Of course, I’m joking. But why do democrats seriously pretend there won’t be elections in the future?
Trump is setting the stage to declare the Insurrection Act and use it to stop midterms. troops in the cities, summary executions, calling Dems America hating terrorists, etc. seeing how much the GOp will let him get away with before just doing the coup and ending the republic.
everything authoritarians do pre-coup, he is doing .
actually more likely, trump will simply arrest the leading Democrats running for office. Trump will order the IRS and DOJ to find something, they will find something, the Dem nominees will be arrested and there really won't be an election. Sure, there will be an election, but not a free and fair one.
The Rs will say 'no one is above the law' when they arrest leading Dems, and the coup will be done. There still will be 'elections' but the Dem candidates will be in jail or unable to campaign.
Thank you for linking this. It's always refreshing to find original sources that clarify media reporting.
I think the case won't be dismissed, but we'll see. Problems:
* Comey is not being prosecuted by Trump. He's being prosecuted by a prosecutor, appointed by Trump, sure, but only after a grand jury handed down "true bill" (or, "yes, there is a factual basis for the charges) on two of the three charges against him.
Agreed. He's being prosecuted by the United States of America with a U.S. attorney (Halloran) signing the Indictment. But I can't recall any other federal case being pursued and directed by someone outside the DOJ like this one appears to be, and for what seems to be political, or even personal revenge reasons.
Like I said, I'd bet vindictive prosecution is very difficult to prove (and probably seldom ever successful), but this looks relatively strong. ("One of the worst human beings," "total SLIMEBALL" and "Pam: . . . We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.")
* The charges are not "he is a slimeball who should be prosecuted," they are 1) he lied to Congress (the multiple times he responded "I don't recall" to questions that enough members of the grand jury believed he knew, and 2) he leaked confidential information to news outlets (or more accurately, provided the information to someone who then leaked it)
Neither (1) nor (2) (bolded above) are charges in the Comey Indictment. Someone has misled you as to the charges against Comey.
* On that last note, this motion appears to contain evidence of leaked information, as grand jury deliberations are supposed to be confidential...therefore, the New York Times should not be reporting the margin of vote, which is irrelevant if a "true bill" was reached
I believe the First Amendment allows the New York Times to report whatever it wants to report, whether it's confidential to someone else or not, and whether its relevant in court or not. That goes back to that Supreme Court "Pentagon Papers" case in the 70s.
The grand jury vote is certainly newsworthy, which is why NYT probably reported it.
There are myriad challenges to these points, and anyone here is welcome to raise them. But bear in mind the charges, as they matter. Comey either lied to Congress or he didn't. He either provided information that he should not have shared so that it could be leaked or he didn't.
The Indictment charges Comey with making a false statement to Congress. But again, there are no charges regarding illegal disclosure ("leak") of classified or confidential information in the Indictment.
Sorry for the late reply. You can think of a *single* political indictment outside of this? I could be charitable and suggest that Leticia James and John Bolton are currently indicted for political reasons, but the better example is Trump himself. You may disagree, but then it becomes a matter of opinion that is irrelevant under the law, which it is, essentially, anyway.
Here is the language from the indictment:
Indictment wrote:
1. On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES B. COMEY JR., did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, Fictitious, and fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United Stales, by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate Judiciaiy Committee hearing that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports" regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1. 2. That statement was false, because, as JAMES B. COMEY JR. then and there knew, he in fact had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation coneerning PERSON 1. 3. All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).
You are correct about the First Amendment, but the defendant here is James Comey, not the New York Times. Comey has not been indicted for his statements about Trump, nor is this a First Amendment issue. I included the point about the Times reporting confidential information simply to buttress the argument that leaking confidential information goes on all the time. The indictment alleges that Comey ordered someone else to leak, then lied about it. Both raise questions of ethics, the latter is the crime he is charged with.
