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

[Seymour Flops]

Well, at least you can admit that Trump is weaponizing the DoJ against his political enemies.

Meanwhile, or should I assume that you will not admit that the DOJ was weaponized against trump?

Malicious prosecution is a legal concept with basis in case law. A president with known persona animus against a person, forcing the DoJ to prosecute that person out of that animus really does lend itself to fitting the necessary legal criteria.

Name the cases. I'll research them.

How would they apply to Alvin Bragg and Letitia James running for office on promises to prosecute Trump?

Dis you bring this up while that was happening?

It's a great country, where you can't be criminally charged just because the president doesn't like you. The courts recognize that.

Of course, not!

The president is not charging everyone he doesn't like. A grand jury selected from the blue state of Virginia charged James Comey, based on the evidence presented.

 

[Meister]

You can't address anything I say, can't defend any of your bullshit...then claim a victory.

How pathetic.

I already did, by using your own words.
Not sure why you're coming back now after your surrender?

 

[BlindBoo]

It's not about getting a conviction. They know they can't, but they can keep screeching evermore insane lies into the world biggest bully pulpit. The Neo-Republican's blitzkrieg of breaking all the norms both parties agreed to in the wake of Nixon's Corruption, is an attempted power grab like we never seen in the USA, all with just a slim majority in Congress too.

 

[Marener]

Meanwhile, or should I assume that you will not admit that the DOJ was weaponized against trump?

When I see the evidence of this "weaponization", then I'll consider the allegation.

Name the cases. I'll research them.

How would they apply to Alvin Bragg and Letitia James running for office on promises to prosecute Trump?

Dis you bring this up while that was happening?

https://content.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/CivilRightsLegalMaterialsNews/UnwarrantedCriminalProsecutionMaliciousProsecution?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

Of course, not!

The president is not charging everyone he doesn't like. A grand jury selected from the blue state of Virginia charged James Comey, based on the evidence presented.

It's not appropriate to prosecute any case you can get past the grand jury stage.

 

[AntonToo]

I already did, by using your own words.

You are delusional.

You can't explain where you got the idea that the Grand Jury was somehow "liberal".

You can't explain why Trump needed to install completely unqualified, completely inexperienced, personal lawyer to unilaterally sign off on this indictment.

You can't refute that DOJ's standard to bring such cases IS NOT merely being able to get them past the Grand Jury, but having actual confidence in a conviction. A conviction that obviously none of the career prosecutors in that office had.

You can't explain at all why you think this prosecution is something other than what it plainly is - Dear Leader abusing DOJ to settle his grievances.

Can't explain any of it, yet here you are, like a total idiot posting about how supposedly it's liberals behind the indictment and how you supposedly won something

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's not about getting a conviction. They know they can't, but they can keep screeching evermore insane lies into the world biggest bully pulpit. The Neo-Republican's blitzkrieg of breaking all the norms both parties agreed to in the wake of Nixon's Corruption, is an attempted power grab like we never seen in the USA, all with just a slim majority in Congress too.

When I see the evidence of this "weaponization", then I'll consider the allegation.

So both of you are going to pretend that you do not know how weaponized the DOJ/FBI was the previous nine years?

Do you think there's any chance that I will believe you? Or is that just something you say to avoid ever conceding any point?

https://content.next.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/CivilRightsLegalMaterialsNews/UnwarrantedCriminalProsecutionMaliciousProsecution?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

It's not appropriate to prosecute any case you can get past the grand jury stage.

Nope.

I'm not going to look up the cases for you. You said there was case law, so you should know what the cases are. Name them and I'll read them.I'm not going on a wild goose chase.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Okay, I couldn't resist. I researched malicious prosecution. turns out, those are just words that you have been mouthing.

First of all malicious prosecution is a tort that someone can be sued for. It is not a get out of jail free card.

Second of all the first requirement is to prove that there was no probable cause for a prosecution in the first place. That won't happen in this case.Because the grand jury verified that there was probable cause. Unless the prosecutor lied about a material fact, you can forget about malicious prosecution.

There is no case in which a president or a governor or a mayor told a prosecutor if that so and so should be prosecuted, and therefore the case against so and so was dropped.

Y'all should just encourage James Comey to tell the truth.And name the names of the people that colluded with him. That would probably keep him out of the slammer.

I doubt that former FBI men do much better in the hoosegow then chomos.

 

[BlindBoo]

So both of you are going to pretend that you do not know how weaponized the DOJ/FBI was the previous nine years?

Do you think there's any chance that I will believe you? Or is that just something you say to avoid ever conceding any point?

Nope.

I'm not going to look up the cases for you. You said there was case law, so you should know what the cases are. Name them and I'll read them.I'm not going on a wild goose chase.

Comey weaponized the FBI against Hillary twice in 2016. Trumpybear was also under investigation at that time but Comey didn't revel that to the American public did he? Tell me of the weaponization during 2017 thru 2021. The House investigated Jan 6th because the Republicans in the Senate refused to support a non partisan commission like the 9-11 fact finding commission. Jack Smith wasn't appointed to fully investigate until nearly two years after Trumps Capitol Riot and attempt to fraudulently steal the EC votes from several states.

But the Neo-GOP refuses to recognize Benedict Donald's crime against the Constitution and long standing precedent makes their whines of lawfare a joke.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Comey weaponized the FBI against Hillary twice in 2016.

yes comey was a bipartisan weaponize. his goal was always self aggrandizement.

Trumpybear was also under investigation at that time but Comey didn't revel that to the American public did he?

no in fact, he lied to trump about it.

