Case Against Former FBI Director James Comey Dismissed

[candycorn]

It was a shit ruling TBH.

Trump seems to have the worst luck in front of judges.

She was legally appointed, but the Senate screwed up by not getting that confirmation done.

Then she wasn’t legally appointed.

That rests on Thune's desk.

LOL.... Poor Donald...nothing is his fault but he gets blamed.

 

[struth]

But the prosecutor is their legal counsel in this context. And again that legal counsel lied to them when they asked questions .

And what my point is, is that you are convinced Comey is guilty because of the "facts of the case" despite the fact that Halligan wasn't able to convince a full Grand Jury under the probable cause standard of that guilt. She barely managed a majority for only 2 of the charges.And this despite misinforming them.

How do you know she lied to them? About what?

I never said he was guilty or not, what I did say was there was cleraly evidence to indict him.

 

[candycorn]

They just refused dropping her case and it's going to proceed. Hopefully she has a big dose of karma coming and she also gets tried in a red state. That way she can feel the bias Trump felt.

One can almost hear your whining while you type.

Music to my ears.

I could care less if Comey gets life in prison. I just love that the Trump administration is suffering such a humiliating embarrassment. In no small measure...I also am thrilled that the orange blob has once again pulled his Lucy-with-the-football-act on massive dumbfucks like yourself.

How many people has he said he was going to lock up? Is Hillary in jail? Obama? Clapper? Brennan? Butigeg (sp?), Biden? Mueller? Comey? etc...

He says it. You guys basically have an orgasm at the thought then he never follows through.

 

[forkup]

Why would she want a bench trial instead of a jury trial?

It would die pretrial. That simple. Nothing to do with a benchtrial.

Since you like to pretend you have legal knowledge. Let me ask you this.

How do you think a judge will look at a prosecutor who tells a Grand Jury that a defendant will need to answer the allegation in a full trial. Or one who tells them that they can assume that more and possibly better evidence than what's before them is available.

Or a prosecutor who uses as evidence stuff that's likely privileged AFTER they are notified of the fact before a Grand Jury.

 

[TimFitz]

The FBI's Mar-a-Lago panty raid failed.

No, they caught him red handed.

The only reason he was not convicted was because the Supreme Court gave him a get out of jail free card.

He was dead to rights guilty.He even bragged about it.

 

[forkup]

How do you know she lied to them? About what?

I never said he was guilty or not, what I did say was there was cleraly evidence to indict him.

I know because I read the judges opinion on releasing the GJ material to the defendant. An opinion that's so scathing that again IF Halligan ever ends up having to defend what she did, she will almost certainly face sanctions.

 

[struth]

It would die pretrial. That simple. Nothing to do with a benchtrial.

Since you like to pretend you have legal knowledge. Let me ask you this.

How do you think a judge will look at a prosecutor who tells a Grand Jury that a defendant will need to answer the allegation in a full trial. Or one who tells them that they can assume that more and possibly better evidence than what's before them is available.

Or a prosecutor who uses as evidence stuff that's likely privileged AFTER they are notified of the fact before a Grand Jury.

Why would it die pretrial?

Why would a Judge expect a prosecutor to present all their evidence to a grand jury? Why would they even ask?

What evidence that was presented was privleged? and why does it matter? The issue would be at trial if the evidence is admissible

 

[struth]

I know because I read the judges opinion on releasing the GJ material to the defendant. An opinion that's so scathing that again IF Halligan ever ends up having to defend what she did, she will almost certainly face sanctions.

where in the opinion does it say she lied?

 

[Zincwarrior]

The FBI's Mar-a-Lago panty raid failed.

That was then. Under the MAGA admin, the government can seize them, deport them, invent crimes, its all good!

 

[TimFitz]

Why would it die pretrial?

Why would a Judge expect a prosecutor to present all their evidence to a grand jury? Why would they even ask?

