instead in either Richmond or Norfolk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serves James Comey right. He practically handed 2016 to Trump on a plate and this is the thanks he gets. 😂

Not sure why Trump is mad at him.

Because Trump blames him for the Russia investigation.

Really good short podcast on this with Ben Wittes here for those who are interested.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bulwark-takes/id1794450472?i=1000728308641

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would laugh my head off if he's prosecuted. He deserves prison.
How do so many people become idiots. It's nothing to do with lawfare. This is a man that tried destroying our democracy and it can not go unpunished or the Dems will do it again. The Dems are as corrupt as any 3rd world country and I want all those criminals rounded up and the key thrown away. No Comey is not a republican, what an idiot statement to make.

Corruption means taking bribes in exchange for granting legal and political favors.

It's not the Democrats that are corrupt

https://www.opensecrets.org/trump/trump-properties

https://apnews.com/article/trump-businesses-trump-organization-white-house-conflicts-of-interest-b970b5681b27f86dcd461ff473be23fa

[Anonymous]

Hold on. They are trying to move forward on SEEKING an indictment.

How about people wait for the grand jury???

If they would make the admin people who have gone before Congress in recent months swear an oath, the whole lot of them could be put behind bars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing will come of this. At this point, the judiciary has a modicum of integrity and they tend to follow the rules. If the Barbie-US Attorney comes up with an indictment, it will be full of lies and will be tossed immediately, even by a Trump-appointed judge. Trump's associates are criminals, but the judges, even the very conservative ones, are generally willing to follow the law.

One name: Aileen Cannon.

She won't be the judge in these cases, but I do think the Trump admin's next step is to figure out how to get these cases to friendly forums and friendly judges. I think that is going to be tough for them, however.

They’re trying to do that already by not bringing the “case” against Comey in DC where the testimony occurred or Alexandria where he testified (remotely during Covid) but instead in either Richmond or Norfolk.

How does that work in terms of establishing jurisdiction? And do they have to do that in order to get a grand jury? I have no idea how jurisdiction works in federal criminal proceedings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is only going to tolerate grand juries refusing to return an indictment before he targets those grand jurors individually. He’ll sic the IRS on them, and find all sorts of other ways to harass them.

You say Trump is immune from prosecution but his staff isn’t? You say judges will hold Trump’s people accountable if they do this? No, no they won’t. They are not going to dare intervene because Trump controls their security via the U.S. Marshals Service. Roberts obviously made a deal with Trump after Congress stiffed the Supreme Court police in the Appropriations mark for FY2026. So now Trump is seeking the money the SCOTUS Police needs to take on full security responsibilities for the SCOTUS justices. In exchange, the Roberts Court continues to serve Trump.

Trump is going to raise the cost of opposing him. With the bullets being scrawled with supposedly anti-Trump messages, the next step will be Trump ordering loyalist troops and National Guard forces to open fire on Democrats. He has to shut down opposition before he’s exposed as less than all-powerful, and he’s going to pull out the stops Nightvof Long Knives-style to do so.

Aren't grand juries's identities confidential?

They absolutely are. I was on a federal grand jury many years ago. We got certificates commending us for our service at the end, and when the AUSA gave me mine I said, "and I can't ever show it to anyone, right?" And the court is not subject to Trump's demand for their identities.

[Anonymous]

Funny how boomerangs work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hold on. They are trying to move forward on SEEKING an indictment.

How about people wait for the grand jury???

If they would make the admin people who have gone before Congress in recent months swear an oath, the whole lot of them could be put behind bars.

+1 When Trump was reelected I made a promise to myself that I wasn’t going to worry in advance.of course this is just another authoritarian action, but it’s also just chum in the water.

People, stay focused. Four pages of wasted energy that could have been spent taking action against this regime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is only going to tolerate grand juries refusing to return an indictment before he targets those grand jurors individually. He’ll sic the IRS on them, and find all sorts of other ways to harass them.

You say Trump is immune from prosecution but his staff isn’t? You say judges will hold Trump’s people accountable if they do this? No, no they won’t. They are not going to dare intervene because Trump controls their security via the U.S. Marshals Service. Roberts obviously made a deal with Trump after Congress stiffed the Supreme Court police in the Appropriations mark for FY2026. So now Trump is seeking the money the SCOTUS Police needs to take on full security responsibilities for the SCOTUS justices. In exchange, the Roberts Court continues to serve Trump.

Trump is going to raise the cost of opposing him. With the bullets being scrawled with supposedly anti-Trump messages, the next step will be Trump ordering loyalist troops and National Guard forces to open fire on Democrats. He has to shut down opposition before he’s exposed as less than all-powerful, and he’s going to pull out the stops Nightvof Long Knives-style to do so.

Aren't grand juries's identities confidential?

They absolutely are. I was on a federal grand jury many years ago. We got certificates commending us for our service at the end, and when the AUSA gave me mine I said, "and I can't ever show it to anyone, right?" And the court is not subject to Trump's demand for their identities.

Their names aren’t public, but the prosecutors know them

[Anonymous]

The only concern I have is lies in an indictment. Nothing will happen to Comey, but this admin showed in the Garcia case that they’re willing to lie in an indictment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is only going to tolerate grand juries refusing to return an indictment before he targets those grand jurors individually. He’ll sic the IRS on them, and find all sorts of other ways to harass them.

You say Trump is immune from prosecution but his staff isn’t? You say judges will hold Trump’s people accountable if they do this? No, no they won’t. They are not going to dare intervene because Trump controls their security via the U.S. Marshals Service. Roberts obviously made a deal with Trump after Congress stiffed the Supreme Court police in the Appropriations mark for FY2026. So now Trump is seeking the money the SCOTUS Police needs to take on full security responsibilities for the SCOTUS justices. In exchange, the Roberts Court continues to serve Trump.

Trump is going to raise the cost of opposing him. With the bullets being scrawled with supposedly anti-Trump messages, the next step will be Trump ordering loyalist troops and National Guard forces to open fire on Democrats. He has to shut down opposition before he’s exposed as less than all-powerful, and he’s going to pull out the stops Nightvof Long Knives-style to do so.

Aren't grand juries's identities confidential?

They absolutely are. I was on a federal grand jury many years ago. We got certificates commending us for our service at the end, and when the AUSA gave me mine I said, "and I can't ever show it to anyone, right?" And the court is not subject to Trump's demand for their identities.

Their names aren’t public, but the prosecutors know them

And if the GJ fails to indict, how long will it be before those Antifa radical leftist communist thugs on the GJ are doxxed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This seems as good a time any to remind the class that although Trump may enjoy limited immunity from prosecution from actions he made in his capacity as the POTUS, this immunity doesn't necessarily apply to his henchmen.

Think long and hard before carrying out Trump's dirty work. He is safe. You are not.

I don't understand this myth. "I was only following legal orders" is an absolute defense.