The woke fringe has taken over the Democrat Party. Some are dumb idealists (aoc, Mamdani) while others are actually insane (all the Lia Thomas defenders, for one, open border supporters, etc)
Laura Loomer is making personnel decisions at the highest level of our federal government including Presidential cabinet members.
Trump is right! (Who says that I always disagree with Trump?)
"A shutdown falls on the president's lack of leadership. I mean problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top. A shutdown means the president is weak." Donald J. Trump
Obama:
2013. Obama talks about how incredibly irresponsible it would be for Congress to shut down the government in order to blackmail a President into making concessions.
The woke fringe has taken over the Democrat Party. Some are dumb idealists (aoc, Mamdani) while others are actually insane (all the Lia Thomas defenders, for one, open border supporters, etc)
Laura Loomer is making personnel decisions at the highest level of our federal government including Presidential cabinet members.
And? She’s somewhat off her rocker but isn’t close to as insane as the open borders / woke trans fringe of the democrat party. She accepts reality and biology and doesn’t tell people to disbelieve their lying eyes.
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.
The prosecution’s Response to the motion filed last night is due November 13. The prosecution’s Response to the two motions we discussed earlier last week is due November 3 (Monday).
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.
My account of the facts of the case has nothing to do with the New York Times or anything they reported. With respect to the motion filed last night, I never mentioned the New York Times. The motion doesn’t mention the New York Times either. Nothing came from the New York Times.
You seem to have the New York Times on the brain with respect to the Comey case – and even worse, you keep saying that I'm somehow relying on the New York Times – when, as far as I can tell, the New York Times has absolutely nothing to do with any of this, and absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted.
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.
I agree that we don’t know the specific instances, or much of anything for that matter, that are the bases of Counts 1 and 2, because the Indictment is deficient on its face as to what is being charged. That deficiency is the subject of Comey’s motion discussed above and another motion for a Bill of Particular that Comey filed last night, trying to get the prosecution to spell out what they are actually charging.
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.
Very few motions to dismiss succeed because the vast majority of trained, experienced prosecutors only file cases that they believe meet the high evidentiary and legal burdens they face. That has little to do with the grand jury. And again, you seem to have some OCD thing going with the New York Times, that has nothing to do with any of this.
You should read the motion to dismiss filed last night. It neatly and comprehensively explains the problems with the Indictment that we've been discussing since it was filed regarding Cruz's question(s) about Andy McCabe and Comey's answers. Hallirans will have a tough time coming up with a Response that makes sense. I can't think of any reasonable way to bend Cruz and the Indictment around to make this case about Daniel Richman who was never even mentioned in 8 hours of Comey's Congressional hearings. Can you?
The woke fringe has taken over the Democrat Party. Some are dumb idealists (aoc, Mamdani) while others are actually insane (all the Lia Thomas defenders, for one, open border supporters, etc)
Thomas was universally disliked and I don’t recall anyone defending her.
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.”
Undisputed: Vance would be *much* worse IMO. I hope Donald Trump remains POTUS through the end of this term. I find the prospect of a President Vance chilling.
Vance appears to be getting very close to Erika Kirk -- photos of her hugging him yesterday while running her hands through his hair.
Simultaneously, Vance has been disparaging Usha and seems to be setting the stage for a separation due to her not adopting his Christian values.
A Vance/Kirk relationship could quite literally marry TPUSA to the Executive Branch.
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.
I suspect that very few perjury cases come out of Congressional hearings. Those hearings aren't depositions, where trained lawyers are asking specific questions trying to nail down facts or a witness' position. While some Senators and Representatives, like Cruz, are lawyers, they don't have their lawyer hats on when questioning at Congressional hearings. They largely use those as platforms for political speeches and don't really care what the witness's answer is (or who the witness even is). Cruz was speechifying for over a minute before he finally asked Comey a question. Cruz probably looks fired up and adamant on video, but the actual question is convoluted (and only about McCabe).
Undisputed: Vance would be *much* worse IMO. I hope Donald Trump remains POTUS through the end of this term. I find the prospect of a President Vance chilling.
Simultaneously, Vance has been disparaging Usha and seems to be setting the stage for a separation due to her not adopting his Christian values.
Indeed. Vance has evolved a lot since these Hindu dress-wearing days of yore.
What you have provided is a Tweet, which can be recorded and posted by anyone claiming any sh!t they want to claim for whatever reason they want.
What I provide are facts.
Do you understand the difference?
////////////
FACT 1: The average SNAP monthly claim for 2024 was $187/person.
FACT 2: The maximum monthly claim within the continental US is $292/person.
Do you understand facts?
////////////
Just for fun, I checked the Oregon Department of Human Services benefits estimator and put in the following info to see how much a very poor person might qualify for.
I suspect that very few perjury cases come out of Congressional hearings. Those hearings aren't depositions, where trained lawyers are asking specific questions trying to nail down facts or a witness' position. While some Senators and Representatives, like Cruz, are lawyers, they don't have their lawyer hats on when questioning at Congressional hearings. They largely use those as platforms for political speeches and don't really care what the witness's answer is (or who the witness even is). Cruz was speechifying for over a minute before he finally asked Comey a question. Cruz probably looks fired up and adamant on video, but the actual question is convoluted (and only about McCabe).
Speaking of lawyer hats, watch what K.Harris did to Bill Barr in that Mueller hearing. Ouch.
What is sort of getting missed in all of this is that the FBI is totally permitted to give information to the press. They do it all the time. The media keeps categorizing it as “leaks” to make it sound sinister. So Comey had no motive to lie. Giving information to the press is totally legit.
Hell Kash Patel and is deputy Bongino are still right wing trolls and influencers while they are both running the FBI. They are in front of the cameras and on Fox News all the time spinning their BS.
