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

[postman]

Not on TV they shouldn't. Those folks are there for entertainment value, not to educate or any other useful purpose. I wouldn't listen to any expert I wasn't paying or wasn't being paid for the express purpose of specific advice in their field of expertise. These TV hacks have no inside information to these cases, they are not part of the process, and at best they can only cite unnamed or anonymous 'sources' which very well might not even exist.

If you think they don't explain their rational, then you're watching the wrong news channel.

Try a channel where they go for more than just a sound bite.

 

[westwall]

I saw no lie

I saw him contradict what McCabe said
The same McCabe Trump claims is a liar

Trump is your worst enemy

You didn’t? You must be one of those willfully blind people he's relying on.

I saw multiple lies.

 

[westwall]

You wish they were lies.
No one has said they were given permission by Comey, to leak information.

The closest you have is informing Comey of their actions, after the fact.

Oh, they were. You government boot lickers all stick together.

We understand that.

 

[Rogue AI]

Sigh. No one on here believes this charge. Comey’s a toad republican being eaten by the monster he helped make so I give zero shits if they bury him under the jail. However:

James Comey answered "No" when asked if he had authorized anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source for news reports about the Trump or Clinton investigations.

McCabe never told investigators that Comey had authorized him to talk to the media, only that the FBI director was aware that McCabe had done so.

Richman said Comey had never authorized him to speak to the media about the Clinton investigation.

Sadly for you, the grand jury did believe it, they a saw the evidence. Perhaps instead of endless ignorant whining you should consider that.

 

[Rogue AI]

If you think they don't explain their rational, then you're watching the wrong news channel.

Try a channel where they go for more than just a sound bite.

Their rationale is irrelevant, all they can offer is opinion not based on the actual facts of the case, as they have no access. Don't be a rube.

 

[postman]

You didn’t? You must be one of those willfully blind people he's relying on.

I saw multiple lies.

Then start naming those lies.

Because you have to be able to prove it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Trump (as chief law enforcement officer) said that Comey was guilty as sin.
He also said the same of Adam Schiff and Leticia James.

That's corrupting the potential jury pool.

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,

Sure, but it happens all the time, and the USSC hasn't said different.

Since Trump is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, you are not one who thinks that the DOJ should be "independent" of the executive branch?

Comey is also entitled to all the exculpatory evidence in his favor.

Like the memo's by other prosecutors, spelling out why they didn't try to indict Comey.

"Internal deliberations" was the excuse the FBI/DOJ and even Mueller used to avoid releasing such documents, or answering questions about who said what.

BTW, how do we know that the other prosecutors wrote such a memo? Have we seen it?

I’m sure that before trial we will actually know what the hack is trying to prosecute.

Right now, everyone is guessing what the facts are.

Not me. I've said repeatedly that I'm waiting to see the evidence and hear the verdict.

The "lie" was something Comey testified to congress about in 2017.
They had 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 to prosecute Comey, but they didn't.

Trump's biggest mistake in his first term was not cleaning house in the DOJ and FBI. So the prosecutors were holdover Obama/Bush/Clinton nominees only interested in the establishment coming back into power.

 

[postman]

Oh, they were. You government boot lickers all stick together.

We understand that.

Remember, these people aren't stupid.
If Comey gave them permission, they would have memorialized it in some manner that was on the record.

Like when Comey talked to Trump.
Or Michael Cohen talked to Trump.

But you don't have any of that.

 

[citygator]

Sadly for you, the grand jury did believe it, they a saw the evidence. Perhaps instead of endless ignorant whining you should consider that.

Trump was indicted on 34 charges my friend.

 

[rightwinger]

You didn’t? You must be one of those willfully blind people he's relying on.

I saw multiple lies.

OK Skippy

Show us

 

[Seymour Flops]

McCabe never told investigators that Comey had authorized him to talk to the media, only that the FBI director was aware that McCabe had done so.

If Comey knew his subordinate was doing something and didn't stop him, he tacitly authorized it.

