Comey’s “Good Day”: How Political Prosecutions Became “Ethical Leadership” in the Pursuit of Trump

Below is my column in the New York Post on the level of joy being expressed by many over the indictment of former president Donald Trump, including former FBI Director James Comey. The thrill kill atmosphere ignores the blatantly political history behind this indictment. In the Sixteenth Century, the poet John Lyly wrote “The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war.” It also appears equally true “in love and War Trump.”

Here is the column:

James Comey could not contain himself at the news of an indictment of former President Donald Trump.

Comey hopped on Twitter to declare, “It’s been a good day.”

The former FBI director, who has been teaching and speaking on government ethics, joined others in celebrating the upcoming arrest of Trump because nothing says “ethical leadership” like a patently political prosecution.

Comey declined to prosecute Hillary Clinton on her email scandal despite finding that she violated federal rules and handled classified material “carelessly.”

He declared, “Ethical leaders lead by seeing above the short term, above the urgent or the partisan, and with a higher loyalty to lasting values, most importantly the truth.”

Yet now Comey is heralding the effort of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who campaigned on a pledge of bagging Trump for some unspecified crime.

While the actual charges will not be disclosed until the release of the indictment, the underlying theory discussed for months is an effort to revive a dead misdemeanor offense of falsifying business records — years after the statute of limitations expired.

Bragg may try to accomplish this Frankensteinian feat by converting this into a felony.

The long-debated theory in Bragg’s office was whether they could effectively allege a violation of federal election laws even though the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission declined such charges.

Notably, Bragg’s predecessor declined to bring these charges.

Bragg himself declined to do so, and that led to two of his prosecutors resigning in protest.

Mark F. Pomerantz then proceeded to do what some of us view as breathtakingly unprofessional.

He wrote a book on what he learned in the investigation, which was still ongoing.

He made the case for indicting an individual who had not been charged, let alone convicted.

He continued to engage in this public campaign despite requests from his former office that he was undermining its ongoing investigation.

The public pressure worked.

Bragg caved.

Despite the widespread criticism of Bragg for reducing charges for an array of felonies by Manhattan criminals, he spent months working to convert a misdemeanor into a felony.

Trump would apparently have been better off robbing Stormy Daniels at gunpoint rather than paying her off for a nondisclosure agreement.

And yet Comey is not alone in his praise.

Various professors and pundits have declared that this unprecedented use of New York law would be perfectly legal and commendable.

They largely ignore that the misdemeanor is expired.

Instead, Georgetown Law professor and MSNBC legal analyst Paul Butler declared, “Nobody is above the law, including Donald Trump.

“It doesn’t matter that this is kind of a minor crime compared to some of the other allegations.”

However, the law also protects people from selective prosecution and affords them protection through the statute of limitations.

One can debate whether Trump may have committed this misdemeanor.

That is a good-faith debate. What is not debatable is that the window for such a prosecution closed years ago.

Unless this indictment reveals a previously undisclosed crime, the use of the long-debated bootstrapped offense would defy the rule of law. Nobody is above the law, but nobody is below its protections … including Donald Trump.

Dozens of criminal counts — it’s been reported there are as many as 34 — will make no difference if they merely replicate the same flaws.

There are reports, for example, that Bragg may bring charges based not only on the Daniels payment but money given to former Playboy model Karen McDougal to kill a story on another alleged affair.

However, that payment (from Trump’s friend at the National Enquirer) was also paid in 2016 and raises the same statute of limitations and other issues.

Bragg is operating directly out of Comey’s handbook on “ethical leadership.” After all, it was Comey who joked about how he violated department rules to nail Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn. He delighted audiences with how he told underlings “let’s just send a couple guys over” to trap Flynn.

It was Comey who was fired after former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein cited him for “serious mistakes” and violating “his obligation to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the traditions of the Department and the FBI.”

It was Comey who violated federal laws and removed FBI material (including reported classified material) after being fired and then leaked information to the media.

Despite those violations, Comey was heralded by the media and made wealthy on book and speaking tours.

Bragg knows that 62% of people view his case as “mainly motivated by politics,” but (like Comey) he is playing to an eager and generous audience.

The buildup to Trump’s booking has all of the appeals of a thrill kill for Democrats.

It will be another “good day” for Comey and others who put politics above principle in the use of the criminal justice system.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School.

298 thoughts on “Comey’s “Good Day”: How Political Prosecutions Became “Ethical Leadership” in the Pursuit of Trump”

  1. The only way I could possibly put Comey and the word ethics together in a sentence would be to state that he doesn’t have any. Why aren’t all the prog/left scum who lied under oath being prosecuted by adamant conservative DA’s etc? Because the conservatives have too much ethical sensitivity and in a war against unhinged thugs that will get us destroyed? And, believe me, we ARE in a war for the survival of this nation.