Bondi is completely breaking DOJ policy by hanging out in the Oval Office and also making rounds on Fox News.
This post was edited 58 seconds after it was posted.
The pedophilia, business fraud, charity fraud, adultery, incessant lying, corruption, felonies, rejecting results of elections, inciting a mob to stop certification and selling out our nation to the highest bidders and dismantling our federal government did not sway you.
Instead it is just a general fatigue that is it bumming you out.
Don't forget Canada, Greenland, and the fishermen barbecues !!!
We will have the prosecutions answer to the motion to dismlss by November 3, as that is the deadline.
The prosecution’s Response to the motion filed last night is due November 13. The prosecution’s Response to the two motions we discussed earlier last week is due November 3 (Monday).
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.
My account of the facts of the case has nothing to do with the New York Times or anything they reported. With respect to the motion filed last night, I never mentioned the New York Times. The motion doesn’t mention the New York Times either. Nothing came from the New York Times.
You seem to have the New York Times on the brain with respect to the Comey case – and even worse, you keep saying that I'm somehow relying on the New York Times – when, as far as I can tell, the New York Times has absolutely nothing to do with any of this, and absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted.
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.
I agree that we don’t know the specific instances, or much of anything for that matter, that are the bases of Counts 1 and 2, because the Indictment is deficient on its face as to what is being charged. That deficiency is the subject of Comey’s motion discussed above and another motion for a Bill of Particular that Comey filed last night, trying to get the prosecution to spell out what they are actually charging.
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.
Very few motions to dismiss succeed because the vast majority of trained, experienced prosecutors only file cases that they believe meet the high evidentiary and legal burdens they face. That has little to do with the grand jury. And again, you seem to have some OCD thing going with the New York Times, that has nothing to do with any of this.
You should read the motion to dismiss filed last night. It neatly and comprehensively explains the problems with the Indictment that we've been discussing since it was filed regarding Cruz's question(s) about Andy McCabe and Comey's answers. Hallirans will have a tough time coming up with a Response that makes sense. I can't think of any reasonable way to bend Cruz and the Indictment around to make this case about Daniel Richman who was never even mentioned in 8 hours of Comey's Congressional hearings. Can you?
Yeah, well maybe the New York Times can investigate that "bathroom" !!!
Undisputed: Vance would be *much* worse IMO. I hope Donald Trump remains POTUS through the end of this term. I find the prospect of a President Vance chilling.
Vance appears to be getting very close to Erika Kirk -- photos of her hugging him yesterday while running her hands through his hair.
Simultaneously, Vance has been disparaging Usha and seems to be setting the stage for a separation due to her not adopting his Christian values.
A Vance/Kirk relationship could quite literally marry TPUSA to the Executive Branch.
I don't mean to be rude, but I believe that all analyses of the Vance marriage need to be cleared thru El Runkin.
The pedophilia, business fraud, charity fraud, adultery, incessant lying, corruption, felonies, rejecting results of elections, inciting a mob to stop certification and selling out our nation to the highest bidders and dismantling our federal government did not sway you.
Instead it is just a general fatigue that is it bumming you out.
Most of that stuff was before 2.0, and 2.0 has been far, far worse than 1.0.
The ignorance and/or arrogance of anyone still saying or thinking, "We're a great country" is beyond me.
We will have the prosecutions answer to the motion to dismlss by November 3, as that is the deadline.
The prosecution’s Response to the motion filed last night is due November 13. The prosecution’s Response to the two motions we discussed earlier last week is due November 3 (Monday).
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.
My account of the facts of the case has nothing to do with the New York Times or anything they reported. With respect to the motion filed last night, I never mentioned the New York Times. The motion doesn’t mention the New York Times either. Nothing came from the New York Times.
You seem to have the New York Times on the brain with respect to the Comey case – and even worse, you keep saying that I'm somehow relying on the New York Times – when, as far as I can tell, the New York Times has absolutely nothing to do with any of this, and absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted.
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.
I agree that we don’t know the specific instances, or much of anything for that matter, that are the bases of Counts 1 and 2, because the Indictment is deficient on its face as to what is being charged. That deficiency is the subject of Comey’s motion discussed above and another motion for a Bill of Particular that Comey filed last night, trying to get the prosecution to spell out what they are actually charging.
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.
Very few motions to dismiss succeed because the vast majority of trained, experienced prosecutors only file cases that they believe meet the high evidentiary and legal burdens they face. That has little to do with the grand jury. And again, you seem to have some OCD thing going with the New York Times, that has nothing to do with any of this.
You should read the motion to dismiss filed last night. It neatly and comprehensively explains the problems with the Indictment that we've been discussing since it was filed regarding Cruz's question(s) about Andy McCabe and Comey's answers. Hallirans will have a tough time coming up with a Response that makes sense. I can't think of any reasonable way to bend Cruz and the Indictment around to make this case about Daniel Richman who was never even mentioned in 8 hours of Comey's Congressional hearings. Can you?
I'm not going to argue with you, because that wasn't the point of what I wrote. I was wrong that you were relying on the Times, snd I noticed this when I went back and re-read your post. I also missed that there was apparently another motion filed yesterday, and I'm either wrong about the Nov 3 deadline for when the answer is due, or the November 13 deadline is set for the first motion. We'll know more by November 13, in either case.
The pedophilia, business fraud, charity fraud, adultery, incessant lying, corruption, felonies, rejecting results of elections, inciting a mob to stop certification and selling out our nation to the highest bidders and dismantling our federal government did not sway you.
Instead it is just a general fatigue that is it bumming you out.
Most of that stuff was before 2.0, and 2.0 has been far, far worse than 1.0.
The ignorance and/or arrogance of anyone still saying or thinking, "We're a great country" is beyond me.
