"On Feb. 6, 2022, Mr. Juarez was pulled over by state troopers in upstate New York, while driving with his wife and two of their children, and arrested on charges of driving while intoxicated."
It doesn’t even matter who’s doing the drugs, whoever it is needs MAGA help because you guys were bringing in the most in History, so obviously Dems don’t give a fk about anything but power
And now you are all out of this thing you crave most.
Just quit being stupid, all of you. you fight for absolute nonsense, or worse. you’ve got nothing to help this nation
Your 4 years produced
Inflation +++ energy prices +++ border crossings +++ crime +++
The list is endless. Not only are you useless, but then you attack children and working families specifically because you are useless and nobody listened to you. Nobody ever will. it’s over. drop your insanity and just become normal Americans.
Continuing to fight MAGA will just drive you further into the ground. You couldn’t win with power so how on Earth does your crazy mind believe you can win now?
...while usage stats say its mainly your MAGA neighbours in the trailers who are users. Remember your big Pharma created it and developed the addicts until they were sued out of existence. A bit stupid to blame China for precursor chemicals now.
Source?
There are spiritual forces working on the physical world that a lot of us don’t see and don’t understand.
It doesn’t even matter who’s doing the drugs, whoever it is needs MAGA help because you guys were bringing in the most in History, so obviously Dems don’t give a fk about anything but power
And now you are all out of this thing you crave most.
Just quit being stupid, all of you. you fight for absolute nonsense, or worse. you’ve got nothing to help this nation
Your 4 years produced
Inflation +++ energy prices +++ border crossings +++ crime +++
The list is endless. Not only are you useless, but then you attack children and working families specifically because you are useless and nobody listened to you. Nobody ever will. it’s over. drop your insanity and just become normal Americans.
Continuing to fight MAGA will just drive you further into the ground. You couldn’t win with power so how on Earth does your crazy mind believe you can win now?
Are these Dems in the room with you now?
lol, I couldn’t imagine. since Trump said he’s running, you knew you were beat. You went from watching his #1 show on tv to flipping to he’s a Russian and so are his voters. Just complete unhinged lunacy. lost any principles, lost all your dignity. you libs are like heroin users. you can’t stop this constant crap of an attack even though you knows it’s going to kill you.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
I always do. so you made this up. got it. it’s just pure stupidity at this point, why you dems are still having this emotional struggle with politics. Flat out stupid. and to try to plant a certified, sleep her way into work bimbo, as POTUS. I mean for real. get over it. MAGA is killing it in every area imaginable. it is what it is and there is nothing you can do about it. Just enjoy America’s success. Xi would’ve eaten Harris alive. pathetic choice and then Waltz. the fake football coach who is a fem beta man.
Just stop, you are killing this countries 2 party system. we will end it but it’s not our wish. it’s your wish.
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.
Here is the relevant Comey testimony from 2017. He is answering questions from Senator Grassley (which are then recast by Senator Cruz in 2020).
I'm starting to feel like a librarian here. Why am I chasing down easily locatable information for people who have opinions on stuff they never read?
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.
I have not cited the New York Times as evidence of anything, much less evidence that Comey told the truth. The New York Times has nothing to do with this, and I never suggested for a second that it did.
To repeat, the only time I have mentioned the New York Times was in response to YOUR statement that the New York Times should not be reporting on grand jury vote results. I now regret commenting on your statement, as you have twice now conjured needless and strange strawman arguments about it.
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?
No, you did not get that right or even close to right, starting with your characterization of what I posted as an "argument" that I was making. I was trying to answer your question "Who is Andy McCabe?" I suppose I could have simply said "He's a guy who worked at the FBI." But I thought I'd give you the benefit of the digging around on Andy McCabe that I did 3-4 weeks ago when the Indictment was filed. Hence the long, detailed answer to your question. I hope it helped inform you on things, but it doesn't look like it did.
What if you're wrong? Or is that out of the question?
What if I'm wrong about what? Who Andy McCabe is? Then I'm wrong, I guess. I doubt I'm wrong about who he is, given the links I have provided you above. Senators Cruz and Grassley were asking Comey about someone named Andy McCabe who worked at the FBI, and the FBI wrote a Report about an employee named Andy McCabe. See links above.
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.