I am not only misinformed, I am also not a lawyer. But I have paid close attention to what Comey has been charged with, and it doesn't matter if I got it exactly right, anyway. You might do better to explain what exactly I got wrong and correct me, but it appears that you are not a lawyer, either.
Here is what I do know for sure: lying to Congress is a crime. It is the foundation of the charge against Comey. He either did or did not do it. Claiming that his First Amendment rights have been violated because he used his free speech guaranteed by our Consitution to criticize Trump is not likely to get his case dismissed, as, again, he's not being charged with saying unkind things about Trump.
(Also, there is a bit of irony here, as the relevant law, which is commonly understood as "obstructing an official proceeding" is the same one that was used to charge many of the January 6 indictees. It had been on the books for a long time, but was revised in 1996 after the Enron debacle.)
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
* The charges are not "he is a slimeball who should be prosecuted," they are 1) he lied to Congress (the multiple times he responded "I don't recall" to questions that enough members of the grand jury believed he knew, and 2) he leaked confidential information to news outlets (or more accurately, provided the information to someone who then leaked it)
* On that last note, this motion appears to contain evidence of leaked information, as grand jury deliberations are supposed to be confidential...therefore, the New York Times should not be reporting the margin of vote, which is irrelevant if a "true bill" was reached
Where are you getting this from? I have not read that he is being charged for saying "I don't recall"? That is not a perjury inducing statement. Otherwise, every person that has testified in front of congress could be charged. He is being charged for saying "I stand by my testimony in 2020 referring back to his testimony in 2017". There is nothing factually wrong with that statement. How is that perjury to say that?
Why are you saying he is being charged for leaking information? The FBI routinely leaks information to the media. the basis of the charge is two different opinions of whether the FBI director formally authorized it. Two different viewpoints.
I'm probably getting it from Scott Jennings and his rant here:
🚨When ex-FBI Director James Comey was indicted, the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the "nobody is above the law crowd" could be heard around the world.
Spare me your outrage about “political prosecutions.” No, this is not “unprecedented.” Choke on it. pic.twitter.com/hz5Hi4BADG
He's not a lawyer, neither are you, nor am I. It shows how media reporting tends to involve a great deal of spin. But it you loom further up, you will find the actual indictment.
I am not saying he is being charged with leaking information, as that is not what the indictment says. I pointed out the leak of confidential information to point out that leaks happen, and they do so regardless of our political stances. You said "leaks happen all the time." We agree. Hopefully we can also agree that leaking is not one of the charges.
Where are you getting this from? I have not read that he is being charged for saying "I don't recall"? That is not a perjury inducing statement. Otherwise, every person that has testified in front of congress could be charged. He is being charged for saying "I stand by my testimony in 2020 referring back to his testimony in 2017". There is nothing factually wrong with that statement. How is that perjury to say that?
Why are you saying he is being charged for leaking information? The FBI routinely leaks information to the media. the basis of the charge is two different opinions of whether the FBI director formally authorized it. Two different viewpoints.
It should be noted that Andy McCabe recently said publicly that nobody from the DOJ has even contacted him regarding this case. It would be common procedure for a prosecutor to invite him in for an interview since he would be a material witness for the prosecution. Essential for their CASE! But that never happened.
This proves that this indictment is just for show. They don't even care if it ever gets to trial. They just wanted it for political purposes and to satisfy Trump.
Who is Andy McCabe? He's not mentioned in the indictment. It's not important, except that is likely represents another leak. The indictment (posted in its entirely further up) mentions "Person 1" and "Person 3." Is he one of those?
Prosecutors have discretion to build their case as they see fit. They don't have to play by rules we invent, they just have to follow the law. Your last sentence in your first paragraph reads like a Trump Truth. I find that incredibly ironic and even more amusing. But, pardon me of you take offense to that. Criminal matters are not a laughing matter. I think our understanding of them (or, more accurately, our nonexpert takes on them as laypeople) invites much humor, as I consider humor to be a healing balm.