But I agree that the most likely counter by Comey's team is that "exact words Jan Brady!" defense.

I think it has a fair chance of working and Comey walks. But, I don't know what other evidence Trump's people have uncovered, so I'll wait for the trail.

 

[Rogue AI]

Trump was indicted on 34 charges my friend.

There you have it, I wouldn't thought it possible if I listened to the 'experts', nor should you rely on them in this case. Of course, the Trump case is far from over, as the appeals process is ongoing. Perhaps if or when Comey is convicted the same will be said about his case. I'm simply saying, don't be surprised if your 'experts' of choice are wrong.

 

[postman]

Sadly for you, the grand jury did believe it, they a saw the evidence. Perhaps instead of endless ignorant whining you should consider that.

Did you also consider that in this grand jury, there were no witnesses. Only the accusations presented by the US Attorney.

And one who likely violated DOJ policy

It is the policy of the Department of Justice, however, that when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury before seeking an indictment against such a person. While a failure to follow the Department's policy should not result in dismissal of an indictment, appellate courts may refer violations of the policy to the Office of Professional Responsibility for review.[/b]

 

[westwall]

OK Skippy

Show us

Already have. It's all over this thing called youtube

 

[westwall]

Remember, these people aren't stupid.
If Comey gave them permission, they would have memorialized it in some manner that was on the record.

Like when Comey talked to Trump.
Or Michael Cohen talked to Trump.

But you don't have any of that.

No, they too knew they were committing a crime, and more to the point, they knew they would be protected by their deep state minions, besides, Trump was never going to win anyway, remember?

So who was ever going to ask....

 

[Seymour Flops]

Did you also consider that in this grand jury, there were no witnesses. Only the accusations presented by the US Attorney.

How do you know that? Witnesses often appear before a Grand Jury:

grand jury witness​

The Grand Jury witness is the person who was asked to appear before the Grand Jury, since they may have some information or knowledge about a matter under consideration by the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury inquiries are conducted in secret so only the witness, attorneys, an interpreter when needed, and a court reporter to transcribe the testimony, will be involved in the procedure. The witness will be asked to testify and answer questions concerning the information which is under consideration by the Grand Jury. During an appearance before the Grand Jury, a witness is required to answer all questions asked, except where the privilege against self-incrimination would apply. False answers to any question could be the basis for a prosecution of the witness for perjury. Anything that a Grand Jury witness says that tends to incriminate themself may be used against them by the Grand Jury, or later used against them in court. A witness may consult with an attorney before testifying, and a witness may have an attorney outside the Grand Jury room. Grand Jury witnesses are entitled to the same witness fees and travel expenses as all other witnesses; a witness will receive a $40 witness fee for each day they are required to be in court, or attend a pretrial interview, including travel days. All legitimate travel expenses related to the testimony will be reimbursed by the government.

[Last reviewed in February of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]

And one who likely violated DOJ policy

It is the policy of the Department of Justice, however, that when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury before seeking an indictment against such a person. While a failure to follow the Department's policy should not result in dismissal of an indictment, appellate courts may refer violations of the policy to the Office of Professional Responsibility for review.[/b]

First of all "DOJ Policy" is not law, even though the DOJ/FBI seemed to believe it trumped even the constitution when they were called to testify.

Second of all, what is your proof that she violated this policy?

Has the supposed violation been referred to the OPR?

 

[rightwinger]

Already have. It's all over this thing called youtube

FAIL

You made the claim…..back it up

 

[westwall]

FAIL

You made the claim…..back it up

It's all over youtube, go fetch

 

[rightwinger]

It's all over youtube, go fetch

Sorry Skippy
You should know better

You don’t get to order others to support your claims
looks like ya got…nothin

 

[Ropey]

?

You know what I said. Keep your eyes up, not down.

That's what you said after the "8647" incident.

And that was a nothing burger.

No it isn't. And he's been arrested.

Is this where you work? In the DEI post office?