Anonymous wrote:This is just the begining

More arrests are coming
Bidens
Clintons
Faucis
Obamas
Schiff
Schumer
Jeffries
Pelosi
And any other american that deems to say one bad thing about Don the Con. Yep MAGA wait til they come for your DD those maternity homes are going up quick in MO, Idaho, Iowa, Ok, Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi great smart idea to send DD to colleges in red states people they will love those new shared maternity wards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same treatment?

No they weren't.

Anonymous wrote:Same treatment?

Anonymous wrote:Breaking on MSNBC:

An FBI agent in the Washington field office has been fired for refusing to arrest and perp walk James Comey.

This news was first reported by Reuters.

Anonymous wrote:The rats are scrambling onboard of the SS Comey

Anonymous wrote:The rats are scrambling onboard of the SS Comey

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same treatment?

Quick question: who was president when Roger Stone was prosecuted?

Anonymous wrote:Same treatment?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.