For the third and last time, I am not saying he is charged with leaking information. I thought I made that clear in my original post, but I have tried to remedy that impression by posting the full indictment further up.
Hey, we sound like a bunch of pissed off Hardy Boys, don't we? Except we collectively make the Hardy Boys look like Sherlock Holmes.
Trump: "We can never let what happened in the 2020 election happen again. We just can't let that happen. I know Kash is working on it, everybody is working on it. And certainly Tulsi is working on it. We can't let that happen again to our country."
The Nine Principles of Propaganda
(Top 3)
1. LIE BIG Big lies work better than small lies because the masses won't believe that anyone would lie "about that." 2. FOCUS Don't make it complicated, ignore history, keep it simple for simple minds. 3. REPEAT People cannot tell the difference between facts and familiarity. The same words repeated over and over will become true in their minds.
Democrats will never win an election again. Trump 2028!
Agreed. He's being prosecuted by the United States of America with a U.S. attorney (Halloran) signing the Indictment. But I can't recall any other federal case being pursued and directed by someone outside the DOJ like this one appears to be, and for what seems to be political, or even personal revenge reasons.
Like I said, I'd bet vindictive prosecution is very difficult to prove (and probably seldom ever successful), but this looks relatively strong. ("One of the worst human beings," "total SLIMEBALL" and "Pam: . . . We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.")
Neither (1) nor (2) (bolded above) are charges in the Comey Indictment. Someone has misled you as to the charges against Comey.
I believe the First Amendment allows the New York Times to report whatever it wants to report, whether it's confidential to someone else or not, and whether its relevant in court or not. That goes back to that Supreme Court "Pentagon Papers" case in the 70s.
The grand jury vote is certainly newsworthy, which is why NYT probably reported it.
The Indictment charges Comey with making a false statement to Congress. But again, there are no charges regarding illegal disclosure ("leak") of classified or confidential information in the Indictment.
Sorry for the late reply. You can think of a *single* political indictment outside of this?
That’s not what I posted. I posted that “I can't recall any other federal case being pursued and directed by someone outside the DOJ like this one appears to be, and for what seems to be political, or even personal revenge reasons” which is quite different.
I could be charitable and suggest that Leticia James and John Bolton are currently indicted for political reasons, but the better example is Trump himself. You may disagree, but then it becomes a matter of opinion that is irrelevant under the law, which it is, essentially, anyway.
If we are discussing the merits of a vindictive prosecution defense, I certainly do disagree. Trump did raise that defense in both his Fake Electors and Bathroom cases. But I don’t recall ANY evidence Trump had that was anywhere near close to this:
"Pam: . . . We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility."
MOTION to Dismiss Indictment based on Vindictive and Selective Prosecution by James B. Comey, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Carmichael, Jessica) (Entered: 10/20/2025)
That’s a lengthy compilation of public statements (attached to Comey’s motion to dismiss) that Trump has made about Comey from 2017 to 2025. I don’t think anyone could deny it shows years long obsession, hatred and desire for revenge. And again, I don’t recall anything like this in Trump’s criminal cases. There were certainly no written demands/orders from Biden, or anyone else, to the Attorney General to hire a Biden-picked prosecutor along with statements like “[He is] guilty as hell, but nothing is being done” and “We can’t delay any longer” and “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED NOW!!!”
Like I said, I’m sure this vindictive prosecution defense is very difficult to prove, but I don’t recall ANY federal prosecution that had facts like these. Trump's cases don't come close in the vindictive prosecution defense (or the merits of the charges, but that's another discussion).
You are correct about the First Amendment, but the defendant here is James Comey, not the New York Times. Comey has not been indicted for his statements about Trump, nor is this a First Amendment issue.
I mentioned the First Amendment in response to your statement that “grand jury deliberations are supposed to be confidential...therefore, the New York Times should not be reporting the margin of vote.”
I did not mention the First Amendment for any other reason, and I didn’t suggest anywhere that this was a First amendment case. So you’re kind of twisting things around and making strawman arguments, which I don’t think is necessary. Anyway, I agree this is not a First Amendment case.