    1. Ethics is a religion of relativity. Comey’s religion is selective, opportunistic, politically congruent.

  2. “. . . to revive a dead misdemeanor offense of falsifying business records . . .” (JT)

    A sincere legal question about the alleged “misdemeanor offense:”

    Apparently, it pertains to the failure to report or the misreporting of the Daniels NDA. But there is no legal requirement in NY to file NDA’s with the government. So where’s the “failure” or the “mis?”

    1. No, it doesn’t “pertains to the failure to report or the misreporting of the Daniels NDA.” As you note, there is no such legal requirement.

      IF this is what Bragg’s charges involve — and we won’t know until the charges are unsealed when Trump is arraigned — THEN it has to do with the arrangement between Trump and Cohen for Cohen to fraudulently obtain a loan to pay Daniels, making an illegal campaign contribution (for which Cohen already served time), and for Trump to fraudulently repay Cohen while “grossing up” Cohen’s payment of $130K to Daniels, ultimately repaying him $420K, while hiding that as payment for legal services. But we don’t know. It may also involve the catch-and-kill payoff with Karen McDougal and the Enquirer, it may also involve Trump’s filings for his 2017 NY taxes (how the payoffs to Cohen were reported there), and/or some other thing(s) that we simply don’t know about yet. And if people could simply wait a few days, we’ll know what the actual charges are and some of the evidence for them.

        1. No, the $130K was for Stormy’s silence, not for legal services. Maybe there are some legal services mixed in, but if so, legally, they’d have had to separate those in their accounting.

          1. Cohen was retained to handle the Stormey Daniels matter, which was a legal matter, and he did so. Then, he billed for his services. Not sure why that can’t be described as “legal services.” Is there an accounting standard that it should be described otherwise? Was the money spent by Bill Clinton in 1992 to shut up “the bimbos” a campaign contribution? If it was, why has no one on the Left demanded that he be prosecuted?

          2. No, the $130K was for Stormy’s silence,

            A common NDA. Just because you make up your own crimes, does not mean they are actual crimes

          3. Don’t you know anything ATS? The hush money was paid by Cohen without Trump being involved.

            Gosh ATS, you talk and talk but don’t know anything.

      1. “And if people could simply wait a few days”

        If the news prints something bad about Trump based on anonymous sources, no matter how ridiculous , ATS will pounce reporting it as the truth before the ink is dry. ATS is not credible.

    2. At the root is a self contradictory legal theory.

      The Edwards prosecution establishes that Hush money for the purposes of hiding personal misconduct is NOT a legitimate election expense.

      Braggs, claim is that the legal fees paid to Cohen were to buy Daniels silence with regard tot he election and therefore ARE an election expense, and that Trump by paying Cohen privately and reporting it as legal expenses was contributing to his own campaign.

      Bragg has two problems – the first is the Edwards prosecution already establishes that the payment is not a campaign expense – as well as the decisions of the FEC and other Federal prosecutors on this issue.
      The 2nd is that Trump is allowed to contribute as much as he wishes personally to his own campaign.

      So that Leaves Bragg SOLELY with the Claim that Trump’s business records – by identifying the payment as a legal rather than campaign expense are false.

      It is pretty trivial to argue that he is wrong. But more importantly it is not relevant.

      Even if Trump deliberately misrepresented the expense – which is an impossible case to make – given that he was following the precident established by the Edwards prosecution, there is still ZERO HARM, Fraud requires HARM.

      If I tell you that a tree in my Front yard is an apple tree, but it is not. I have lied. But I have not committed Fraud.

      If I sell you my home knowingly representing the tree as an apple tree and you end up with a home that does not have the apple tree that you bought – that is fraud.

      Fraud requires Harm. And there is no actual harm here.

      It is inarguable that Trump can pay people to keep silent about that they know.

      This also raises a legal problem for Bragg.

      He is essentially claiming that while it is established law that you can pay people to be silent.
      You must tell the government effectively defeating the purpose of the NDA.

      There is no legal means for Bragg to thread the needle in this case.

      Every single argument that he has, results in a contradiction elsewhere.

      Braggs entire theory results in the legal contradiction that you are legally allowed to pay for something, but there is no actual legal means to obtain it.

  3. Dear Prof Turley,

    The thrill is gone. After years of forlorn expectations, when my coastal elite brother finally got the news on the upper west side the other day, on the Trump Apostle’s Righteous Indictment, he said there was a spontaneous mass celebration among all the Jews, the Gentiles and the Holy Roman Church singing Hoshana’s to high Heaven.

    He’s free at last. .. and, btw, fwiw he calls you ‘Alan Dershowitz with good table manners.’

