Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

.

Red herring. Reaffirming prior testimony under oath is actionable.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statute of limitations on the perjury charge expires next Tuesday, September 30th

If true, how does this affect the case?

Not at all. They are within the time limit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread, but isn't Comey getting due process? He's innocent until proven guilty and will have his day in court. You might think this is political, but if he broke the law and is convicted, what does that matter? If he's found not guilty, then that's fine too.

What does that matter?

It matters because prosecutors are THE most powerful actors in this country, with the power to destroy lives whether their charges result in convictions or not. This is precisely why they have the ethical obligation to never bring charges against a defendant for which they do not have a good faith belief they can prove to the very high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to achieve conviction.

For an insurance lawyer with zero prosecutorial experience and barely any criminal practice experience to overrule multiple US Attorneys and an entire office of line prosecutors who explained in exhaustive detail in a declination memo why there was insufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof required for a faithful and honest prosecution of Comey is the height of professional irresponsibility and the depth of unethical lawyering, FULL STOP.

USA Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant has taken a giant shit on the entire DOJ by her actions in this case.

I don't understand why she would do something that could easily get her disbarred and wreck any hope of a legal career

For the last decade I’ve been asking myself that question repeatedly as I’ve watched crooked lawyers carry water for DJT. Clearly there is some kind of disordered personality at work in these people -

but to be frank, as a lawyer myself who quit practicing after 18 years of working with other lawyers and seeing far too much behavior I found contemptible, it’s clearly a profession that draws too many flawed characters because it opens doors to influence, power and wealth. The question you asked about Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant is a question I often asked while reading the disciplinary pages of the Bar journals.

Never underestimate how many people think they’re special and will be the lone exception to another narcissist breaking promises and throwing them under the bus, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.

Well so far it's worked out for quite a lot of people in the current admin. Plus Aileen Cannon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP,

The right is celebrating political oppression.

The left is lamenting political oppression.

The left detests Comey, for what he did to Hillary Clinton. Unlike you, but like Rogan, Cruz and other non-leftists who decried Kimmel's temporary cancellation, we do understand what this is about. It's about this White House's attempts to become a dictatorship and suppress any dissent or independent thought.

You should clarify this in your mind.

Here is the thing: this is the tit for tat for all that lawfare committed against Trump. (Many people, not just maga, see the lawsuits against him as lawfare)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread, but isn't Comey getting due process? He's innocent until proven guilty and will have his day in court. You might think this is political, but if he broke the law and is convicted, what does that matter? If he's found not guilty, then that's fine too.

What does that matter?

It matters because prosecutors are THE most powerful actors in this country, with the power to destroy lives whether their charges result in convictions or not. This is precisely why they have the ethical obligation to never bring charges against a defendant for which they do not have a good faith belief they can prove to the very high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to achieve conviction.

For an insurance lawyer with zero prosecutorial experience and barely any criminal practice experience to overrule multiple US Attorneys and an entire office of line prosecutors who explained in exhaustive detail in a declination memo why there was insufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof required for a faithful and honest prosecution of Comey is the height of professional irresponsibility and the depth of unethical lawyering, FULL STOP.

USA Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant has taken a giant shit on the entire DOJ by her actions in this case.

I don't understand why she would do something that could easily get her disbarred and wreck any hope of a legal career

For the last decade I’ve been asking myself that question repeatedly as I’ve watched crooked lawyers carry water for DJT. Clearly there is some kind of disordered personality at work in these people -

but to be frank, as a lawyer myself who quit practicing after 18 years of working with other lawyers and seeing far too much behavior I found contemptible, it’s clearly a profession that draws too many flawed characters because it opens doors to influence, power and wealth. The question you asked about Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant is a question I often asked while reading the disciplinary pages of the Bar journals.

Never underestimate how many people think they’re special and will be the lone exception to another narcissist breaking promises and throwing them under the bus, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.

Well so far it's worked out for quite a lot of people in the current admin. Plus Aileen Cannon.

How’s Rudy these days? Sidney Powell?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread, but isn't Comey getting due process? He's innocent until proven guilty and will have his day in court. You might think this is political, but if he broke the law and is convicted, what does that matter? If he's found not guilty, then that's fine too.

What does that matter?

It matters because prosecutors are THE most powerful actors in this country, with the power to destroy lives whether their charges result in convictions or not. This is precisely why they have the ethical obligation to never bring charges against a defendant for which they do not have a good faith belief they can prove to the very high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to achieve conviction.

For an insurance lawyer with zero prosecutorial experience and barely any criminal practice experience to overrule multiple US Attorneys and an entire office of line prosecutors who explained in exhaustive detail in a declination memo why there was insufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof required for a faithful and honest prosecution of Comey is the height of professional irresponsibility and the depth of unethical lawyering, FULL STOP.

USA Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant has taken a giant shit on the entire DOJ by her actions in this case.

