Below is my column in the New York Post on the indictment of James Comey. As I mentioned yesterday, the indictment seemed a bit disjointed in referring to “false statements” in the caption and the body, but only describing a single false statement. It appears that the grand jury did not return a “true bill” on one of the originally alleged false statements. That might have been the count related to Professor Daniel Richman, who appeared before the Grand Jury, but that is speculation at this point. However, as I noted, there appears to have been material removed from the original draft of the indictment.
Here is the column:
Yesterday, James Comey became the first former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be indicted for a federal crime. That is likely the only fact upon which you will receive anything close to agreement in the country. For some, the two-count indictment is a long-overdue accountability for a man who pushed through the now-debunked Russian collusion investigation. For others, it is another abuse on President Donald Trump’s revenge tour.
There are legitimate concerns about the targeting of a political critic of the President, particularly after he publicly complained just days ago that Attorney General Pam Bondi was not indicting Comey and others.
However, Comey is hardly the pristine model of “ethical leadership” that he described in his book. Putting aside his critical role in the Russian collusion investigation, Comey tossed aside even the pretense of ethics after Trump fired him.
The Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, issued a scathing report that found Comey was a leaker and had violated FBI policy in his handling of FBI memos. On his way out of the Bureau, Comey stole FBI materials, including those containing the “code name and true identity” of a sensitive source.
While he did not find that he disclosed the classified information, Horowitz found that Comey took “the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.” He further added that Comey “set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands of more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.”
Comey later admitted that he asked his friend, Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman, to leak information from the documents to the New York Times.
Comey’s close associate, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, stated that Comey did instruct him to leak information to the media. Comey denied that repeatedly under oath.
James Baker, FBI general counsel and a close adviser to Comey, also told investigators that he was “under the belief” that he was “ultimately instructed and authorized to [provide information to the Times] by then FBI Director James Comey.”
That sets up a straightforward question: who is lying? It could also set up a bizarre scene of McCabe testifying against his friend. McCabe despises Trump as much as Comey, so he may prove to be an overtly hostile witness for the prosecutors.
Washington will be glued to any such trial. The only thing more unnerving than the alleged targeting of a political critic in Washington is the prosecution of a leaker. This is a city that floats on a rolling sea of leaks. The Justice Department is notorious for leaks made with lethal effect against targets. Now the former FBI director will stand trial to see if he is a leaker and a liar.
There is one individual who is likely to be watching with particular interest and perhaps satisfaction: former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
Comey is facing two counts of making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding. The first count under 18 U.S.C. 1001 (a)(2) is the exact charge that Comey engineered against Flynn.
Comey gave a book tour where he thrilled audiences about how he secured a criminal charge against Flynn for making false statements. In one event, an audience cheered as Comey took credit for the controversial charge. He explained that what he did was not exactly proper. It was, he explained,
“something we’ve, I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration…I thought, ‘It’s early enough, let’s just send a couple of guys over.’”
The actual agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he intentionally lied about a meeting with Russian diplomats, but Comey and his investigators pushed for charges anyway. They drained Flynn of resources, threatened to indict his son, and ultimately secured a guilty plea.
Now it will be Comey in the dock, facing a charge of making a false statement. He will do so as someone who has admitted to improperly removing FBI material and leaking information to the media.
The odds still favor Comey. He will have a jury taken from a generally liberal, Democratic jury pool. He is also a sophisticated player. Perhaps that is why he issued a videotaped message saying effectively “bring it on” and let’s go to trial.
While an improvement over Comey’s bizarre seashell messages, the videotape may be too confident. Perjury or false statements can be challenging to prove, particularly when vague or nuanced language is used. This is neither vague nor nuanced. Comey repeatedly swore that he never asked anyone at the FBI to leak information. That is either true or it is not.
Comey will continue to be vilified and lionized by different parts of the population. Yet, this is an ignoble moment that he helped bring about. Notably, this indictment comes 50 years after the only Attorney General was convicted of crimes (including false statements and obstruction). That was John Mitchell after the Watergate scandal.
Now the man who bragged about nailing Michael Flynn will face the same false statement charge. The man who celebrated the charging of Donald Trump (including obstruction-related charges) will face his own obstruction charge. Whether karma or lawfare, Comey will now have his day in court.
Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Sinclair caves, and starts airing Kimmel’s show again.
Their statement:
Our objective throughout this process has been to ensure that programming remains accurate and engaging for the widest possible audience. We take seriously our responsibility as local broadcasters to provide programming that serves the interests of our communities, while also honoring our obligations to air national network programming. Over the last week, we have received thoughtful feedback from viewers, advertisers, and community leaders representing a wide range of perspectives.
