Fox News legal expert sees “no viable case” against James Comey

[rightwinger]

Is it possible that Comey directed someone other than McCabe to leak the information?

You don’t get to prosecute on “possible”

 

[Zincwarrior]

One key aspect of a free and functioning society is to hold people accountable for their actions.

Especially people in positions of authority.

Remember that "truth to power" concept?

Why do you hate that?

Fishing expeditions to punish former employees because you are mad at them is "holding them accountable." Its vengeance. The irony is that without Comey, Trump would never have won.

 

[Meister]

Fishing expeditions to punish former employees because you are mad at them is "holding them accountable." Its vengeance. The irony is that without Comey, Trump would never have won.

Actually, because of Hillary, Trump won.
Her arrogance got in the way of her victory.

That, and she's just a *****.

 

[tahuyaman]

You don’t get to prosecute on “possible”

Answer the question.

Maybe Comey directed someone other than McCabe to leak information. Isn’t that possible?

It’s speculation that the leak from McCabe is the only thing they have.

 

[Lesh]

Lefties claimed they wanted Trump and all of his associates prosecuted and jailed FOR YEARS.

Now the other shoe dropped. WITH EVIDENCE.

COMEY LIED TO CONGRESS. THAT IS A CRIME.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT EVEN JIM COMEY!

What evidence?

 

[Lesh]

Answer the question.

Maybe Comey directed someone other than McCabe to leak information. Isn’t that possible?

It’s speculation that the leak from McCabe is the only thing they have.

Possible? Maybe?
You don’t get convicted based on that

 

[Marener]

A liberal grand jury indicted him on two charges, Anthonie.
His and your own ilk did this, not a bunch of conservatives.
There lies the difference between your BS and reality.

Do you think prosecutors should bring any and every case they can get by a grand jury?

Because that’s different than the rules of criminal prosecution that they’re supposed to be following.

 

[Meister]

Do you think prosecutors should bring any and every case they can get by a grand jury?

Because that’s different than the rules of criminal prosecution that they’re supposed to be following.

You've completely missed the point, willingly or not.

 

[Godboy]

This explains why my fellow conservatives here have no answer when I ask them what James Comey lied about. Even Fox News says there’s no proof James Comey lied.

"[The indictment] seems to be premised on something that's not true, which is that [former Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe said that Comey authorized him to leak to the Wall Street Journal. If you look closely at what McCabe said, what McCabe said was that he directed a leak to The Wall Street Journal and told Comey about it after the fact," McCarthy explained.

“"So it's true that Comey never authorized it in the sense of okaying it before it happened," the legal expert expanded. "So I don't see how they can make that case."

Legal expert sees no viable case against James Comey after Trump DOJ indictment

The indictment against former FBI Director James Comey "seems to be premised on something that's not true," Fox News contributor and legal analyst Andrew McCarthy cautions.

www.foxbusiness.com

No one even knows what the evidence is against Comey, except for 1 federal judge and a secret grand jury. Anyone claiming that they know the evidence is lying.

 

[Marener]

You've completely missed the point, willingly or not.

No, you’re missing the point.

14 out of 23 grand jurors felt there was probable cause for 2 out of 3 charges.

That’s a LOT different than getting a unanimous conviction from 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.

A grand jury is sort of a sanity check in the court system, but in the end does not mean a case should be brought.

 

[Meister]

No, you’re missing the point.

14 out of 23 grand jurors felt there was probable cause for 2 out of 3 charges.

That’s a LOT different than getting a unanimous conviction from 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.

A grand jury is sort of a sanity check in the court system, but in the end does not mean a case should be brought.

What it means is that something IS there.
A liberal grand jury certainly would have given Comey the benefit
of the doubt, if they could.

Now move along darling, and ankle bite some one else.

 

[Nostra]

Fishing expeditions to punish former employees because you are mad at them is "holding them accountable." Its vengeance. The irony is that without Comey, Trump would never have won.

You clearly don't know what irony is, Dumbass.

 

[Nostra]

What evidence?

His lying testimony stacked up against reality.

 

[Nostra]

Do you think prosecutors should bring any and every case they can get by a grand jury?

Because that’s different than the rules of criminal prosecution that they’re supposed to be following.

How many cases that your Murder Cult brought against Trump have been thrown out?

These idiots have zero self awareness.

 

[Marener]

What it means is that something IS there.
A liberal grand jury certainly would have given Comey the benefit
of the doubt, if they could.

Now move along darling, and ankle bite some one else.

So that’s all you got?

 

[tahuyaman]

Possible? Maybe?
You don’t get convicted based on that

Do you think all the evidence has been made public knowledge?

Once the evidence is examined, that will determine the outcome.

 

[tahuyaman]

Do you think prosecutors should bring any and every case they can get by a grand jury?

Because that’s different than the rules of criminal prosecution that they’re supposed to be following.

I think they should pursue a case against anyone where there’s credible evidence of criminal conduct. Is there a problem with that?

 

[Marener]

I think they should pursue a case against anyone where there’s credible evidence of criminal conduct. Is there a problem with that?

Again the standards for prosecution are that the charges are likely to result in a conviction.

That seems rational. Why get rid of that standard?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You claim it’s a “lie.” But you don’t know that it’s a lie.

Right, just as you dont know it's true.

It was just a direct response.

Kinda shows where we are with this.

But smart money is that it's a lie.

 

[Nostra]

Again the standards for prosecution are that the charges are likely to result in a conviction.

That seems rational. Why get rid of that standard?

Again, how many cases that your Murder Cult brought against Trump have been thrown out?

These idiots have zero self awareness.