I don't understand why she would do something that could easily get her disbarred and wreck any hope of a legal career

For the last decade I’ve been asking myself that question repeatedly as I’ve watched crooked lawyers carry water for DJT. Clearly there is some kind of disordered personality at work in these people -

but to be frank, as a lawyer myself who quit practicing after 18 years of working with other lawyers and seeing far too much behavior I found contemptible, it’s clearly a profession that draws too many flawed characters because it opens doors to influence, power and wealth. The question you asked about Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant is a question I often asked while reading the disciplinary pages of the Bar journals.

Never underestimate how many people think they’re special and will be the lone exception to another narcissist breaking promises and throwing them under the bus, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.

Well so far it's worked out for quite a lot of people in the current admin. Plus Aileen Cannon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread, but isn't Comey getting due process? He's innocent until proven guilty and will have his day in court. You might think this is political, but if he broke the law and is convicted, what does that matter? If he's found not guilty, then that's fine too.

What does that matter?

It matters because prosecutors are THE most powerful actors in this country, with the power to destroy lives whether their charges result in convictions or not. This is precisely why they have the ethical obligation to never bring charges against a defendant for which they do not have a good faith belief they can prove to the very high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to achieve conviction.

For an insurance lawyer with zero prosecutorial experience and barely any criminal practice experience to overrule multiple US Attorneys and an entire office of line prosecutors who explained in exhaustive detail in a declination memo why there was insufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof required for a faithful and honest prosecution of Comey is the height of professional irresponsibility and the depth of unethical lawyering, FULL STOP.

USA Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant has taken a giant shit on the entire DOJ by her actions in this case.

I don't understand why she would do something that could easily get her disbarred and wreck any hope of a legal career

For the last decade I’ve been asking myself that question repeatedly as I’ve watched crooked lawyers carry water for DJT. Clearly there is some kind of disordered personality at work in these people -

but to be frank, as a lawyer myself who quit practicing after 18 years of working with other lawyers and seeing far too much behavior I found contemptible, it’s clearly a profession that draws too many flawed characters because it opens doors to influence, power and wealth. The question you asked about Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant is a question I often asked while reading the disciplinary pages of the Bar journals.

Never underestimate how many people think they’re special and will be the lone exception to another narcissist breaking promises and throwing them under the bus, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread, but isn't Comey getting due process? He's innocent until proven guilty and will have his day in court. You might think this is political, but if he broke the law and is convicted, what does that matter? If he's found not guilty, then that's fine too.

What does that matter?

It matters because prosecutors are THE most powerful actors in this country, with the power to destroy lives whether their charges result in convictions or not. This is precisely why they have the ethical obligation to never bring charges against a defendant for which they do not have a good faith belief they can prove to the very high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to achieve conviction.

For an insurance lawyer with zero prosecutorial experience and barely any criminal practice experience to overrule multiple US Attorneys and an entire office of line prosecutors who explained in exhaustive detail in a declination memo why there was insufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof required for a faithful and honest prosecution of Comey is the height of professional irresponsibility and the depth of unethical lawyering, FULL STOP.

USA Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant has taken a giant shit on the entire DOJ by her actions in this case.

I don't understand why she would do something that could easily get her disbarred and wreck any hope of a legal career

For the last decade I’ve been asking myself that question repeatedly as I’ve watched crooked lawyers carry water for DJT. Clearly there is some kind of disordered personality at work in these people -

but to be frank, as a lawyer myself who quit practicing after 18 years of working with other lawyers and seeing far too much behavior I found contemptible, it’s clearly a profession that draws too many flawed characters because it opens doors to influence, power and wealth. The question you asked about Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant is a question I often asked while reading the disciplinary pages of the Bar journals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread, but isn't Comey getting due process? He's innocent until proven guilty and will have his day in court. You might think this is political, but if he broke the law and is convicted, what does that matter? If he's found not guilty, then that's fine too.

What does that matter?

It matters because prosecutors are THE most powerful actors in this country, with the power to destroy lives whether their charges result in convictions or not. This is precisely why they have the ethical obligation to never bring charges against a defendant for which they do not have a good faith belief they can prove to the very high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to achieve conviction.

For an insurance lawyer with zero prosecutorial experience and barely any criminal practice experience to overrule multiple US Attorneys and an entire office of line prosecutors who explained in exhaustive detail in a declination memo why there was insufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof required for a faithful and honest prosecution of Comey is the height of professional irresponsibility and the depth of unethical lawyering, FULL STOP.

USA Hooligan the failed beauty pageant contestant has taken a giant shit on the entire DOJ by her actions in this case.

I don't understand why she would do something that could easily get her disbarred and wreck any hope of a legal career

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

.

Red herring. Reaffirming prior testimony under oath is actionable.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He lied to Congress PP

Allegedly. How communist of you to think that just because a prosecutor say you committed a crime, you are deemed guilty until you prove prosecution wrong

Bondi clearly lied to Congress. She said she wouldn't work for the president, or do his bidding. It's the easiest case of perjury out there. A kindergartner could try the case and win.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McCabe is next.

They already tried with McCabe years ago. It was a no-bill from the GJ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

.

Red herring. Reaffirming prior testimony under oath is actionable.