    *All is fair in love and war on Trump.

  4. From Sunday news shows: at least 3 different Trump attorneys are on the news shows today. Big day for them. Some other attorneys are also commenting. Bill Barr on Fox News Sunday says Trump taking the stand in New York would be a “particularly bad idea because he lacks all self control,” LOL.

    1. “LOL”

      Remind me, again, how the Left is not motivated by a desire to smear Trump and to banish him from public office.

      1. Barr’s the one who said it, and if you think Barr is a member of the Left, you’re deluded.

        1. Barr is a member of the Left, you’re deluded.

          Thats the lie you repeat.

          It is the DC establishment, that is going after Trump. Barr is a huge player in that arena.

          1. Sam is the one who introduced “the Left” there, not me. Apparently you think he should have said “Remind me, again, how the [DC establishment] is not motivated by a desire to smear Trump and to banish him from public office.”

        2. Barr has pointed out some of Trump’s bad characteristics, but he states that his policies were good and that if he runs for President he would vote for Trump.

          He recognizes the smears from the left and suggests that many act like trash. My guess is that he would feel the same about ATS if exposed to him.

        3. Barr said “LOL?” If so, you should have quoted it. But of course, that “LOL” is your malice, not Barr’s.

          1. I’m the one who found Barr’s comment amusing, and I placed it outside the quotation marks because I’m the one who said it. If you can’t tell the difference between humor and malice, you’ve got bigger problems than I’d assumed.

            1. ATS, when dealing with a humorless person like you it is often difficult to discern humor in the response. Your comment was confusing.

    2. I wonder if George Washington et al. lacked “self control” in 1776.

      It’s long past time, men.

    3. William “Mr. Deep Deep State ‘Swamp'” Barr.

      Quintessential fraud and the lowest of the low, anti-Constitution, anti-American, treasonous, backstabbing communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) charlatan, and direct and mortal enemy, is Mr. Bill.

      At least, Bernie Sanders admits to being a rabid communist.

    4. Probably most defense attorneys would tell their client not to testify in this case. Stormey Daniels and Michael Cohen are terrible witnesses. Better to keep the focus of the jury on them.

    5. ATS, Bill Barr also said of Bragg’s case, “An archetypal abuse of the prosecutorial function to engage in a political hitjob.”

      You left that part out. Do you find that equally amusing?

      1. No, I think it’s stupid for Barr to pretend he knows what’s in the sealed indictment.

        1. So now Barr is stupid? What if what Barr said turns out to be the case? Would you be willing to rule on that hypothetical?

        2. Look, I’m not interested in scoring points here. My admiration for Bill Barr is not conditional.

          I think Barr is right about Trump and I think he’s right about Bragg. My guess–just a guess–is that Barr thinks the Democrats are at least as reckless and definitely more demented than Trump. I cite the Big Guy and Senator Sasquatch of Pennsylvania as my exhibits.

          Maybe you should agree with Bill Barr, too.

    6. Trump is not taking the stand, because it would be unwise for ANYONE facing this nonsense to do so.
      Frankly, I highly doubt this case will ever reach a jury.

      Barring the NY Courts tanking this quickly, this will just be a protracted legal battle for the next 2 years.
      If by some miracle Trump loses in 2024 – the case will be dropped.
      If he wins – nothing will happen for 4 years and then it will be dropped.

      In the meantime expect protracted legal trench warfare – with one caveat. Trump likely only has to win ONCE, to end this.
      Bragg must win every single fight just to get to court eventually.

      Further Bragg has stupidly given Trump exactly what he needs for the next 2 years – Platform and the means to assure that he is in the news nearly everyday – On MSM channels.

  5. Professor Turley: “Comey declined to prosecute Hillary Clinton on her email scandal despite finding that she violated federal rules and handled classified material ‘carelessly.’”

    “Carelessly” with a ball-peen hammer. I would call that a felony with clear intention.

    1. Comrade Comey had a few culpable and actionable accomplices:

      The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history. The co-conspirators are:

      Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

      James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates,

      James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,

      Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,

      Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,

      Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

      Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,

      Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,

      Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,

      Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney et al.

  6. We are being force-fed a diabolical reinactment of Moby Dick, where James Comey and his political ilk represent the meglomaniacal Captain Ahab and Trump is the White Whale that took his leg and scarred Comey and Co./Ahab from stem to stern, leaving him bitter, vengeful, and blinded by hate.

    It isn’t hard to imagine Comey and Co. muttering to themselves every time they are reminded of Trump’s presence on the planet;

    “… to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.” and ““Aye, aye! and I’ll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition’s flames before I give him up.”

    There are now mentally ill people in charge of our government and media, blinded by hatred and ready and willing to take down the entire ship that is America in their pursuit of Moby Trump.