Agreed, except that it may not get to a trial, but if it does, it will be a fair one, and we will know the outcome when the jury gives its verdict. Agreed.
This evening, Comey filed the motion to dismiss that many predicted was coming (in some form or another). In fact, it reads almost exactly like the comments here predicted it would.
MOTION to Dismiss Indictment Based on Fundamental Ambiguity and Literal Truth by James B. Comey, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Carmichael, Jessica) (Entered: 10/30/2025)
The executive summary is that Senator Cruz's question was (1) ambiguous, (2) to the extent it can be understood it was directed to Andrew McCabe, (3) Cruz's questions contained factual inaccuracies that rendered them essentially unanswerable, (4) the Indictment itself even misquotes Comey and (5) alternatively, Comey answered Cruz accurately.
This is a really compelling motion on the facts here. See, e.g., Page 11 ("Even if Senator Cruz’s use of compound questions did not by itself make those questions fundamentally ambiguous, context confirms that Mr. Comey could not have reasonably known that Senator Cruz was asking him to answer a broad question about anyone at the FBI when asked a specific question about Mr. McCabe."); Page 13 ("a reasonable witness most readily would have understood Senator Cruz to be asking him to specifically address whether he had authorized Mr. McCabe to serve as a source to the Wall Street Journal."); Page 19 ("Senator Cruz’s questions referenced whether Mr. Comey authorized anonymous sources to report on the “Trump investigation,” which did not exist during his tenure as FBI Director, and the “Clinton administration,” which had ended nearly 17 years earlier.")
Page 18 in particular is compelling in its explanation that Comey accurately answered the only two questions that Cruz actually asked when you get through all the background premise (Comey is only accused on one, and it's anyone's guess which): (1) "Who's telling the truth?" and (2) "And Mr. McCabe when if he says contrary is not telling the truth, is that correct?"
I can't figure out how the prosecution, especially Hanrihans who appears to be incompetent, will be able to file a reasonable response that explains what the Cruz questions actually meant and how were directed to someone else other than McCabe. I guess we shall see in a few weeks.
"On Feb. 6, 2022, Mr. Juarez was pulled over by state troopers in upstate New York, while driving with his wife and two of their children, and arrested on charges of driving while intoxicated."
Should have been deported 3 years ago.
Guy is a criminal.
He works for criminal #1, Trump.
If Trump is a criminal, how come he isn't in jail?
If Trump is a criminal, how come he isn't in jail?
Because the actual definition of a criminal is someone who has been convicted of a criminal offense. After a jury trial in the State of New York, Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts on May 30, 2024. He's not serving time for these convictions because the trial judge thought having Trump sit in a state penitentiary while serving as president would be a bad look.
If Trump is a criminal, how come he isn't in jail?
Because the actual definition of a criminal is someone who has been convicted of a criminal offense. After a jury trial in the State of New York, Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts on May 30, 2024.
I'm starting to feel like a librarian here. Why am I chasing down easily locatable information for people who have opinions on stuff they never read?
I have not cited the New York Times as evidence of anything, much less evidence that Comey told the truth. The New York Times has nothing to do with this, and I never suggested for a second that it did.
To repeat, the only time I have mentioned the New York Times was in response to YOUR statement that the New York Times should not be reporting on grand jury vote results. I now regret commenting on your statement, as you have twice now conjured needless and strange strawman arguments about it.
No, you did not get that right or even close to right, starting with your characterization of what I posted as an "argument" that I was making. I was trying to answer your question "Who is Andy McCabe?" I suppose I could have simply said "He's a guy who worked at the FBI." But I thought I'd give you the benefit of the digging around on Andy McCabe that I did 3-4 weeks ago when the Indictment was filed. Hence the long, detailed answer to your question. I hope it helped inform you on things, but it doesn't look like it did.
What if I'm wrong about what? Who Andy McCabe is? Then I'm wrong, I guess. I doubt I'm wrong about who he is, given the links I have provided you above. Senators Cruz and Grassley were asking Comey about someone named Andy McCabe who worked at the FBI, and the FBI wrote a Report about an employee named Andy McCabe. See links above.
Agreed, except that it may not get to a trial, but if it does, it will be a fair one, and we will know the outcome when the jury gives its verdict. Agreed.
This evening, Comey filed the motion to dismiss that many predicted was coming (in some form or another). In fact, it reads almost exactly like the comments here predicted it would.
