Anonymous
Post 10/08/2025 11:14     Subject: James Comey Indictment
He pleaded not guilty and the trial is set for January 5.
Anonymous
Post 10/08/2025 10:00     Subject: Re:James Comey Indictment
Anonymous wrote:Uh oh.. prosecution's case is in trouble. Their star witness is "problematic". None of this should come as a surprise to the prosecution. Clearly, they were pushed by Trump to bring charges, even if the charges won't stick. It was purely to embarrass Comey as much as possible.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/central-witness-undermines-case-james-comey-prosecutors-concluded/story?id=126311648

I'm sort of sad that the case probably won't go to trial. It would've been great to see Trump's DOJ get their a$$es kicked, and the Russia interference scandal be brought to light again.


I think there's a pretty good chance that Comey demands a speedy trial instead of trying for a pre-trial dismissal. He signaled that in his statement after the indictment, and it makes some sense since any dismissal will get litigated up to the Calvinball court.
Anonymous
Post 10/08/2025 09:46     Subject: Re:James Comey Indictment
Uh oh.. prosecution's case is in trouble. Their star witness is "problematic". None of this should come as a surprise to the prosecution. Clearly, they were pushed by Trump to bring charges, even if the charges won't stick. It was purely to embarrass Comey as much as possible.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/central-witness-undermines-case-james-comey-prosecutors-concluded/story?id=126311648

I'm sort of sad that the case probably won't go to trial. It would've been great to see Trump's DOJ get their a$$es kicked, and the Russia interference scandal be brought to light again.
Anonymous
Post 10/08/2025 09:25     Subject: James Comey Indictment
I like the way they shave 35 years and 60 lbs off of Trump in that image
Anonymous
Post 10/08/2025 09:19     Subject: Re:James Comey Indictment
No perp walk this morning, but we all know someone will be watching

Anonymous
Post 10/07/2025 11:59     Subject: James Comey Indictment
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Watching the hearing, Bondi needs to go to jail. Said she takes ethics seriously. 😳


It's not a lie if she doesn't know what the truth (any truth) is. Or what ethics are.

Lol. Our attorney general is basically the bad guy from Billy Madison.
Anonymous
Post 10/07/2025 11:58     Subject: Re:James Comey Indictment
This entire thread should go under the "DOJ, RIP" thread.
Anonymous
Post 10/07/2025 11:56     Subject: James Comey Indictment
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Watching the hearing, Bondi needs to go to jail. Said she takes ethics seriously. 😳


It's not a lie if she doesn't know what the truth (any truth) is. Or what ethics are.

"He didn't like. He just didn't know the truth." -- that applies to everyone in Trump's administration.
Anonymous
Post 10/07/2025 11:55     Subject: James Comey Indictment
Anonymous wrote:Watching the hearing, Bondi needs to go to jail. Said she takes ethics seriously. 😳


It's not a lie if she doesn't know what the truth (any truth) is. Or what ethics are.
Anonymous
Post 10/07/2025 11:55     Subject: James Comey Indictment
Senator Blumenthal showed Bondi Trump’s tweet that was a directive to her to prosecute Comey and then showed a pic of her at dinner with him and 4 others at a table on that tacky WH patio the night before she went after Comey. He asked what her communications were w President Trump and her response was, “That’s such a great picture! I think the entire cabinet was there.” When Blumenthal presses her she says she won’t talk about any conversation about Trump and then attacks his military record.
Anonymous
Post 10/07/2025 11:38     Subject: James Comey Indictment
Watching the hearing, Bondi needs to go to jail. Said she takes ethics seriously. 😳
Anonymous
Post 10/06/2025 08:44     Subject: Re:James Comey Indictment
Not even Durham thought there was evidence.

Anonymous
Post 10/04/2025 23:14     Subject: James Comey Indictment
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.


Seems like they want to guarantee a dismissal for vindictive prosecution
Anonymous
Post 10/04/2025 18:08     Subject: Re:James Comey Indictment
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The rats are scrambling onboard of the SS Comey



If you had bothered to read the DOJ investigation into this you would know that McCabe had said this since 2017. You’d also know that the DOJ concluded that Comey told the truth about his lack of involvement in the leak. You’d also know that not a single witness said Comey authorized the leak.

But nice try MAGA.
Anonymous
Post 10/04/2025 17:47     Subject: James Comey Indictment
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.
If it is built around McCabe. But what if it is Richman?
Cruz facts are off, and Graham's questioning is too much of a mess.