Tell me of the weaponization during 2017 thru 2021. The House investigated Jan 6th because the Republicans in the Senate refused to support a non partisan commission like the 9-11 fact finding commission. Jack Smith wasn't appointed to fully investigate until nearly two years after Trumps Capitol Riot and attempt to fraudulently steal the EC votes from several states.

But the Neo-GOP refuses to recognize Benedict Donald's crime against the Constitution and long standing precedent makes their whines of lawfare a joke.

You should really take a rest

 

[berg80]

Ironically, Comey is the least partisan of the bad actors in the whole "this time we finally got him" drama.

"This time we finally got him" is a meme created by trumples to celebrate the many ways trump used lawfare and any other means at his disposal to escape justice for his numerous crimes.

 

[berg80]

Meanwhile, or should I assume that you will not admit that the DOJ was weaponized against trump?

Do you agree that being indicted for the irrefutable crime trump committed of refusing to comply with a subpoena for the return of classified docs is not a weaponization of the DoJ?

 

[forkintheroad7]

McCarthy's comments don't exactly make sense to me, and I used to like this guy.

What makes the least sense of all is him saying he likes Comey.

There goes McCarthy's credibility out the window!

How can you like a weasel like Comey?

Comey said Hitlery was guilty of mishandling Classified information and exposing said information to foreigners who hate the US

but that no prosecutor would prosecute her!

What the.....................???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



What he meant was that no leftist prosecutor would...

 

[Billiejeens]

McCarthy's comments don't exactly make sense to me, and I used to like this guy.

What makes the least sense of all is him saying he likes Comey.

There goes McCarthy's credibility out the window!

How can you like a weasel like Comey?

Comey said Hitlery was guilty of mishandling Classified information and exposing said information to foreigners who hate the US

but that no prosecutor would prosecute her!

What the.....................???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



What he meant was that no leftist prosecutor would...

McCarthy is as Constant Washinton Class as they come.

He cannot and should not be trusted on anything that he chooses to comment on.

 

[Billiejeens]

McCarthy's comments don't exactly make sense to me, and I used to like this guy.

What makes the least sense of all is him saying he likes Comey.

There goes McCarthy's credibility out the window!

How can you like a weasel like Comey?

Comey said Hitlery was guilty of mishandling Classified information and exposing said information to foreigners who hate the US

but that no prosecutor would prosecute her!

What the.....................???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



What he meant was that no leftist prosecutor would...

Correct, of course

 

[forkintheroad7]

McCarthy is as Constant Washinton Class as they come.

He cannot and should not be trusted on anything that he chooses to comment on.

well, I hear Fox is getting a little more liberal, likely due to Murdoch's sons' wives who are liberal, or at least (I believe) 2 of them are. There is one son who is not liberal, and I believe he still has some control at Fox... but I haven't kept up on this issue. I say this because maybe that's how mccarthy gets air time?

In any case, I still like listening to Turley and others like Paul Mauro, who used to be a cop and got a law degree...

 

[forkintheroad7]

It's not about getting a conviction. They know they can't, but they can keep screeching evermore insane lies into the world biggest bully pulpit. The Neo-Republican's blitzkrieg of breaking all the norms both parties agreed to in the wake of Nixon's Corruption, is an attempted power grab like we never seen in the USA, all with just a slim majority in Congress too.

Blind Boo has a blind owner, apparently

 

[Marener]

So both of you are going to pretend that you do not know how weaponized the DOJ/FBI was the previous nine years?

Do you think there's any chance that I will believe you? Or is that just something you say to avoid ever conceding any point?

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I reject your notion that the DoJ was "weaponized".

I assume you are going to pass up the opportunity to argue otheriwse.

Nope.

I'm not going to look up the cases for you. You said there was case law, so you should know what the cases are. Name them and I'll read them.I'm not going on a wild goose chase.

Cases are linked in the page. It's really quite convenient if you spent the 5 seconds to look at the link.

1. Seminal Cases and Authority​

   Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994)
   McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149, 204 L. Ed. 2d 506 (2019)
   

State & Federal Cases​

• Search federal cases related to malicious prosecution
• • McDonough v. Smith (U.S. Jun. 20, 2019)
  • Heck v. Humphrey (U.S. Jun. 24, 1994)
  • Savino v. City of New York (2d Cir. May 22, 2003)
• Search state cases related to malicious prosecution
• • Beaman v. Freesmeyer (Ill. Feb. 7, 2019)
  • Washington-Herrera v. Town of Greenburgh (NY 2d Dep’t Dec. 19, 2012)
  • Colon v. City of New York (NY Oct. 25, 1983)

 

[Billiejeens]

well, I hear Fox is getting a little more liberal, likely due to Murdoch's sons' wives who are liberal, or at least (I believe) 2 of them are. There is one son who is not liberal, and I believe he still has some control at Fox... but I haven't kept up on this issue. I say this because maybe that's how mccarthy gets air time?

In any case, I still like listening to Turley and others like Paul Mauro, who used to be a cop and got a law degree...

Those 2 are excellent

McCarthy went sideways when the outsider Trump became President -
Before that he was pretty good

There aren't supposed to be outsiders there.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Do you agree that being indicted for the irrefutable crime trump committed of refusing to comply with a subpoena for the return of classified docs is not a weaponization of the DoJ?

Nope.

Issuing a subpoena for those documents in the first place was one of the worst forms of lawfare in the history of the presidency.

No other president was ever treated the way donald trump was treated.

 

[excalibur]