What evidence that was presented was privleged? and why does it matter? The issue would be at trial if the evidence is admissible

Please explain why any grand jury would vote to indict without seeing any evidence.

 

[forkup]

Why would it die pretrial?

Why would a Judge expect a prosecutor to present all their evidence to a grand jury? Why would they even ask?

What evidence that was presented was privleged? and why does it matter? The issue would be at trial if the evidence is admissible

A judge won't. On the other hand a judge would expect a prosecutor to tell the Grand Jury that they can only indict on the information at hand.

Dan Richman served as counsel to Comey. Some of the evidence presented was communication between them. This by definition brings up attorney client privilege and before you use that the defense needs to be able to claim privilege on it. What you don't do is present it to a Grand Jury and hope for the best.

 

[forkup]

where in the opinion does it say she lied?

Since people will inevitably accuse the judge of bias if (or when) this case collapses, here’s a clear summary of the problems with the Comey indictment.

Feel free to peruse. I listed most but not all problems and why they are problems, didn't even go into her being improperly appointed and gave the opinion at the end. You can check it.

 

[postman]

Then she wasn’t legally appointed.

The advice and consent clause allows the senate to refuse to confirm like in the case of Merrick Garland for the US Supreme Court.

 

[postman]

Why would it die pretrial?

Why would a Judge expect a prosecutor to present all their evidence to a grand jury? Why would they even ask?

What evidence that was presented was privleged? and why does it matter? The issue would be at trial if the evidence is admissible

The specificity requirement serves to insure that a defendant only has to answer to charges actually brought by the grand jury and not a prosecutor's interpretation of the charges, that the defendant is apprised of the charges against him in order to permit preparation of his defense,

 

[postman]

where in the opinion does it say she lied?

The judge didn't rule outside of the narrow question put before him of whether her appointment was legal.

 

[forkup]

The advice and consent clause allows the senate to refuse to confirm like in the case of Merrick Garland for the US Supreme Court.

They never nominated her, the AG simply appointed her. And was slapped for doing so because she doesn't have that authority after 120 days.

Just like has happened 4 other times so far. Including to another Trump ambulance chaser named Habba.

It's funny how the Trump administration simply thinks that the law of the land are mere suggestions. No matter how many times judges say otherwise.

 

[Lockback]

They never nominated her, the AG simply appointed her. And was slapped for doing so because she doesn't have that authority after 120 days.

Just like has happened 4 other times so far. Including to another Trump ambulance chaser named Habba.

It's funny how the Trump administration simply thinks that the law of the land are mere suggestions. No matter how many times judges say otherwise.

What's even funnier is how the Democrats completely ignore laws all the time and never pay a ******* price for it.
See me laugh.
Ha. Ha. Ha.

 

[forkup]

What's even funnier is how the Democrats completely ignore laws all the time and never pay a ******* price for it.
See me laugh.
Ha. Ha. Ha.

You of course can be specific. Or is " the Democrats do it to" all you got?

 

[postman]

They never nominated her, the AG simply appointed her. And was slapped for doing so because she doesn't have that authority after 120 days.

Just like has happened 4 other times so far. Including to another Trump ambulance chaser named Habba.

It's funny how the Trump administration simply thinks that the law of the land are mere suggestions. No matter how many times judges say otherwise.

The logic behind the decision is flawless. Trumps interpretation of the vacancy appointments clause, would remove the senate's constitutional requirement of advise and consent.

Under their interpretation, the AG could just re-appoint the same person every 120 days, and the position never having a senate confirmed officer of the US.

 

[Lockback]

You of course can be specific. Or is " the Democrats do it to" all you got?

Oh, nothing specific ... aside from rigging an election, destroying the lives of hundreds of people by crushing them under the full weight of a corrupt Justice Department, spying on Republican Senators and Congressmen for no reason, ignoring immigration laws and allowing over 12 MILLION illegal aliens into our sovereign land ...
You know, little things like that.