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

If they are done, as you say, why are Comeys lawyers going to argue SOL has run out?
Should be nothing to argue about if you're correct, but they're going to argue.......in reality..... :biggrin:
The SOL has run out. His indictment was voided because it was brought by someone who had no business doing so.

That’s part of why this is over
 
If they are done, as you say, why are Comeys lawyers going to argue SOL has run out?
To tie it off. Thats their job. Protect their client.

Nomkore frivolous, expensive legal proceedings brought by a corrupt, incompetent attorney.
 
Last edited:
The SOL has run out. His indictment was voided because it was brought by someone who had no business doing so.

That’s part of why this is over
You should read up Clownman 🤡

That should be the end of it BUT Comeys lawyers are going to argue SOL has run out.
If it has run out why are they going to court to argue?

'dismissed Without pedjudice'

That means you're wrong again.
 
Totally different fact patten

Jack Smith was illegally appointed as a “special prospector” to go after his bosses political rival

An acting US attorney got indictments in this case against people that are high profile Dems for actual crimes, and there is a technical issue on the acting appointment statute. The indictments will be back and with that said the ruling actually appealed becsuse there is a legit issue with the appointments of acting US attorneys unlike the Jack Smith case
She isn't an acting US attorney. She's just some person who walked off the street pretending to be a US attorney so that she could seek revenge for her boss using the authority of the government which she never had.

Since she has no authority, there is no indictment.
 
You should read up Clownman 🤡

That should be the end of it BUT Comeys lawyers are going to argue SOL has run out.
If it has run out why are they going to court to argue?

That means you're wrong again.
It absolute does not mean that “clown man”.

Read through the thread stupid. This is over… partly because there’s no there there and partly because the SOL ran out while Halligan was ******* this up

Now back under your bridge… troll
 
She isn't an acting US attorney. She's just some person who walked off the street pretending to be a US attorney so that she could seek revenge for her boss using the authority of the government which she never had.

Since she has no authority, there is no indictment.
Well she was appointed by the President as an acting US attorney. The current judge said that her appointment didn’t meet the technical requirements for an acting US attorney, we will see on appeal

This of course is vastly different then creating an entirely new position, like xiden did with Jack Smith
 
Well she was appointed by the President as an acting US attorney. The current judge said that her appointment didn’t meet the technical requirements for an acting US attorney, we will see on appeal

This of course is vastly different then creating an entirely new position, like xiden did with Jack Smith
She was never legally appointed, which means every one of her actions taken against a citizen of this country was likewise illegal.

And don't forget, Pam Bondi tried to make her a special attorney as well. So they double broke the law.

 
It absolute does not mean that “clown man”.

Read through the thread stupid. This is over… partly because there’s no there there and partly because the SOL ran out while Halligan was ******* this up

Now back under your bridge… troll
Why was the case dismissed without prejudice then Bozo?
She was ILLEGALLY appointed.
So she didn't break any laws then?

No mail today old buddy?

Then you're dense
It's an appealable decision.
 
Well she was appointed by the President as an acting US attorney. The current judge said that her appointment didn’t meet the technical requirements for an acting US attorney, we will see on appeal

This of course is vastly different then creating an entirely new position, like xiden did with Jack Smith
Is it different? She was acting as an officer of the government that she had to right to pretend to be.

And while doing so the SOL on Comey’s “crimes” ran out
 
So she didn't break any laws then?
One of your fellow travelers thought Jack Smith broke the law by virtue of having prosecuted Trump when he was "illegally" appointed.

But of course, consistency isn't a hallmark of MAGA.
 
Because of the reasons it was dismissed, ya dumbass.

Think. Then post.
LOL TM

If it was dismissed 'with prejudice' it means over, done, no refiling.
One of your fellow travelers thought Jack Smith broke the law by virtue of having prosecuted Trump when he was "illegally" appointed.
Smiths case dismissed...... :badgrin:

And while doing so the SOL on Comey’s “crimes” ran out
No it hasn't.....
She was acting as an officer of the government that she had to right to pretend to be.
To be determined.
 
15th post
So inform me…
I gave up trying to have a conversation with you long ago. It was all a joke to you and I wanted no part of that. This board is for serious minded people. You 'd do better to stay in the joke section.
 
Do TDS lefties really assume the word "Fox" will enhance a weak argument? Of course McCabe doesn't want Comey prosecuted. he might be next.
 
If it was dismissed 'with prejudice' it means over, done, no refiling.
Which it would not be, if dismissed for the reason it was dismissed, which did not consider the merits.

Don't be so proud of saying such stupid things, it's not a good look.
 
Back
Top Bottom