    1. Trump is more bitter, vengeful, and blinded by hatred than anyone. He literally led his crowd in “lock her up” chants and also called for many other people (Obama, Biden, Comey, …) to be charged with crimes. Yes, he’s a mentally ill person who was in charge of our government, “blinded by hatred and ready and willing to take down the entire ship that is America in his pursuit of” the people he hates.

      1. And yet Trump didn’t have his justice department pursue criminal process against Clinton OR Comey, Obama, Biden, or any of the other CLEAR criminals that have attempted to criminalize Trump’s political opposition to them.
        Sorry, your reply fails by its own construcrt.

        1. Trump *tried* to get Barr to pursue them. Trump said things like “Bill Barr is gonna go down as either greatest attorney general in history of the country [if he indicts them], or he’s gonna go down as a very sad situation [if he doesn’t],” later complaining “The fact is, he was weak, ineffective, and totally scared of being impeached.”

          Nor did Comey, Obama, or Biden “criminalize Trump’s political opposition to them.” You and I have different opinions about whether they’re “clear criminals.” We have different opinions about Trump. People often have different opinions.

            1. Or stated another way, Ralph: “I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.” 😂

            2. As Sam said to someone else: “When you can’t pound the facts, pound the witness — a sure sign of a losing case and of a vacuous mind.”

          1. Bill Barr has always been in the Clinton Camp – The Clinton’s were the ones that brought him into the fold.

            There is more on Bill, but it will be discussed at the appropriate time.

          2. “We have different opinions about Trump. People often have different opinions.”

            That is true, but ATS changes his opinion based on what he wants, not based on the truth. That should be a scary way of handling things but ATS lives in the immediate present.

      2. Anonymous – yoou say: “he’s a mentally ill person who was in charge of our government[.].” If he is mentally ill, then perhaps we need more mentally ill people in charge of our government: no wars; low inflation; strong economic growth, esp. for minorities (before COVID hit); conservatives appointed to the courts; no invasion of Ukraine by Putin; no censorship of Americans by the FBI, CIA, and Democratic-affiliated NGO’s; no worship of false gods, like Climate Change.

        1. Climate change isn’t a false god, nor a god of any other kind. It’s hard to take you seriously when you spout such garbage. You list the things you value. My values are different than yours, and the things I found dangerous about Trump outweigh anything that was OK.

          1. “My values are different than yours”

            ATS we know your values are different. You have Stalinist values.

      3. “Trump is more bitter, vengeful, and blinded by hatred than anyone.”

        ATS, that is your opinion, but he didn’t lock Hillary up or see to it she was charged. He did none of these awful things you are trying to do now. Trump for the most part followed the rule of law, something you do not understand, You have a problem, a big one. You are all about emotion and that leads to bad things exploited by the killers of the 20th century. One has to watch out for people of your kind.

      1. I appreciate the appreciation. Some literary works, while entertaining, are clearly meant to convey a message. This wasn’t my first comparison of hate-filled anti-Trumpers with Captain Ahab, as to me, the comparison is unmistakeable, almost as if Comey and Co. are willfully reinacting the story even while knowing about the disastrous ending to which their conduct inexorably leads.

    2. Now I’m seeing the next analogue – Comey, as representative of the deep state uniparty which unites faux conervatives and faux liberals, is Khan Noonien Singh, and Trump, therefore, is our Captain James T. Kirk.

      1. But it was Spock, not Kirk, who saved the Enterprise. And maybe that’s who’s missing here — why this drama drags on — because as yet there is no Spock to step forward and save the Enterprise.
        Mr. Spock — if you’re listening — we’re running out of time.

        1. You’re absolutely right. And I – equally absolutely – refuse to consider either Governor DeSantis or former Ambassador Haley for the role.

          1. Definitely not Haley or DeSantis. Maybe Vivek Ramaswamy fits the roll. At least he seems like the best fit so far among presidential hopefuls — not a politician by trade, and with a better mind and higher integrity than the usual suspects.

            1. Maybe instead of Star Trek, this is Poldark. Trump is Ross, the Left is bad guys Ralph Hanson and his half-brother Mr. Merceron. Salvation comes from an unlikely source: George Warleggan, a villain who acts in a moment of patriotism to defeat the bad guys in service of his country.

              1. Liked. But unfortunately I’m not familiar with the reference, beyond just now looking it up and seeing reference to the stories and an apparent Netflix rendition thereof. But I’ll keep an eye out for it. Thanks.

                  1. I have a limited appetite for British dramas. LOVE Shakespeare, and once upon a time enjoyed All Creatures Great and Small. And I also love British comedies. The British sense of humor seems to me incongruously different than the contemporary British sense of drama.