Translation: our advertisers bailed on us and we are losing money, and our viewers overwhelmed us with demands for his return.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I have never seen a Jimmy Kimmel show.
I’ve only managed to catch a few Jimmy Kimmel shows over the years.
*but it’s been so long now .. . I think Trump and Epstein were still big pals.
Why don’t they have Americans on American TV anymore?
Answer: Because American women don’t make Americans anymore.
When did you stop hanging around airports hoping to catch a ride with Clinton and Epstein to that cute little island of Epstein’s?
Trump may or may not have been social “pals” with Epstein back in the Studio 54 days – with a few hundred other Democrats at that time. But that ended so long ago, that only Democrats and false flag Never Trumpers still hope to win an election by throwing that against a wall.
You on the other hand never lost your craving to be one of Epstein and Maxwell’s pals.
Me too.
You never saw Kimmel’s show featuring The Juggies, and ending with busty young women jumping up and down on trampolines?
Disney, Sinclair, and Nexstar presented that rubbish, and Disney, Sinclair, and Nexstar took it down.
In America, they’re free to engage in “the pursuit of happiness” however they choose.
In a world full of Jimmy Kimmels, be a Charlie Kirk.
Nexstar also caves.
Starts airing Kimmel again
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G1ojjP3XsAA4dVQ?format=jpg&name=small
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Enjoy the blood money, Kimmel.
His ratings are already down 65% from their high… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
About the judge in the Comey case: “Court records show that U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, a Biden appointee confirmed in 2021, was randomly assigned…”
“As a federal public defender, Nachmanoff’s office represented al-Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui and Somali pirates captured after attacking a Navy vessel in 2010. In one notable case argued before the Supreme Court, Nachmanoff successfully pressed for judicial discretion in sentencing drug defendants whose punishments were inflated by crack cocaine laws….The justices ruled 7-2 in favor of his position, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing the majority opinion.” https://conservativebrief.com/judge-james-comey-95477/
And your point is?????
My point is “Girls just wanna have [affirmative action]” in a world built by those pesky men, which is actually our world, by the way, right, girls?
It’s God’s world and I have no choice but to live it. 😏
God created American women to make American babies, there’s a great choice! You might simply do your duty.
Let’s ask Rush Limbaugh what her point is.
Check the tapes.
And your point is ???
There is no point
All her comments are completely pointless
Her point is THE LEFT did it. .. that’s always her point.
*and she is not alone.
We have to put an end to an America that has lawyers like Daniel Webster who would defend British soldiers against criminal charges and federal public lawyers like Nachmanoff who would be willing to represent hajjis and drug defendents facing criminal charges.
We need to drop that and follow the lead of Nancy Pelosi with her closed door impeachment trial of President Trump.
Anyone can watch the televised exchange under oath between Ted Cruz and Comey. Comey’s response is not forthright, it is cagey, evasive, and manipulative. He was either lying, or trolling the Committee Repubs to nudge them into overplaying their hand.
Michael Horowitz, the FBI’s IG who conducted the internal investigation, caught Andrew McCabe lying to the FBI on 3 occasions regarding his role in leaks to the media to dupe the nation as part of Crossfire Hurricane. The question behind this indictment is whether Comey knew about and approved McCabe’s leaks at the time.
Comey testified in front of Congress under oath that he didn’t ask for or approve McCabe’s leaks. He hasn’t denied tacitly approving them.
The DoJ must show proof that Comey’s denial under oath was untrue, intending to mislead Congress, and that doing so changed the course afterwards taken by Congress. This gets to the purpose of the Government Oversight Committee. If the Jury believes that uncovering corruption and merely reporting it to the American people is the function of the Committee, then lying to cover-up corruption would meet the element of materiality.
The problem is the comments were made back in 2017. The statute of limitations expired for that comment to be used against Comey.
The DOJ is wrongly claiming Comey confirmed the statement in 2020, BUT he did not repeat the statement verabatim. That is the key problem for the DOJ and a fatal flaw for the case.
That is why more experienced lawyers could not go forward with any charges. There is no evidence to charge Comey and no probable cause. The case is very likely to be dismissed because there is no evidence Comey made a false statement to Congress AFTER the statute of limitations expired on the original statement. Another poster pointed this out with more detail.
The SOL is tolled by future acts related to the crime – that includes all efforts to hide the crime.
I do not necescarily agree with SOL law as the courts have found it, but the SOL is not an issue in this case.
Comey’s testimony is 2020 restarts the clock – even if you are too stupid to beleive that his 2020 testimony wasn’t a lie.