The executive summary is that Senator Cruz's question was (1) ambiguous, (2) to the extent it can be understood it was directed to Andrew McCabe, (3) Cruz's questions contained factual inaccuracies that rendered them essentially unanswerable, (4) the Indictment itself even misquotes Comey and (5) alternatively, Comey answered Cruz accurately.
This is a really compelling motion on the facts here. See, e.g., Page 11 ("Even if Senator Cruz’s use of compound questions did not by itself make those questions fundamentally ambiguous, context confirms that Mr. Comey could not have reasonably known that Senator Cruz was asking him to answer a broad question about anyone at the FBI when asked a specific question about Mr. McCabe."); Page 13 ("a reasonable witness most readily would have understood Senator Cruz to be asking him to specifically address whether he had authorized Mr. McCabe to serve as a source to the Wall Street Journal."); Page 19 ("Senator Cruz’s questions referenced whether Mr. Comey authorized anonymous sources to report on the “Trump investigation,” which did not exist during his tenure as FBI Director, and the “Clinton administration,” which had ended nearly 17 years earlier.")
Page 18 in particular is compelling in its explanation that Comey accurately answered the only two questions that Cruz actually asked when you get through all the background premise (Comey is only accused on one, and it's anyone's guess which): (1) "Who's telling the truth?" and (2) "And Mr. McCabe when if he says contrary is not telling the truth, is that correct?"
I can't figure out how the prosecution, especially Hanrihans who appears to be incompetent, will be able to file a reasonable response that explains what the Cruz questions actually meant and how were directed to someone else other than McCabe. I guess we shall see in a few weeks.
Developing . . . . .
We will have the prosecutions answer to the motion to dismlss by November 3, as that is the deadline.
Your account of the facts of the case, specifically, what constitutes "lying to Congress" relies heavily on information that was leaked to the New York Times. Let's set aside the Times' political bias and the norm that grand jury testimony is supposed to remain private, as both of those arguments are weak as they rely on political motivations. We don't know what specific instance or instances are the foundation of the charge. That will come out during the trial, if the motion to dismiss does not succeed, which is my prediction.
To say a little more, I suspect the motion to dismiss won't succeed because the grand jury, which is made up of private citizens and not political appointments ("grand jurors" are simply members of a jury) handed down an indictment on two of the three counts. And, we only know this, along with the allegation that the vote was close, because the information was leaked to and reported in the New York Times.
I really appreciate you using primary sources here. But I want to underscore that, to my knowledge, neither you nor I nor anyone who has posted in this thread has the legal expertise to grasp what the relevant issues are. It's up to the judge, after all. So...we'll see what happens.
Edit: Why are you chasing down information? Because you're a good American; someone who is trying to grapple with the law, which is incredibly complex. Again, thank you for the links to primary sources.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
This evening, Comey filed the motion to dismiss that many predicted was coming (in some form or another). In fact, it reads almost exactly like the comments here predicted it would.
The executive summary is that Senator Cruz's question was (1) ambiguous, (2) to the extent it can be understood it was directed to Andrew McCabe, (3) Cruz's questions contained factual inaccuracies that rendered them essentially unanswerable, (4) the Indictment itself even misquotes Comey and (5) alternatively, Comey answered Cruz accurately.
This is a really compelling motion on the facts here. See, e.g., Page 11 ("Even if Senator Cruz’s use of compound questions did not by itself make those questions fundamentally ambiguous, context confirms that Mr. Comey could not have reasonably known that Senator Cruz was asking him to answer a broad question about anyone at the FBI when asked a specific question about Mr. McCabe."); Page 13 ("a reasonable witness most readily would have understood Senator Cruz to be asking him to specifically address whether he had authorized Mr. McCabe to serve as a source to the Wall Street Journal."); Page 19 ("Senator Cruz’s questions referenced whether Mr. Comey authorized anonymous sources to report on the “Trump investigation,” which did not exist during his tenure as FBI Director, and the “Clinton administration,” which had ended nearly 17 years earlier.")
Page 18 in particular is compelling in its explanation that Comey accurately answered the only two questions that Cruz actually asked when you get through all the background premise (Comey is only accused on one, and it's anyone's guess which): (1) "Who's telling the truth?" and (2) "And Mr. McCabe when if he says contrary is not telling the truth, is that correct?"