                    Beyond the aforementioned, my memory fails me when it comes to British dramas, though I’ve never been able to put my finger on why it is that they’ve rarely appealed to me outside of Shakespeare.

                    Once upon a time (probably in the late 1960s) I watched and absolutely hated Far From the Madding Crowd (1967 version). Then I saw it again on cable TV within the last year, and enjoyed it. So I suppose a great deal depends upon my mood and patience — and I’ve found that British dramas often require more patience than I can spare at any given point in time.

                    The fault, I freely admit, is my own. The mystery is how I can love Shakespeare so much, since the dramas have all the same faults I find with contemporary British dramas. The quality of the writing, I suppose, it what attracts me to Shakespeare’s drama and leaves me flat concerning contemporary British drama. I know, or have known, people who think British dramas are the greatest thing since creamed corn. I’m trying to remember the name of some British detective or spy character that a lawyer-friend of mine once swore by. But the name of the character escapes me.

                    1. Likely George Smiley, played by Alec Guinness in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy in the television adaptation of the John Le Carre novel of the same name, circa 1979.

                    2. The Reply button is missing below, so I can’t reply to Ellen’s reply where my reply belongs — so I’ll reply to Ellen HERE:
                      YES, that’s it! George Smiley — though my lawyer friend wouldn’t have seen the TV/movie version because he hated TV and only read books. It would be interesting to know what devotees of the literary George Smiley think of the TV/movie version portrayed by Guinness.

        2. Just saw an episode recently. To quote Spock:
          ” Labels do not create Argument ” (Spock to Kirk)

          S2/EP 9 – Metamorphosis
          When their shuttle is diverted to a planetoid, Kirk meets one of the pioneers of space flight, Zefram Cochrane.
          [Courtesy of the H&I Heroes & Icons TV Network]

          1. Correction:

            SPOCK: “Specifics, ̶D̶o̶c̶t̶o̶r̶. Labels do not make arguments.” (Spock to Bones)

            S2/EP 8 – I, Mudd | Production #41, 3 Nov, 1967
            The Enterprise is taken over by a group of androids who are working for Kirk’s old nemesis, Harry Mudd.

            SPOCK: Specifics, Doctor. Labels do not make arguments. (Spock to Dr. McCoy)

            1. Thanks. I shall look for that bit of dialog when next I rewatch Star Trek — most episodes of which are available at the dailymotion website. The two Harry Mudd episodes are uniquie. Perhaps I’ll look for the one to which you refer later this afternoon or evening as a mental escape from politics. You can always count on Star Trek as a vehicle to get some distance from present-day perspectives, via the past (1960s) looking into the future.

  7. Professor Turley notes, “However, the law also protects people from selective prosecution…”
    Selective prosecution; selective application of law; selective fact-reporting and selective stories being covered by media; selective “history” and selective “facts” being pushed by teachers and professors; selective topics for Ph.D. awards and recognition; selective speakers and topics permitted or denied at institutions of higher education; selective results from selective clinical trials on medical vaccines and protocols; selective application and enforcement of immigration laws; selective nomination and appointment to educational/political/jural positions of high visibility and importance; selective corporation promotions and global positioning of “like minds,” selective NGO funding and grants; selective over-representation of race and LGBQT persons on television network and print media; selective voting based on race or gender/sex rather than merit or qualification..

    The insidious takeover of America from multiple selective sources is truly astounding…albeit tactically planned.

  8. Comey is not just a partisan hack, we all knew that, but he is a shortsighted fool. I have already constructed a colorable case for indicting Barack Obama in the state of Florida for conspiracy to commit murder.
    Florida has several Air Force bases which are involved in the command and control of armed drones.
    Obama ordered, the use of drones to kill a U.S. citizen not actively waging war on the U.S. or taking refuge in a hostile country.
    Florida has no statute of limitations for murder.

    It may be an untested legal theory but we now have precedent.

        1. Even if he did (and whether it meets the legal definition of murder is disputed), it doesn’t allow FL to charge him when it occurred in Yemen. BTW, you do know that Trump had Anwar al-Awlaki’s 8 year old sister killed, right?

          1. Wow, ATS, don’t you know that when a bomb explodes it can kill more than the intended terrorist? It is regrettable, but you would prefer Anwar al-Awlaki to perform a terrorist activity against Americans potentially more devasting than 9/11.

      1. If Obama actually “murdered” an American citizen, he could be prosecuted under 18 USC 1119, which says in part:
        ” (b)Offense.—
        “A person who, being a national of the United States, kills or attempts to kill a national of the United States while such national is outside the United States but within the jurisdiction of another country shall be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113.” The statute does not say who may bring such an action. Normally, federal law may be enforced by state officials. But this statute prevents suits by anyone without approval of the DOJ, which would not be possible until there is a change in adminstrations.
        Of course, I would guess that an action could be brought under state law by the State in which the victim was domiciled at the time of his/her death.

