Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "James Comey Indictment"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The Comey statements currently investigated are past the statute of limitations. The indictment relies on a more recent hearing, where a senator relayed those past Comey comments and in so doing, slightly misinterpreted them and also conflated them with something else. Comey said that he stood by his original statements. But the original statements are too old, and the senator misquoted them to him at that time. So it's going to be VERY DIFFICULT, if impossible, for the prosecution to prove that Comey lied. [/quote]. Red herring. Reaffirming prior testimony under oath is actionable.[/quote] It is. But the point is that Comey's testimony is not the issue. The prosecution is basing its case on Ted Cruz's misquote and conflation, when he was trying to cite Chuck Grassley (and that previous hearing is out of bounds because of the statute of limitations). That is where the case will break, because the way Cruz asks his questions, there's too much vagueness and doubt as to what, exactly, he might be referring to. Cruz also does not correctly report the misunderstanding between McCabe and Comey. And therefore, when Comey says that he stands by his earlier testimony - which again, is not at issue - he ignores Cruz's actual question because it's too confused. The prosecution doesn't have a solid grasp of the facts, because the facts at the second hearing, the only one that's within the statute of limitations, are hard to interpret. I don't see any way this trial works out for prosecutors. [/quote] I'm guessing Lindsey grabbed for anything that looked close enough and ran with it. There's likely nothing to this indictment except distortions and lies told by the prosecutor to the GJ. Most of the GJ didn't even vote for this indictment. It's very weak and will be dismissed. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics