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

[Lesh]

How do you know that it didn't happen exactly that way?

I don't know that it did, how could you know that it did not?

What information are you privvy to that the Virginia Grand Jury did not have?

I looked it up and McCabe did not say that Comey authorized the leak

 

[Seymour Flops]

Here are the two counts against Comey, with thanks* to PBS:

Read the Trump administration's full indictment of former FBI Director Comey

President Donald Trump's unprecedented retribution campaign against his perceived political enemies reached new heights as his Justice Department brought criminal charges against James Comey.

www.pbs.org

I won't pre-judge the case, but I will say that this is ripe for a "compromise" in which the jury convicts for count one, but not count two. They could believe that he lied to avoid prosecution by another agency, but not to obstruct Congress.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I looked it up and McCabe did not say that Comey authorized the leak

To the Grand Jury? Where do you look that up?

 

[berg80]

It is interesting that a very liberal Grand Jury indicted
Comey

Please present your evidence the grand jury was liberal. Please explain why the Repub who lead the office in VA, his deputy, and apparently most of the line prosecutors did not think there was a sufficient predicate to charge Comey.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

If Comey walks, our legal system isn't worth a ****.

Are you gonna like, analyze the legal expert comment or something? Or you’re just you’re just gonna blurt out a short rant in a message board.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Comey is entitled to see all the evidence against him

Let s see it

You will, at the trial.

Comey's lawyers will get it before the trial, but I'm not sure it would be a good idea for Comey to leak it . . .

 

[rightwinger]

Here are the two counts against Comey, with thanks* to PBS:

View attachment 1167243
View attachment 1167244

Read the Trump administration's full indictment of former FBI Director Comey

President Donald Trump's unprecedented retribution campaign against his perceived political enemies reached new heights as his Justice Department brought criminal charges against James Comey.

www.pbs.org

I won't pre-judge the case, but I will say that this is ripe for a "compromise" in which the jury convicts for count one, but not count two. They could believe that he lied to avoid prosecution by another agency, but not to obstruct Congress.

Very vague charges

 

[Lesh]

Here are the two counts against Comey, with thanks* to PBS:

View attachment 1167243
View attachment 1167244

Read the Trump administration's full indictment of former FBI Director Comey

President Donald Trump's unprecedented retribution campaign against his perceived political enemies reached new heights as his Justice Department brought criminal charges against James Comey.

www.pbs.org

I won't pre-judge the case, but I will say that this is ripe for a "compromise" in which the jury convicts for count one, but not count two. They could believe that he lied to avoid prosecution by another agency, but not to obstruct Congress.

What are they basing count one on?

My understanding is McCabes testimony… which does not say what they claim it says

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

How do you know that it didn't happen exactly that way?

I don't know that it did, how could you know that it did not?

What information are you privvy to that the Virginia Grand Jury did not have?

This guy’s case for convicting someone is “nobody knows what happened”.

Good luck. You’re gonna need it.

 

[berg80]

It is interesting that a very liberal Grand Jury indicted
Comey on 2 of the 3 charges.
This wasn't Trump indicting Comey, but his peers that indicted him.

Horseshit. If trump hadn't instructed Halligan to take from what all accounts is an extremely weak case to the grand jury, because he considers Comey to be an enemy, Comey wouldn't be indicted.

Here's an interesting question. Who is in a better position to judge whether a conviction can be achieved against Comey based on the law and the facts...........the grand jury or the people in the US Attorney's office?

 

[Mac1958]

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

It's why the case wasn't ever brought before.

This is about Trump's fragile ego and his credulous rube base. That's it. As usual.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

It is interesting that a very liberal Grand Jury indicted
Comey on 2 of the 3 charges.
This wasn't Trump indicting Comey, but his peers that indicted him.

By the way, everyone knows that grand jury is indicts “even a ham sandwich”” as the saying goes. So your pretending that it’s a shock that an indictment was issues is just that. You pretending.

 

[Marener]

You will, at the trial.

Comey's lawyers will get it before the trial, but I'm not sure it would be a good idea for Comey to leak it . . .

Discovery comes before trial.

The DoJ must be pretty embarrassed about the quality of their evidence if they don’t want the public to know.

 

[Marener]

It is interesting that a very liberal Grand Jury indicted
Comey on 2 of the 3 charges.
This wasn't Trump indicting Comey, but his peers that indicted him.

The standards for taking filing charges aren’t “what can you get past a grand jury”.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Very vague charges

The Grand Jury disagrees.

What are they basing count one on?

My understanding is McCabes testimony… which does not say what they claim it says

They are basing it on whatever evidence was presented to the Grand Jury.

This guy’s case for convicting someone is “nobody knows what happened”.

Good luck. You’re gonna need it.

Mine?

You must not be reading my posts.

If anything, I'm making the case for waiting until the jury (and we) hear the evidence. I have also made the case that I will accept whatever the trial jury decides.

How is that bad?

Here's an interesting question. Who is in a better position to judge whether a conviction can be achieved against Comey based on the law and the facts...........the grand jury or the people in the US Attorney's office?

Are you serious? The Grand Jury, of course. That's why they have that exact role. That's what grand juries do. That's like asking who is in a better position to judge whether a patient has cancer, his oncologist, or his wife who didn't even want him to see the doctor?

By the way, everyone knows that grand jury is indicts “even a ham sandwich”” as the saying goes. So your pretending that it’s a shock that an indictment was issues is just that. You pretending.

Is that your take on every Trump indictment, also, or is this special pleading?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Discovery comes before trial.

That's why I said Comey's lawyers would get it before the trial. You think they will release it before the trial?

The DoJ must be pretty embarrassed about the quality of their evidence if they don’t want the public to know.

Sadly not your dumbest statement of all time.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

We love the experts when they take our side, don't we?

 

[Lesh]

Interestingly, McCabe himself came before a GJ because he actually SID leak to the press… and the GJ refused to indict him

 

[Meister]

The standards for taking filing charges aren’t “what can you get past a grand jury”.

Yeah....and? Liberal grand jury indicting a liberal under the Trump administration
is saying something.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Interestingly, McCabe himself came before a GJ because he actually SID leak to the press… and the GJ refused to indict him

Did he lie to the Senate about leaking?