        1. Yes, but again, that would not allow FL to prosecute him.

          And if they could prosecute Obama for it, they could also prosecute Trump for killing his 8 y.o. sister, who was also an American citizen.

      2. Under ATS’s theory of rule of law we can fudge things enough so he can be indicted. If Obama then gets due process everything is fine and dandy. I think that is stupid but that is exactly how Anonymous the Stupid thinks.

        1. Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody should immediately seek an indictment for capital murder charges.

          If she fails to do so, she should resign in abject remorse and shame.

      3. So what? the alleged murder was performed from Macdill Air Base.

        If Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody refuses to seek a capital murder indictment against President Obama, she should resign in abject remorse and shame.

  9. weird how all these DC power brokers…never mention all the bribes to the Bidens and the endless string of crimes by the Biden family.
    DOJ/FBI are 100% corrupt!

  10. Read H.G. Wells “Outline of History” which is an excellent summary of world history. He reviews many empires who once Machiavellians achieve centralized power…. those empires die.
    DC has too much power!

  11. “…government ethics.”

    Now there’s an interesting concept. Oxymoron if ever there was one.

  12. Again: the indictment is sealed. There is no basis for concluding that it’s “a patently political prosecution.” Maybe that’s what it will turn out to be, maybe not. We cannot know until we see the charges and the evidence for them.

    It doesn’t serve anyone to pretend that it’s “a patently political prosecution” when you don’t know.

    Comey also shouldn’t be saying it’s “a good day” simply because Trump was indicted, again because he hasn’t seen the charges and so cannot accurately judge whether there’s a good basis for them.

    “The public pressure [from Pomerantz’s book and public comments] worked. Bragg caved.”

    That’s BS. The GJ was convened long before Pomerantz’s book came out. There’s zero evidence that this is Bragg “caving” against his better judgment, and putting it this way is yet another instance of JT feeding the “age of rage” that he elsewhere complains about.

    “However, that payment (from Trump’s friend at the National Enquirer) was also paid in 2016 and raises the same statute of limitations and other issues.”

    The repayments to Cohen came in 2017, and the tax filings on those came in 2018. Until we know the actual charges and their basis, there is no way to judge whether it’s beyond the SoL. WTF can’t you just wait until you actually KNOW the basis for the indictment?

    You, too, “put politics above principle” in many of your columns.

    1. “Again: the indictment is sealed. There is no basis for concluding that it’s “a patently political prosecution.””

      History and the prosecutors own words are enough for me to make the accusation. The indictment could have been released simultaneously with the notice of arrest. That tow was gamesmanship.

      This is a political prosecution.

      “There’s zero evidence that this is Bragg “caving”

      His prosecutors quit while making comments. Do you really believe Bragg had no inkling of the book deal?

      Cohen is a liar and isn’t much different from you. There is documentation all over proving to the naked eye that the indictment should not have occurred. You are blind to the rule of law. You need to find some other source of entertainment. You are no good at this.

    2. “There is no basis for concluding that it’s ‘a patently political prosecution.’”

      Except, of course, for the long history of such persecutions and prosecutions (starting in 2016) by those on the Left. And except, of course, for the fact that the persecutors and prosecutors do not hide their motivation: “Get Trump.”

      You can tell a person is trying to deceive you, when they drop the contexts of history and motivation.

      1. It’s your opinion that there is a “long history of such persecutions and prosecutions (starting in 2016) by those on the Left.” That’s not a fact, much less does it show that THIS is “a patently political prosecution.” Again: there is no way to even start to judge that latter issue accurately until one can read the charges and the evidence for them.

        1. Me: “You can tell a person is trying to deceive you, when they drop the contexts of history and motivation.”

          Exhibit A: “much less does it show that THIS is . . .”

          Those of us who are not newborn babies are able take history and motivation seriously.

        2. “It’s your opinion that . . .”

          Nice try, Sophist.

          It’s an opinion based on facts. As opposed to yours, which are based on deceits and self-delusions.

          1. As you previously said, Sam: “When you can’t pound the facts, pound the witness — a sure sign of a losing case and of a vacuous mind.” That’s what you demonstrate every time you insult me.

      2. You are absolutely right Sam. Anonymous the Stupid is acting and talking stupidly.

        ATS is complaining that you insult him, but he insults his own intelligence.

    3. The repayments to Cohen came in 2017, and the tax filings on those came in 2018. Until we know

      Not a crime.

      There is not doubt this is political persecution;

      1. Again: I’ve been telling everyone to wait for the indictment to be unsealed so we can see the actual charges. What part of “Until we know the actual charges and their basis, there is no way to judge whether it’s beyond the SoL” do you not understand?