So your argument is that Comey is a perjurer – but that he should get away with it ?
Agitprop specialist, Joe Scarborough, is now saying that “Trump is making Comey a martyr for the rule of of law”….
There was never a more inappropriate and lowbrow use of the term “martyr,” especially after the Charlie Kirk assassination.
The left’s political PRETENSE, their tone-deaf insolence and amoral clod-hopping, is stunning and unprecedented.
For his many sins, Comey is being handled gently.
I was hoping for heavily armed SWAT teams, helicopters, armored cars and, of course, CNN.
Where’s the Head of the Gestapo, Merrick Garland, when you need him?
Waiting for a SWAT team to come for him.
Your lips to God’s ears!
And u-haul truck
Jonathan: Well, DJT finally got the indictment of Jim Comey he has wanted for a long time. But he did that only by firing Erik Siebert, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Siebert looked at the case and found there was no evidence, no probable cause to charge Comey. This was backed up by a number of other prosecutors in Siebert’s office who wrote a memo saying there was no evidence to charge Comey.
In reading the indictment it is poorly drafted and full of errors. It was hastily put together by Lindsey Halligan who, until this week was WH senior associate staff secretary. She is a former insurance lawyer with no criminal prosecutorial experience. It shows in the indictment that she signed personally, probably because no other prosecutor in the Eastern District would sign it!
The indictment of Comey is probably the most egregious case of prosecutorial misconduct and vindictive prosecution. No doubt Comey’s legal team will immediately file a motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice. I doubt the indictment will survive the pleading stage–even though the client will be disappointed he won’t be able to defend himself before a jury.
Now you claim Andrew McCabe “stated that Comey did instruct him to leak information to the media [NY Times]. FACT CHECK: That claim is false. In other proceedings McCabe said he told Comey he was the one who authorized the leak but that was the day after the Times published its story and Comey had not approved the leak in advance. That has been Comey’s consistent testimony in front of Congress.
In my opinion DJT really doesn’t care whether the indictment of Comey goes anywhere. His main purpose in indicting Comey is to send a chilling message to his political “enemies”: I will use my DOJ to go after you and I will make your lives miserable whether the law is on my side or not. That’s what all dictators do!
America has sought the demise of the Deep Deep State “Swamp” for a long time.
It’s just too damn bad that Rush Limbaugh couldn’t be here to see it.
IOW, she fits the “the incompetent being led by the incontinent” protocol.
I’m impressed at how you quickly read the entire indictment and found it to be lacking and written by an amateur. And since you are the brightest criminal and civil attorney in the U.S., your comments must be taken seriously, with no questions asked. It is no wonder that you use “anonymous” as your handle.
So true.
The only thing Americans can actually “know” is that the judicial branch has been a corrupt and integral component of the communist American Deep Deep State “Swamp.”
AI Overview
A federal prosecutor named Alex Acosta, who later became an Assistant Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor, handled a lenient 2008 plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein.
Well maybe you should post her comment under her name/title. Along with your credentials as to why you say this. I just yawn at anonymous armchair, keyboard, warriors. Hugs,
“…to send a chilling message to his political “enemies”: I will use my DOJ to go after you and I will make your lives miserable whether the law is on my side or not.”
And Biden says, ” been there, done that” — the J-6 geo-fencing, SWAT team arrests and prosecutions were an OBJECT LESSON in prosecutorial misconduct, well demonstrated by the the Biden DOJ.
Dianna: Fear is the tool of the tyrant. DJT doesn’t care whether the Comey case stalls in the pleading stage. He wants to send a message to anyone who opposes him. “Don’t think I won’t come after you”. But that’s not what the justice system is about–a president using his DOJ to go after political enemies.
And Jan. 6 resulted in the conviction of over 1,000 insurrectionists by juries. They weighed the evidence and found they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you really think Linsey Halligan could get a conviction against Jim Comey? I think the judge in this case will dismiss it with prejudice without going to trial.
Erik Siebert, US Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, was a totally corrupt deep mole penetration agent.
“I will use my DOJ to go after you and I will make your lives miserable whether the law is on my side or not. That’s what all dictators do!”
Yes! That’s exactly what Obama said, long before Trump ran for office. And what Biden, Letiitia James, Alvin Bragg, etc also said, AND DID.
Telling that you you cheered them doing that – rather than attempting to cobble together dire warnings.
Don’t forget about that email Thingy:
Hillary Clinton email controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
Lock Her Up!
