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

[Seymour Flops]

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.



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)

Since you did not prioritize these, or say which one you thought most supported your claim, I just took a look at the first two.

Heck v Humphrey 1995
Mcdonough V. Smith 2019

Both of those cases are about bringing a civil lawsuit after an allegedly malicious prosecution. Both of those cases stated that a malicious prosecution lawsuit depends on the criminal matter being settled in the defendant's favor.

So if James Comey is acquitted or at least not found guilty, he may decide to file such a lawsuit.

Whether he does or he does not, none of that has anything to do with dismissal of charges because the president encouraged the prosecutor to send the case to the grand jury.

What is the case that talks about that?

Or were you just hoping I would see a list of cases, be discouraged and give up? You obviously did not read those cases yourself but I did.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Only if you forget the Neo-GOP lawfare against President Clinton via Ken Star, that spend years on an endless investigation. Whereas the Grumpyone was asked several times to return the documents before the subpoenas for them were finally issued. Not to mention the lies that were told in court about the documents in question.

 

[forkintheroad7]

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.

I just found some good news about Fox and who runs it. Apparently Lachlan, son of Rupert is still in charge and he is not a liberal like the wives of his brothers apparently (allegedly) are. And even better news (I think) is that 3 of his siblings were ousted as being in any trust that has shares in (I believe it was) Fox News... but it is often legally called something else. In any case, maybe they were ditched because of their liberal-ness? Or am I just engaging in wishful thinking? I am not familiar with trusts and such things, but that's what I read..

Anyhow, it doesn't look like Murdoch went liberal and his conservative son is apparently still in charge. I knew Fox hadn't gone totally... um.. CNN-ish, as some have said. I guess some people just like to exaggerate to get attention or something.

 

[berg80]

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.

Gosh, that's absurd. The DoJ has exhaustively tried to get trump to return the docs in question, he had been informed by one of his attorneys that failure to comply was a crime.........

Attorney warned Trump 'it's going to be a crime' if he didn't comply with subpoena for classified docs: Sources​

Attorney warned Trump 'it's going to be a crime' if he didn't comply with subpoena for classified docs: Sources

A lawyer for Donald Trump told investigators she warned Trump that not complying with a subpoena to return all classified documents is "going to be a crime," sources say.

abcnews.go.com

.........yet he still refused. You're going to have to explain why you call the legal act the DoJ took of getting the docs back, some of which were top secret, lawfare.

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

Can you name another prez who refused to comply with a subpoena for the return of classified docs?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Only if you forget the Neo-GOP lawfare against President Clinton via Ken Star, that spend years on an endless investigation. Whereas the Grumpyone was asked several times to return the documents before the subpoenas for them were finally issued. Not to mention the lies that were told in court about the documents in question.

That action against Clinton was lawfare also. I argued against it at the time. Republicans got emotional because they assumed that the way Bill Clinton treated monica lewinsky would infuriate femenists and they would turn against him.

I could have told them that the feminism movement was nothing more than the lobby for the abortion industry.

Anyway, every President sinces George Washington has kept documents after leaving the White House, and only one of them was asked to return them.

The president has the sole authority to determine what is classified.

Joe Biden had documents that he never had had legal access to. So he must have stolen, but he was not prosecuted.

Of course, he let them search his garage after they gave him plenty of warning, so he could move out anything incriminating.

Not him personally, he was in no shape too. understand any of that by then.

 

[Marener]

Since you did not prioritize these, or say which one you thought most supported your claim, I just took a look at the first two.

Heck v Humphrey 1995
Mcdonough V. Smith 2019

Both of those cases are about bringing a civil lawsuit after an allegedly malicious prosecution. Both of those cases stated that a malicious prosecution lawsuit depends on the criminal matter being settled in the defendant's favor.

So if James Comey is acquitted or at least not found guilty, he may decide to file such a lawsuit.

Whether he does or he does not, none of that has anything to do with dismissal of charges because the president encouraged the prosecutor to send the case to the grand jury.

What is the case that talks about that?

Or were you just hoping I would see a list of cases, be discouraged and give up? You obviously did not read those cases yourself but I did.

I think you're confused about what I'm claiming.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I think you're confused about what I'm claiming.

I believe you claimed:

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.

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

Is that still your claim?

Cite the cases.

Who told you this about the courts? Maybe ask them what the cases.

 

[struth]

Only if you forget the Neo-GOP lawfare against President Clinton via Ken Star, that spend years on an endless investigation. Whereas the Grumpyone was asked several times to return the documents before the subpoenas for them were finally issued. Not to mention the lies that were told in court about the documents in question.

Lawfare? Clinton ended up having to work out a plea deal with the DOJ to avoid prison

 

[struth]

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.

Weaponized?? Haha he covered for her and protected her from being charged

 

[struth]

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?

He wasn’t indicted for refusing to comply with a subpoena…that’s not a crime

Try again dembot

 

[Lesh]

He wasn’t indicted for refusing to comply with a subpoena…that’s not a crime

Try again dembot

Of course it is you moron

 

[Lesh]

Weaponized?? Haha he covered for her and protected her from being charged

He opened an investigation that got her elected

 

[struth]

Of course it is you moron

Link to the indictment, or just admit you are a liar

 

[struth]

He opened an investigation that got her elected

Huh? Still living in fantasy land? She was never elected

 

[Marener]

I believe you claimed:

Is that still your claim?

Cite the cases.

Who told you this about the courts? Maybe ask them what the cases.

I did cite the cases. Malicious prosecution is a legal concept that exists.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Marener]

It's funny because you guys still have no idea what Comey supposedly lied about.

 

[Cougarbear]

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

Ya, we saw the Bush Republicans on Fox mouthing off. They will be surprised when guilty verdict comes in.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I did cite the cases. Malicious prosecution is a legal concept that exists.

Yes, it does, but it would not prevent any prosecution.

 

[Marener]

Yes, it does, but it would not prevent any prosecution.

Maybe, maybe not.

I never claimed such a thing anyway.