I am not only misinformed, I am also not a lawyer. But I have paid close attention to what Comey has been charged with, and it doesn't matter if I got it exactly right, anyway. You might do better to explain what exactly I got wrong and correct me, but it appears that you are not a lawyer, either.
I did explain exactly what you got wrong. You posted that “1) he lied to Congress (the multiple times he responded 'I don't recall' to questions that enough members of the grand jury believed he knew, and 2) he leaked confidential information to news outlets (or more accurately, provided the information to someone who then leaked it).” He was not charged with either (1) or (2).
He was not charged with (1) “[lying] to Congress the multiple time he responded ‘I don’t know’ to questions.” That is not in any Counts, nor is anything similar to that in any Counts.
He was not charged with (2) “leak[ing] confidential information to news outlets” either directly or indirectly through “provid[ing] the information to someone who then leaked it.” That is not in any Counts, nor is anything similar to that in any Counts.
Here is what I do know for sure: lying to Congress is a crime. It is the foundation of the charge against Comey. He either did or did not do it.
I agree.
Claiming that his First Amendment rights have been violated because he used his free speech guaranteed by our Consitution to criticize Trump is not likely to get his case dismissed, as, again, he's not being charged with saying unkind things about Trump.
You are mischaracterizing what I posted, possibly deliberately. I mentioned the First Amendment in response to your statement that the New York Times should not be reporting on the grand jury vote. That's it. I never stated, suggested or implied in any way whatsoever that Comey, or anyone else, was “Claiming that his First Amendment rights have been violated because he used his free speech guaranteed by our Consitution to criticize Trump.”
(Also, there is a bit of irony here, as the relevant law, which is commonly understood as "obstructing an official proceeding" is the same one that was used to charge many of the January 6 indictees. It had been on the books for a long time, but was revised in 1996 after the Enron debacle.)
I don't think they were charged under the same law. Comey is charged under 18 USC 1505 and the MAGA Capitol rioters were charged under 18 USC 1512. But I don’t see any irony even if they were charged under the same statutory section.
There may be a perverse irony in charging Comey with lying to Congress while at the same time pardoning convicted felons who mobbed up and attempted to (and succeeded to some extent) obstruct a Congressional proceeding related to Presidential election certification.
Sorry for the late reply. You can think of a *single* political indictment outside of this?
That’s not what I posted. I posted that “I can't recall any other federal case being pursued and directed by someone outside the DOJ like this one appears to be, and for what seems to be political, or even personal revenge reasons” which is quite different.
I could be charitable and suggest that Leticia James and John Bolton are currently indicted for political reasons, but the better example is Trump himself. You may disagree, but then it becomes a matter of opinion that is irrelevant under the law, which it is, essentially, anyway.
If we are discussing the merits of a vindictive prosecution defense, I certainly do disagree. Trump did raise that defense in both his Fake Electors and Bathroom cases. But I don’t recall ANY evidence Trump had that was anywhere near close to this:
"Pam: . . . We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility."
That’s a lengthy compilation of public statements (attached to Comey’s motion to dismiss) that Trump has made about Comey from 2017 to 2025. I don’t think anyone could deny it shows years long obsession, hatred and desire for revenge. And again, I don’t recall anything like this in Trump’s criminal cases. There were certainly no written demands/orders from Biden, or anyone else, to the Attorney General to hire a Biden-picked prosecutor along with statements like “[He is] guilty as hell, but nothing is being done” and “We can’t delay any longer” and “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED NOW!!!”
Like I said, I’m sure this vindictive prosecution defense is very difficult to prove, but I don’t recall ANY federal prosecution that had facts like these. Trump's cases don't come close in the vindictive prosecution defense (or the merits of the charges, but that's another discussion).
You are correct about the First Amendment, but the defendant here is James Comey, not the New York Times. Comey has not been indicted for his statements about Trump, nor is this a First Amendment issue.
