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

[Marener]

Abuse of power.

Not in the least. It’s commonly done in criminal investigations. Lots of people have their records obtained by a subpoena

 

[Delldude]

You’re supporting lawfare and I’m not.

You're a liar. You did handsprings during Bidens efforts to rig the election through legal manuevering abusing the laws.

Not in the least

To the max.



Backfires terribly......

 

[Marener]

You're a liar. You did handsprings during Bidens efforts to rig the election through legal manuevering abusing the laws.

Actually it was Trump who tried to rig the 2020 election by abusing the laws.

Biden’s DoJ was merely investigating and prosecuting those illegal efforts to deprive Americans of their votes.

The problem is you don’t understand the facts. You just go with what Trump tells you, which is loaded with lies.

But still, you support lawfare and I don’t. You admitted it.

 

[Delldude]

But still, you support lawfare and I don’t.

You do when you have the gavel.

You admitted it.

Reciprocity........

It's only fun when you clowns do it.

 

[struth]

Her appointment was the crime and again trump is the criminal behind all of this bullshit. Broke my own rule about not responding to your jibberish and comparing apples to oranges.

Can you link us to the part of the US criminal code that her appointment violated?

 

[struth]

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.

So you can’t actually support your claims

Got it

 

[struth]

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

Yes it’s different

 

[struth]

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.

Hahab geez the district court simply said there was a technically in her appointment

He didn’t rule on the merits of the case.

 

[struth]

The judge who dismissed these cases today was Cameron McGowan Currie. Was appointed by a reasonable president Bill Clinton based on qualifications , not party or personal allegiance.

He’s a bias judge likely getting his ruling overturned

He was unprofessional, and resorted to name calling

 

[postman]

Why was the case dismissed without prejudice then Bozo?

Remember, he was selected to deal with only whether or not Halligan was legally appointed.
The other issues, like selective prosecution, statute of limitations etc are still before the judges in Virginia.

 

[postman]

You do when you have the gavel.

The difference is that the Trump investigation started with the NSA. And was a matter of national security investigation that the DOJ took up.

The cases against Comey, James, etc were purely lawfare. As Trump own mistakenly made public message to Bondi was telling her to weaponize the DOJ to go after Comey, James, and Schiff.

DUH !!!!!!!!

 

[postman]

Can you link us to the part of the US criminal code that her appointment violated?

The US Constitution.

 

[struth]

The US Constitution.

That's not the criminal code, you said it was criminal.

 

[berg80]

Here's another thing to consider. The blonde sock puppet, in trying to salvage the case, says she signed off on everything to do with the procedure to obtain the indictments.

Explanation: The Comey and James Prosecutions, Dismissed Without Prejudice

Preet's and my conversation and more

joycevance.substack.com

A procedure deemed to be illegal because Halligan was not legally appointed. Sounds like Pam may be on the hook for a disciplinary action by the court.

 

[postman]

Hahab geez the district court simply said there was a technically in her appointment

He didn’t rule on the merits of the case.

Not a technicality, and outright Constitutional violation.

Her appointment violated the "advice and consent" requirement from Article 1 of the Constitution.

The Constitution clearly defined the senate's role over officers of the United States. And the procedures through which the congress narrowly delegated their authority were not followed.

 

[postman]

He’s a bias judge likely getting his ruling overturned

He was unprofessional, and resorted to name calling

His argument was clear and simple. Officers of the United States have to be appointed according to the US Constitution.

 

[struth]

Not a technicality, and outright Constitutional violation.

Her appointment violated the "advice and consent" requirement from Article 1 of the Constitution.

The Constitution clearly defined the senate's role over officers of the United States. And the procedures through which the congress narrowly delegated their authority were not followed.

Not what the Judge ruled though, the Judge ruled the appointment violated the Federal code in appointing an active US attorney, where consent is not required.

Please try and keep up and stop making things up

 

[postman]

That's not the criminal code, you said it was criminal.

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

 

[postman]

That's not the criminal code, you said it was criminal.

I never said it was criminal, as the constitution does not specify penalties, except for treason.

 

[postman]

Not what the Judge ruled though, the Judge ruled the appointment violated the Federal code in appointing an active US attorney, where consent is not required.

Please try and keep up and stop making things up

That federal code was how congress narrowly delegated their authority over appointments of officers of the US.