Case Against Former FBI Director James Comey Dismissed

[jknowgood]

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.

It also gave you Trump for four more years. Music to my ears!

 

[forkup]

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.

I was just thinking of something that'll be extremely ironic.

This will likely end up before the Supreme Court. And as I think of what the oral arguments will be. Comey's team will argue that the interpretation of the government will simply allow them to appoint US attorneys and the sole requirement that they are willing to prosecute certain individuals.

While the government who work at the behest of Donald Trump will claim that the suggestion that the government would be weaponized against opponents is ridiculous.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

Maybe you should get your ***** hat out and go yell at the sky again.

 

[postman]

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

The democrats dance along the out of bounds line separating legal and illegal.
Republicans just cross the line, and claim they were still in bounds.

 

[struth]

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

when did i say they never saw ANY evidence?

 

[struth]

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.

at trial, sure they can claim that.

This isn't trial

Yes, the GJ only indicted on the evidence presented

 

[forkup]

The democrats dance along the out of bounds line separating legal and illegal.
Republicans just cross the line, and claim they were still in bounds.

I'll ask you the same thing. What do you consider that the Democrats have done that's borderline. Simply out of curiosity and I'll see if I'd agree.

 

[forkup]

at trial, sure they can claim that.

This isn't trial

Yes, the GJ only indicted on the evidence presented

Not what Halligan told them. She said, again according to a magistrate judge who saw the minutes, that they could assume she had more and maybe better evidence.

If you want to assume a magistrate judge would lie about something this important in a written opinion be my guest.

 

[struth]

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,

ok, not sure your point, the indictment wasn't dismissed for lack of specificity.

 

[Darkwind]

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

Then she wasn’t legally appointed.

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

Way to tell the entire world how little you understand how our government works.

Bad luck in front of Marxist judges, yet overall, Trump is winning the court battles.

 

[struth]

Not what Halligan told them. She said, again according to a magistrate judge who saw the minutes, that they could assume she had more and maybe better evidence.

If you want to assume a magistrate judge would lie about something this important in a written opinion be my guest.

Sure, a GJ can assume that, they can easily assume and it's expected that the Govt is going to present ALL their evidence to a GJ. They just need enough for PC to get the indictment

 

[struth]

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

So you just mad up the claim that she lied?

 

[forkup]

Sure, a GJ can assume that, they can easily assume and it's expected that the Govt is going to present ALL their evidence to a GJ. They just need enough for PC to get the indictment

Lol the obtuseness is cute. No a Grand jury can only indict on the information before them the suggestion that they also can assume the government has more is extremely prejudicial.

Deny it all you want, the judge thought it was serious enough to warrant breaching gj confidentiality.

 

[struth]

Not what Halligan told them. She said, again according to a magistrate judge who saw the minutes, that they could assume she had more and maybe better evidence.

If you want to assume a magistrate judge would lie about something this important in a written opinion be my guest.

I didn't say the Judge lied.

 

[struth]

Lol the obtuseness is cute. No a Grand jury can only indict on the information before them the suggestion that they also can assume the government has more is extremely prejudicial.

Deny it all you want, the judge thought it was serious enough to warrant breaching gj confidentiality.

Is there any evidence to suggest they indicted on anything that wasn't before them? They can certainly assume the Govt isn't presenting their entire case, since all they have to do is find PC to indict.

The indictment itself and information in it, wasn't why the Judge dismissed the charge.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Federal judge dismisses indictments against Letitia James and James Comey, saying Lindsey Halligan appointment was unlawful | CNN Politics

lite.cnn.com

Let me guess. A Democrat judge put his thumb on the scales of justice.

.

Or Pam really is not doing her job.



.

 

[forkup]

Is there any evidence to suggest they indicted on anything that wasn't before them? They can certainly assume the Govt isn't presenting their entire case, since all they have to do is find PC to indict.

The indictment itself and information in it, wasn't why the Judge dismissed the charge.

Yes the transcript claim that Halligan said that they could presume there was. That transcript IS evidence.

And no they can't presume there is more. That's the point. And a prosecutor saying they can is a misstatement of the law.

 

[struth]

Yes the transcript claim that Halligan said that they could presume their was. That transcript IS evidence.

where is the transcript? link us to it.

 

[forkup]

where is the transcript? link us to it.

I did. Post 312 leads you to another OP it has the opinion in it . He paraphrases what he read.

 

[struth]

I did. Post 312 leads you to another OP it has the opinion in it . He paraphrases what he read.

um the opinion isn't the trascript....