I mentioned the First Amendment in response to your statement that “grand jury deliberations are supposed to be confidential...therefore, the New York Times should not be reporting the margin of vote.”
I did not mention the First Amendment for any other reason, and I didn’t suggest anywhere that this was a First amendment case. So you’re kind of twisting things around and making strawman arguments, which I don’t think is necessary. Anyway, I agree this is not a First Amendment case.
I am not only misinformed, I am also not a lawyer. But I have paid close attention to what Comey has been charged with, and it doesn't matter if I got it exactly right, anyway. You might do better to explain what exactly I got wrong and correct me, but it appears that you are not a lawyer, either.
I did explain exactly what you got wrong. You posted that “1) he lied to Congress (the multiple times he responded 'I don't recall' to questions that enough members of the grand jury believed he knew, and 2) he leaked confidential information to news outlets (or more accurately, provided the information to someone who then leaked it).” He was not charged with either (1) or (2).
He was not charged with (1) “[lying] to Congress the multiple time he responded ‘I don’t know’ to questions.” That is not in any Counts, nor is anything similar to that in any Counts.
He was not charged with (2) “leak[ing] confidential information to news outlets” either directly or indirectly through “provid[ing] the information to someone who then leaked it.” That is not in any Counts, nor is anything similar to that in any Counts.
Here is what I do know for sure: lying to Congress is a crime. It is the foundation of the charge against Comey. He either did or did not do it.
I agree.
Claiming that his First Amendment rights have been violated because he used his free speech guaranteed by our Consitution to criticize Trump is not likely to get his case dismissed, as, again, he's not being charged with saying unkind things about Trump.
You are mischaracterizing what I posted, possibly deliberately. I mentioned the First Amendment in response to your statement that the New York Times should not be reporting on the grand jury vote. That's it. I never stated, suggested or implied in any way whatsoever that Comey, or anyone else, was “Claiming that his First Amendment rights have been violated because he used his free speech guaranteed by our Consitution to criticize Trump.”
(Also, there is a bit of irony here, as the relevant law, which is commonly understood as "obstructing an official proceeding" is the same one that was used to charge many of the January 6 indictees. It had been on the books for a long time, but was revised in 1996 after the Enron debacle.)
I don't think they were charged under the same law. Comey is charged under 18 USC 1505 and the MAGA Capitol rioters were charged under 18 USC 1512. But I don’t see any irony even if they were charged under the same statutory section.
There may be a perverse irony in charging Comey with lying to Congress while at the same time pardoning convicted felons who mobbed up and attempted to (and succeeded to some extent) obstruct a Congressional proceeding related to Presidential election certification.
As Matthew McConaughey once famously said: "All right, all right, all right!" I have apparently found someone who loves to argue as much as I do. Let's try to agree on something: this is not a good look for us.
Apologies if I misunderstood you (now...am I being humble or faking it?)...you claim that the prosecution was ordered by Trump and that no other prosecutions were. You are using Trump's words on social media to buttess that point. Fair enough...but how do you know that no other proseutions were ordered by the Chief Executive? You don't. You can't take the absence of evidence as proof. It's a matter of faith. And your reasoning, I hope you will concede, is highly motivated. Does that rhyme with "Exact words, Greg!" To me, it does. You might think I'm insulting you or trying to prove you wrong. Perhaps I am. But look at your motive and the conclusions you have drawn, and, if you want, explain how an absence of evidence proves a fact. Or don't. It is a waste of your time, and it turns me into a pedantry machine.
Trump raised the defense of targeted prosecution and it was rejected. I think the same thing will happen here. Some people who dislike Trump more than I do agree. That's irrelevant, as our opinion on the matter won't change the outcome. Let's set that aside (or don't...I don't want to tell you what to do, even if I just did). What do you think will happen with the the motion to dismiss? And why? That's a far meatier issue.