        1. “I’ve been telling everyone to wait for the indictment to be unsealed”

          Again you are telling people to wait for more information, something you never do. That is why almost every week during Trump’s Presidency you drew the wrong conclusions.

          You have been consistently wrong. Don’t you ever learn?

          ATS, you are a hypocrite.

    4. The prima facie evidence we have is that Bragg campaigned promising to prosecute Trump for unspecified crimes.
      That alone makes this political. The burden is on Bragg to prove it is not.

      If a white DA ran promising to get Snoop Dogg and later obtained an indictment, how long would it take for the howls of racism to deafen us all?

      1. True but I don’t think Bragg’s motive is racial. I think it is purely political, which alone makes this a due process violation. I expect that will be one of the many grounds for Trump’s motion to dismiss. A neutral and impartial judge will grant it. But where Trump is concerned, it may be too much to expect such impartiality. The New York appellate courts will probably be a better bet for Trump to vindicate his due process rights.

        Or, ultimately, the Supreme Court. A due process claim is based on federal law, so SCOTUS would have subject matter jurisdiction, and I can’t imagine them denying cert in this case.

        1. ATS, you still haven’t learned the meaning of the Rule of Law. You think due process substitutes for the Rule of Law.

    5. Not this stupid nonsense.

      Trump was not indicted for bank robbery.
      We know who testified to the Grand Jury.
      AIn most cases we know what they testified about – as there is no requirement for witnesses to keep their testimony secret.

      Whether you like it or not only the minutia of the indictment is “secret”.

      Of course the prosecution is political.
      There is very little that you will learn that is new today.

      Absolutely we are all speculating.
      We are speculating on a near sure thing.

      Pretending that Somehow Bragg will pull a rabbit out of his ass and produce charges that will not be vied by some 80% of the country as political is idiocy.

    6. If Trump is arraigned for Bank Robbery – I will owe you an apology.
      If Trump is arraigned for The what has been publicly discussed – You owe everyone else an apology.

        1. That is a fundimental problem with the alleged false records claim. The Crime REQUIRES FRAUD.
          Fraud requires someone is actually harmed.

          No Fraud No Crime.

          While this is specifically true of THIS crime – it is also generally true of ALL crimes.
          You can not legitimately make anything a crime unless there is an actual harm to others.

  13. Comey. Such self righteousness is truly despicable and sickening. He has no ability for self awareness or reflection. It must be nice to be so pure. Or you could just say he is a rotten apple who lies at the bottom of a cauldron and periodically fills with methane and other foul gases which cause him to rise to the surface and spew forth his foul stench (quoting A New Hope, here) before deflating and sinking again into the morass which spawned him.

    1. What a description!
      It’s eye opening to see how all the sociopaths and psychopaths manage to find each other and team up in political positions of power and authority over others which they inevitably abuse with no cosequences — only rewards.
      Fauci comes to mind as one particulary dangerous one. Bill Gates is another. Hillary. Comey. Lois Lerner. Even Merrick Garland is showing his true colors. etc etc etc.

  14. Comey could have been prosecuted among other things for defrauding the FISA court when he signed the Carter Page warrant. Where is Durham?

    1. According to you, what law did Comey break, and what’s your evidence that he satisfied all elements of that crime?

      1. ATS is sealioning again. These things have been discussed repeatedly, but ATS is betting on people forgetting the BS he uttered the last time he played this game.

  15. James Comey a/k/a Reinhold Niebuhr

    To understand James Comey, the embattled former FBI director, it might help to understand one of his intellectual mentors, an obscure early 20th century theologian named Reinhold Niebuhr. Born of German immigrant parents in St. Louis in 1892, Niebuhr was educated at Yale and achieved fame and notoriety in the 1930s for his moral teachings. Niebuhr was awarded a Medal of Freedom in 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

    In 1934, Niebuhr published Moral Man and Immoral Society, a book that discussed individual and collective morality. His core thesis was that as individuals we are capable of acting morally but institutions by their very nature are not because they will or must always pursue their own egoistic self-interests at the expense of the social justice needs of individuals.
    Consider this classic Niebuhr statement: “A political policy cannot be intrinsically evil if it can be proved to be an efficacious instrument for the achievement of a morally approved end.” Ideas like this were popular in the morally and politically confused era preceding World War II.

    More than three decades ago, when James Comey was a student at William and Mary College, he wrote a senior thesis on Reinhold Niebuhr. His fiery tweet messages before and after he was fired in 2017 by President Donald J. Trump were transmitted using the allonym “Reinhold Niebuhr.” When outed by a reporter, Comey, using his real name, responded: “Here’s my new handle. Glad to be part of the Twitterverse. Grateful to Reinhold for the cover these last few years.”

