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

[westwall]

Sorry Skippy
You should know better

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

Nah, the evidence has been posted so many times, and you have seen it many times.

You just like playing stupid.

Or maybe you're not playing?

 

[Delldude]

I have posted the video of Comey answering the question about authorizing the leak, which is when he allegedly lied.

All of this is on video, as it happened at Congressional hearings. So, anyone who cares to can go through those clips can find out exactly what McCabe said and exactly what Comey said.

You are welcome to do so and post it.

I would take the time to find them myself, if my intent was to show that Comey is innocent or guilty. But, I don't feel the need to to do that. It is factual that the DOJ presented enough evidence that a grand jury in very blue Virginia decided that there was enough for a trial.

The trial will of course not be simply playing the two clips of Comey and McCabe. My guess is that McCabe will testify against Comey, who will or will not testify to rebut what McCabe says. Just a guess, though.

The trial will have extensive coverage. Whatever the outcome, I'll accept it, as I will for any other former pursuers of Trump who are indicted and tried.

Why is that the wrong approach?

Thanks, I was going to point that out.
There are several tapes with him in a couple instances saying two different things.

That's going to be hard to get away from.

 

[BackAgain]

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

Neither McCarthy nor you, Lib, know that the lie is established based only on what McCabe said.

You don’t know what (other) evidence was presented to the Grand Jury.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Count one is very specific about the lie Comey allegedly told and why it was false. That one will be tough for the prosecutor because Comey's lawyer will Jan Brady it ad nauseum. He won't try to convince the jury, but rather to confuse them. If that works, they really cannot fairly convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Count two will be easier:

False and misleading statements, plural. There were any number of Comey statements which appeared to intentionally mislead, if memory serves.

I wonder if the judge will tell them that if some of them think Comey lied in one statement and others think he lied on another, they can join together to convict. Very similar to Judge Biasberg's instructions in Trump's new york trial,

 

[postman]

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

Exculpatory memos are not "internal deliberations", they're memos. Meaning they are an explanation of why they didn't think an indictment was proper. (as per DOJ guidelines)

Remember it is DOJ policy NOT to indict, unless you also think you can prove to 12 jurors, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the subjects guilt.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Exculpatory memos are not "internal deliberations", they're memos. Meaning they are an explanation of why they didn't think an indictment was proper. (as per DOJ guidelines)

Of course that is internal deliberations. I know of no precedent in which prosecutors are required to provide such internal deliberations to the defene.

The memos themselves would not be exculpatory. They would be opinions of staff. Opinions are not evidence. The memos could possibly refer to exculpatory evidence, but it would be that evidence that the prosecutors would be required to give the defense, not memos discussing it.

Remember it is DOJ policy NOT to indict, unless you also think you can prove to 12 jurors, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the subjects guilt.

Yes, the DOJ knows that and they asked the GJ for an indictment, so they - and the grand jury - believe they can indeed prove that.

Maybe they won't be able to. If Comey is innocent, he has nothing to worry about.

 

[Marener]

Count one is very specific about the lie Comey allegedly told and why it was false

That’s absolutely not “specific”.

 

[0311]

McCarthy is just trying to run cover for his friend Comey.
There is other testimony showing Comey lied about directing leaks. Namely with his former professor friend who leaked to the NYT. But McCarthy knows this but has to pretend not to...

There is NO case against Comey. I find hilarious that YOU voted for Convicted Felon, Pedophile and Draft Dodger while attacking man who served as FBI Director, based solely on the word of known liar. Comey did nothing wrong. A two page indictment written by an insurance lawyer is joke.

She no real evidence of a damn thing other 47 demanding Comey be indicted. This nothing more than vindictive prosecution. Prez X is weaponizing the DOJ, which is exactly what he accused President Biden of doing.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

There is NO case against Comey. I find hilarious that YOU voted for Convicted Felon, Pedophile and Draft Dodger while attacking man who served as FBI Director, based solely on the word of known liar. Comey did nothing wrong. A two page indictment written by an insurance lawyer is joke.

She no real evidence of a damn thing other 47 demanding Comey be indicted. This nothing more than vindictive prosecution. Prez X is weaponizing the DOJ, which is exactly what he accused President Biden of doing.

Vindictive persecution didn't bother you when you loons went after Trump, you transparent jackwad

 

[Seymour Flops]

That’s absolutely not “specific”.

That is count two that I posted. I posted count one earlier and it is very specific. Here it is again:

 

[postman]

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

Tacit authorization isn't authorization.

Especially when done after the fact.

It's like an airline pilot landing at the wrong airport. And then saying that all the passengers gave "tacit" approval.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Tacit authorization isn't authorization.

Especially when done after the fact.

It's like an airline pilot landing at the wrong airport. And then saying that all the passengers gave "tacit" approval.

That was a ridiculous comparison

 

[Captain Caveman]

It's a sham prosecution because Trump has had a hard for Comey since he fired him in 2017 when he refused to let Flynn off the hook & when Comey refused to be another one of Trump's errand boys.

This is charade of a prosecution & Trump should be impeached for ordering it. But he won't because the GOP Congress is nothing but a bunch of craven spineless figure heads & Trump's ass licker's getting marching orders from him. His lapdogs like Mike Johnson & John Thune are two examples.

Replace the name Comey with the name Trump.

I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune!!

 

[Marener]

That is count two that I posted. I posted count one earlier and it is very specific. Here it is again:

View attachment 1167302

There’s nothing specific in the indictment.

Compare it with the Flynn indictment.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1015126/dl

 

[Seymour Flops]

Tacit authorization isn't authorization.

Yes, that is what Comey's lawyers will argue.

Might work, we'll see.

Especially when done after the fact.

How do you know it was after the fact?

If it was, approving after the fact if he supposedly didn't know about it would give blanket authorization for more leaks.

It's like an airline pilot landing at the wrong airport. And then saying that all the passengers gave "tacit" approval.

Silly.

The passengers are not the next level in the chain of command for the pilot as Comey was for McCabe.

 

[postman]

False and misleading statements, plural. There were any number of Comey statements which appeared to intentionally mislead, if memory serves.

The charge isn't making misleading statements. They have to be false and[/misleading]

And so far they haven't even proven the statements were false.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The charge isn't making misleading statements. They have to be false and[/misleading]

And so far they haven't even proven the statements were false.

Well, no.

The trial hasn't happened yet, so nothing has been proven other than that there is enough evidence for a trial.

I'm mystified that so many on here want to immediately go to a not guilty verdict before the trial even starts.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Thanks, I was going to point that out.
There are several tapes with him in a couple instances saying two different things.

That's going to be hard to get away from.

liar.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Well, no.

The trial hasn't happened yet, so nothing has been proven other than that there is enough evidence for a trial.

I'm mystified that so many on here want to immediately go to a not guilty verdict before the trial even starts.

Oh, we’re just stating our predictions, honey. Do you have a prediction? I think you have one, but you won’t say it because it’s uncomfortable.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Oh, we’re just stating our predictions, honey. Do you have a prediction? I think you have one, but you won’t say it because it’s uncomfortable.

I've made my prediction:

The jury will pay close attention to the evidence and render a verdict that will be either guilty or not guilty. I further predict that I will be fine with whatever their verdict is, since they will have seen all the evidence and heard all of the arguments.

Why would you think I would predict anything else, ma'am?