I didn't read all of the motion to dismiss, as it is quite lengthy and also repetitive in addition to being a snoozefest, but I did read enough to see Trump's social media posts. Let me put on my "Trumper who will defend this" hat and tell you that, in addition to being President, Trump is also a private citizen. He has the right to say awful things about James Comey. And, in turn, Comey can use those statements against him in his defense. I think they are irrelevant. The only thing I think that matters here is whether or not Comey committed the crime he is charged with. To add to that, the outcome will be determined by a jury of his peers, not you or me. Thank God.
I am twisting and strawmanning. Perhaps. But I'm also engaging with your argument carefully, even if you feel that I am misrepresenting what you said. Your argument so far boils down to: I have gotten everything wrong about your argument. That's possible, as I don't share your zeal for why the charges should be dismissed. My zeal is for the back-and-forth and hopefully getting you to consider your argument more carefully. So let me be direct: Do you think Comey lied or not? And why? (Let me anticipation an objection: that isn't moving the goalposts, it's the crucial question at the heart of this case...I am, of course, dismissive of the opinion that it should never have been brought before a court, simply because it has been brought before a court, so...who cares whether or not we have opinions on that matter?)
I'll concede that I got the specifics of the indictment wrong. We have the indictment now, and I don't see how my misunderstanding changes anything. Unless you are trying to characterize me as grossly misinformed, and therefore wrong. I am grossly misinformed. That is because I read and watch way to many secondary sources. It was delightful to read the actual motion to dismiss, (I thanked you for linking it, remember?) and I even shared the law and the relevant statute. I am now better informed. Does that change your opinion on whether or not I am wrong?
And....another thing (even I have to admit this is getting ridiculous), if you want to accuse me of mischaracterizing what you wrote, perhaps deliberately, go ahead. My argument is: the motion to dismiss won't be successful because it doesn't engage with the charges involved. Instead, it says "this is selective prosecution, and therefore should be dismissed." If I'm mischaracterizing your argument, let me try to summarize it: this *is* selective prosecution and should therefore be dismissed. I think I understand you and we are just pointlessly going back-and-forth. I enjoy that, as it forces me to think more clearly about my argument. Why do you do it?
Could be wrong about that last point (the law Comey and Jan 6'ers were charged under being the same), as I'm relying on secondary sources. If I am correct, there is indeed irony as "obstructing an official proceeding" means something very different than what it meant post-Enron. Let's try to set that aside.
We should have a completion to see who can write the longest, most boring post. My posts are quite long, and quite boring. Still, I appreciate your posts, and do wonder if you have a sense of humor about them.
Let me try to boil it down to what is essential. The charge is lying to Congress (in a broad sense). Do you think Comey lied or not? Why or why not? I'm hoping we can set aside all angels and all pins to get to the meat of the matter.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
It should be noted that Andy McCabe recently said publicly that nobody from the DOJ has even contacted him regarding this case. It would be common procedure for a prosecutor to invite him in for an interview since he would be a material witness for the prosecution. Essential for their CASE! But that never happened.
This proves that this indictment is just for show. They don't even care if it ever gets to trial. They just wanted it for political purposes and to satisfy Trump.
Who is Andy McCabe? He's not mentioned in the indictment. It's not important, except that is likely represents another leak. The indictment (posted in its entirely further up) mentions "Person 1" and "Person 3." Is he one of those?
If I may, and I realize you are not responding to or asking the question of me. The McCabe issue is complicated to explain, but here goes:
1. The Comey quote in the Indictment -- "falsely stating . . . that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., had not 'authorized someone else at the FBO to be an anonymous source in news reports'" -- is itself false. Comey never said the quoted words (above) that the Indictment attributes to him. Hallirans filed a deficient Indictment.
2. The quoted words were actually spoken by Senator Rafael "Ted" Cruz in a lengthy, heavily premised question at the 2020 Congressional hearing. Here is the relevant part of the transcript (quoted words in Indictment bolded):
Senator Cruz: On May 3rd, 2017, in this committee, Chairman Grassley asked you point blank, "Have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?" You responded under oath, "Never." He then asked you, "Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?" You responded again under oath, "No." Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who's telling the truth?