    Comey appears comfortable in his own self-righteousness, which is something a follower of Niebuhr would easily understand. In his 1934 book, Niebuhr described a wise statesman thus: “A wise statesman is hardly justified in insisting on the interests of his group when they are obviously in unjust relation to the total interests of the community of mankind.” James Comey, a/k/a Reinhold Niebuhr, could not have said it better.

    Jim Comey is certainly not alone in believing that a political party cannot be intrinsically evil, as Niebuhr preached, if its end are “morally approved.” This twist on the Christian philosophy of the principle of double effect is, in effect, the new religion of the left and justifies everything from burning down cities to firebombing the officies and homes of those who stand in their way. It is a modern day crusade and Donald Trump is today’s chief Saracen.

    1. Thank you for that comment. Very interesting. The part that I still fail to understand is why removing Donald Trump from public life is considered a moral good. If it is because he potentially can beat Democrats, that seems like a very frail moral position. My belief is it is because unlike most other office holders, he cannot be controlled either by career politicians (in both parties), the media or the bureaucracy. If so, the moral good is nothing more than eliminating a stumbling block affecting a lust for power and the rewards it brings. I think even Neibuhr would agree there is nothing ethical or moral about that.

      1. Who is trying to “remove Trump from public life”? Not Bragg, and not Comey either.

        The question for the GJ indictment is: is there probable cause that Trump committed crimes? If the answer is “yes,” he should be indicted. If it’s a just indictment, and if he now gets due process, then it serves the rule of law. If it’s not a just indictment, or if he doesn’t get due process, then it doesn’t.

        1. anonymous – “Who is trying to “remove Trump from public life”? Not Bragg, and not Comey either.” …

          The current Establishment: The Military Industrial Complex, Deep State, Finance Sector, Political Factions, Anyone with an Interest in the War.
          [Yes that’s right, the One We are already in – The War]
          They want it and They’re going to have it, and Mr. Trump will not be stand in Their way.

        2. “if he now gets due process, then it serves the rule of law.”

          ATS, you should learn what the rule of law is. Everyone is supposed to be treated the same under the law but that is not happening. You should change your words from rule under the law to rule at the face of a gun. Stalin would be proud of you.

      2. Honestlawyer: You’re looking at this logically and objectively but, as members of groups, we are expected to always pursue our own egoistic self-interests at the expense of the social justice needs of individuals. Only as individuals, Niebuhr said, can we make moral decisions because they can be made independently of the group. This is a perverted philosophy that masquerades as morally ethical but in realy is nothing more than a justification statement for dictatorship. When, for example, Comey “pardoned” Clinton, he did so an an individual knowing that a group, that is, a collection of his peers and those whose authorioty he usurped, would likely disagree with him and choose the immoral alternative of prosecuting her. At its base, this Niebuhr stuff is crazy but an amazing number of Democrats over the years, including LBJ and the Clintons, have bought into it..

  16. “The former FBI director, who has been teaching and speaking on government ethics…”

    No comment.

    1. E.M.: I bet when he speaks at colleges in the land there are no protests. Only slobbering young fools as well as old professors and administrators who think bad is good and vice versa.

  17. Monica Lewnskie’s DNC-Clinton Non-Disclosure Agreement (The Clinton-DNC N.D.A)
    Sweet Jesus do I miss Larry Flint (Hustler Magazine).

    1. You Put Monica Lewnskie on the Stand and ask her about the The Clinton-DNC N.D.A/Settlement,
      and this thing with Trump paying Stormy Daniels will disappear faster than a $10 Dollar Bill at a Starbucks Coffee Shop.

  18. Nothing good can come of surrendering to a corrupt jurisdiction. Unless some kind of martyrdom is a goal.
    The nation gets it.
    Some people see this for the travesty that it is and are horrified.
    Some rejoice because their hatreds exceed their love of country or even knowledge of it.
    Don’t go to New York Mr. President!
    Make Bragg file for extradition. He really can’t stack much more against you anyway while you are free and “fleeing justice”.

    1. “Some rejoice because their hatreds exceed their love of country or even knowledge of it.”

      Good one, Felix. So true. And so frightening. Are their numbers as high as it appears? If so, time to stock-up on MREs and toilet paper.

      1. Yes it is time.
        “Si vis pacem, para bellum” translated: “If you want peace, prepare for war”

  19. Troubling times for those who really do believe in the Rule of Law and equal treatment in the judicial system. Karma knows. It always knows

    1. it is time for the Republicans to stop being the good guys.
      the DOJ, FBI and all of DC are 100% corrupt and the US is in free fall.. Our Enemies are backing Democrats.

  20. “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
    – Sir Thomas More

    -James Comey

Leave a Reply