I can't figure out how the prosecution, especially Hanrihans who appears to be incompetent, will be able to file a reasonable response that explains what the Cruz questions actually meant and how were directed to someone else other than McCabe. I guess we shall see in a few weeks.
Developing . . . . .
Just read that motion. It is very well written. Halogen's case is a clusterfook for a wide variety of reasons brought out. Here are some of my favorites.
1. Lying Ted Cruz could have left his question broad but had to narrow the scope to Andy McCabe because he thought he had an awesome gotcha on Comey. These guys LOVE to hear themselves talk. As such it can be inferred that Comey answered regarding McCabe. But the indictment is referring to Richman. Something altogether different.
2. It is fundamental that a perjury charge must include a lie. But Comey never lied. He literally said the truth. 1. "I stand by my testimony". 2. "I am not going to characterize McCabe's statements but my testimony is the same today". Where is the freekin lie? Is Halogen saying that Comey did not stand by his testimony and therefore lied? Rafael Teddy should have followed up with questions to pin down Comey but failed to do so. As such he never literally answered Cruz's questions.
This evening, Comey filed the motion to dismiss that many predicted was coming (in some form or another). In fact, it reads almost exactly like the comments here predicted it would.
The executive summary is that Senator Cruz's question was (1) ambiguous, (2) to the extent it can be understood it was directed to Andrew McCabe, (3) Cruz's questions contained factual inaccuracies that rendered them essentially unanswerable, (4) the Indictment itself even misquotes Comey and (5) alternatively, Comey answered Cruz accurately.
This is a really compelling motion on the facts here. See, e.g., Page 11 ("Even if Senator Cruz’s use of compound questions did not by itself make those questions fundamentally ambiguous, context confirms that Mr. Comey could not have reasonably known that Senator Cruz was asking him to answer a broad question about anyone at the FBI when asked a specific question about Mr. McCabe."); Page 13 ("a reasonable witness most readily would have understood Senator Cruz to be asking him to specifically address whether he had authorized Mr. McCabe to serve as a source to the Wall Street Journal."); Page 19 ("Senator Cruz’s questions referenced whether Mr. Comey authorized anonymous sources to report on the “Trump investigation,” which did not exist during his tenure as FBI Director, and the “Clinton administration,” which had ended nearly 17 years earlier.")
Page 18 in particular is compelling in its explanation that Comey accurately answered the only two questions that Cruz actually asked when you get through all the background premise (Comey is only accused on one, and it's anyone's guess which): (1) "Who's telling the truth?" and (2) "And Mr. McCabe when if he says contrary is not telling the truth, is that correct?"
I can't figure out how the prosecution, especially Hanrihans who appears to be incompetent, will be able to file a reasonable response that explains what the Cruz questions actually meant and how were directed to someone else other than McCabe. I guess we shall see in a few weeks.
Developing . . . . .
Just read that motion. It is very well written. Halogen's case is a clusterfook for a wide variety of reasons brought out. Here are some of my favorites.
1. Lying Ted Cruz could have left his question broad but had to narrow the scope to Andy McCabe because he thought he had an awesome gotcha on Comey. These guys LOVE to hear themselves talk. As such it can be inferred that Comey answered regarding McCabe. But the indictment is referring to Richman. Something altogether different.
2. It is fundamental that a perjury charge must include a lie. But Comey never lied. He literally said the truth. 1. "I stand by my testimony". 2. "I am not going to characterize McCabe's statements but my testimony is the same today". Where is the freekin lie? Is Halogen saying that Comey did not stand by his testimony and therefore lied? Rafael Teddy should have followed up with questions to pin down Comey but failed to do so. As such he never literally answered Cruz's questions.
Comey is scum, why nitpick scum? fk this guy. And Schumer, the $80,000,000 man who has never had a private job trying to extort people that are hungry. what a douchebag.
Seeing it on LRC too. The mods used to delete the jew-hating ashholes but not anymore. The mods let the posts stand. Trump is taking us down a very dark road, inviting the European demons out of their graves and letting them run wild in the New World.
Ted Cruz, speaking tonight: “Everyone here knows we're seeing more and more antisemitism rising on the right. In the last six months, I've seen more antisemitism on the right than I have in my entire life.”
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