Mr. Comey: (01:52:43) I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.
Senator Cruz: (01:52:50) So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak? And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth, is that correct?
Mr. Comey: (01:52:58) Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today.
3. So you can see from the transcript that the question (which is actually Senator Cruz recasting Senator Grassley's similar question from 2017) that Comey is alleged to have answered falsely is directed to or premised on Andy McCabe's leak.
4. McCabe was Comey's second in command at FBI or something.
5. In 2016, McCabe leaked to the Wall Street Journal that the FBI was investigating the Clinton Foundation.
6. In 2018, the FBI investigated the McCabe leak and wrote a Report. Here it is:
7. The Report found that McCabe leaked the Clinton investigation to the WSJ, but that he never sought nor got authorization from Comey to do the leak, and that he only told Comey about the leak after the fact.
8. So the question by Cruz actually has a false premise in it -- "as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal . . . and that you directly authorized it." Comey never authorized McCabe to leak, so it raises the question of whether one can even provide a false answer to a question with a false premise in it. Sound legally impossible to me.
9. But anyway, one would reasonably assume that the thread-bare, sketchy Indictment is related to the Cruz question about McCabe, and that McCabe he is Person 3. What else could it be about?
10. Reasonable people are apparently wrong. The media is now reporting that sources at the DOJ are saying Person 3 is not McCabe but rather Daniel Richman. Hallirans strikes again. Nothing in the Indictment remotely supports anything like this, in fact, the opposite.
11. Richman is the guy that Comey gave his notes from his weirdo meetings with Trump to. That's an entirely new can of worms and analysis.
This was discussed more in depth on pages 2003-2006 of this thread.
Who is Andy McCabe? He's not mentioned in the indictment. It's not important, except that is likely represents another leak. The indictment (posted in its entirely further up) mentions "Person 1" and "Person 3." Is he one of those?
If I may, and I realize you are not responding to or asking the question of me. The McCabe issue is complicated to explain, but here goes:
1. The Comey quote in the Indictment -- "falsely stating . . . that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., had not 'authorized someone else at the FBO to be an anonymous source in news reports'" -- is itself false. Comey never said the quoted words (above) that the Indictment attributes to him. Hallirans filed a deficient Indictment.
2. The quoted words were actually spoken by Senator Rafael "Ted" Cruz in a lengthy, heavily premised question at the 2020 Congressional hearing. Here is the relevant part of the transcript (quoted words in Indictment bolded):
Senator Cruz: On May 3rd, 2017, in this committee, Chairman Grassley asked you point blank, "Have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?" You responded under oath, "Never." He then asked you, "Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?" You responded again under oath, "No." Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who's telling the truth?
Mr. Comey: (01:52:43) I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.
Senator Cruz: (01:52:50) So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak? And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth, is that correct?
Mr. Comey: (01:52:58) Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today.
3. So you can see from the transcript that the question (which is actually Senator Cruz recasting Senator Grassley's similar question from 2017) that Comey is alleged to have answered falsely is directed to or premised on Andy McCabe's leak.
4. McCabe was Comey's second in command at FBI or something.
5. In 2016, McCabe leaked to the Wall Street Journal that the FBI was investigating the Clinton Foundation.
6. In 2018, the FBI investigated the McCabe leak and wrote a Report. Here it is:
7. The Report found that McCabe leaked the Clinton investigation to the WSJ, but that he never sought nor got authorization from Comey to do the leak, and that he only told Comey about the leak after the fact.
8. So the question by Cruz actually has a false premise in it -- "as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal . . . and that you directly authorized it." Comey never authorized McCabe to leak, so it raises the question of whether one can even provide a false answer to a question with a false premise in it. Sound legally impossible to me.
9. But anyway, one would reasonably assume that the thread-bare, sketchy Indictment is related to the Cruz question about McCabe, and that McCabe he is Person 3. What else could it be about?
10. Reasonable people are apparently wrong. The media is now reporting that sources at the DOJ are saying Person 3 is not McCabe but rather Daniel Richman. Hallirans strikes again. Nothing in the Indictment remotely supports anything like this, in fact, the opposite.
11. Richman is the guy that Comey gave his notes from his weirdo meetings with Trump to. That's an entirely new can of worms and analysis.
This was discussed more in depth on pages 2003-2006 of this thread.
Dude, you win! I can only type so much. So what did Comey say in 2017? If he said "no" and there is evidence to the contrary, then he lied, which is a crime. The New York times, which you cite as evidence that Comey told the truth, is neither an unbiased source, nor does it have any authority in the matter. So let me see if I have your argument right: Comey denied any part in the leak (or, more specifically, denied authorizing the leak, which is not in evidence until we have his statement from 2017), therefore he told the truth when he did so. Did I get that right?
What if you're wrong? Or is that out of the question? I may well be wrong, but I haven't even expressed an opinion on the matter. Instead, my argument is that he was charged with an actual crime, will receive a fair trial, and the outcome will be known when the jury gives its verdict.
Trump is setting the stage to declare the Insurrection Act and use it to stop midterms. troops in the cities, summary executions, calling Dems America hating terrorists, etc. seeing how much the GOp will let him get away with before just doing the coup and ending the republic.
everything authoritarians do pre-coup, he is doing .
actually more likely, trump will simply arrest the leading Democrats running for office. Trump will order the IRS and DOJ to find something, they will find something, the Dem nominees will be arrested and there really won't be an election. Sure, there will be an election, but not a free and fair one.
The Rs will say 'no one is above the law' when they arrest leading Dems, and the coup will be done. There still will be 'elections' but the Dem candidates will be in jail or unable to campaign.
actually more likely, trump will simply arrest the leading Democrats running for office. Trump will order the IRS and DOJ to find something, they will find something, the Dem nominees will be arrested and there really won't be an election. Sure, there will be an election, but not a free and fair one.
The Rs will say 'no one is above the law' when they arrest leading Dems, and the coup will be done. There still will be 'elections' but the Dem candidates will be in jail or unable to campaign.
That's a greater than 50% possibility.
After this he will go after 3rd party candidates
Dems getting a taste of their own medicine and they don’t like it. imagine that? the problem is we asked you to stop and then told you to stop and you didn’t listen. so now we will show you how it feels. dig in, just getting started.
Dems getting a taste of their own medicine and they don’t like it. imagine that? the problem is we asked you to stop and then told you to stop and you didn’t listen. so now we will show you how it feels. dig in, just getting started.
yeah the DOJ that indicted Hunter Biden and Dem senator mendendez was clearly being ordered around by the WH.
And trump didn't commit all those crimes.
You are on to something. Probably meth, given you are a trumper, but you are on to something.
Dems getting a taste of their own medicine and they don’t like it. imagine that? the problem is we asked you to stop and then told you to stop and you didn’t listen. so now we will show you how it feels. dig in, just getting started.
yeah the DOJ that indicted Hunter Biden and Dem senator mendendez was clearly being ordered around by the WH.
And trump didn't commit all those crimes.
You are on to something. Probably meth, given you are a trumper, but you are on to something.
You ran your experiment and it didn’t go so well. now we run ours.
Ar the end of our experiment, we will have turned the anti gun rights crowd into the biggest gun rights advocates. then our mission will be accomplished.
yeah the DOJ that indicted Hunter Biden and Dem senator mendendez was clearly being ordered around by the WH.
And trump didn't commit all those crimes.
You are on to something. Probably meth, given you are a trumper, but you are on to something.
You ran your experiment and it didn’t go so well. now we run ours.
Ar the end of our experiment, we will have turned the anti gun rights crowd into the biggest gun rights advocates. then our mission will be accomplished.
yes, what this country needs is more highly politicized people with guns.