General Flynn shows Americans how to confront Marxists. His Saul Alinsky comment is 🎯
General Mike Flynn
@GenFlynn
@BarackObama this is called “Projection by Manipulation and Deception.” It is a Saul Alinsky marxist tactic. We’re not falling for it because the only people who trust you are those Marxists remaining inside of the USG and they are being rooted out (too slowly for me) but rooted out. Go back to your hole please.
@realDonaldTrump
@RobertKennedyJr
@DNIGabbard
@SusieWiles
@JDVance
@SecWar
@SecRubio
7:49 AM · Sep 26, 2025
·
Barack Obama
@BarackObama
Republicans can’t win on their policies, so they are trying to dodge accountability by rewriting the rules. These lawmakers are going out of their way to silence the will of the people and deliberately undermine our democracy.
4:19 PM · Sep 25, 2025
https://x.com/GenFlynn/status/1971542705244082348
Blah, blah, blah–purchased MAGA media blather. First of the there was no “Russian collusion…..[that] was debunked”. Marco Rubio was the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee that agreed that Trump’s campaign DID have contacts with Russian hackers for the purpose of smearing Hillary Clinton. No matter how many times MAGA media says “Russia, Russia, Russia” those facts are inalterable. Just another example of how Trump tries to abuse the power he cheated to get by lying to re-write history.
The overarching issue here is the fact that Trump ORDERED Pammie Jo to go after Comey, and when veteran career prosecutors wouldn’t do it, she fired them and found another former Trump attorney, an insurance lawyer with NO criminal experience, to file trumped up charges. She is, of course, another “Barbie”, like Alina Habba. Turley can try to spin the facts any way he wants, but a line has been crossed here. It is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as DOJ guidelines, to file trumped-up charges based on political pressure when there is no evidence of criminality. NEVER BEFORE has a POTUS publicly ordered the DOJ to go after a political enemy after veteran career prosecutors determined there was no criminal conduct. Memos stating just that will no doubt be presented, and Comey will walk. Query: did “insurance Barbie” present the memos drafted by veteran prosecutors to the Grand Jury? Probably not. Those attorneys at the DOJ who did what Trump commanded may well face disciplinary charges–they SHOULD be disciplined for bringing a charge that they KNOW is not supported by probable cause. Pammie Jo’s public statement that the DOJ will “follow the facts” is a tacit admission that they don’t already have “the facts”. It works like this: you get the facts, and if the facts establish probable cause, you bring an indictment–not the other way around–this is true for both criminal and civil cases, which is something Rudy Giuliani apparently didn’t know either, which is why he lost his law license. And, Kashyip Patel’s statement about forcing accountability is literally laughable–when will Trump be held “accountable”?
From the American Bar Association–Rule 3.8 “Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor”:
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;
(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;
The memos stating that there is no evidence of criminal conduct by Comey is “mitigating information known to the prosecutor…that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense”. Then, there’s Horowitz’s report–who found no evidence of criminality. What a joke.
🤡
Great post 🤡 and spot on!
What would mainstream media be without their wholly-trusting and wholly-FOOLED sycophants, regurgitating lies & disinformation. You are a tool.
^^more “slop” from the “chump” gigi. Apparently a DC no less grand jury FOUND probable cause, clown.
See with your own eyes, and hear with your own ears, Saint Jimmy lying under oath to Ted Cruz, on September 30, 2020. Advance to 8:35 for the relevant portion:
Brutal⬆……Stick the fork in Comey, he is done after that Take Down….. Nice Comey Take Down Video. Winner 🏆
“Martyr or Liar? Comey Indicted on Two Counts”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Betrayal of a nation is the highest crime.
James Comey is no man’s martyr; James Comey is a perjurer and a traitor.
A few brief centuries ago, the coup attempt by Comey et al. would have constituted High Treason (i.e. Gunpowder Plot) and the conspirators would have been Drawn and Quartered.
James Comey was an essential component in the ongoing and incessant Obama Coup D’etat in America.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
____________________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
_____________________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
_____________________________________________
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
____________________________________________
“People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”
– Bill Priestap
________________
“I had a discussion with the case team and we believe there to be predication to include former President of the United States Donald J. Trump as a predicated subject.”
– Timothy Thibault to John Crabb, U.S. Attorney’s Office, D.C.
___________________________________________________________________
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, Lisa O. Monaco, Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg,
Matthew Colangelo, Merrick Garland, Juan Merchan, Timothy Thibault et al.
Kunstler’s takedown of Comey, as quoted by Floyd, is devastating. We all know how corrupt the swamp rats are who have been trying to destroy the most consequential president of our lifetimes, Donald Trump. Such corruption is irksome, but I have a hard time interacting on the topic since it is so far removed from life outside the DC swamp/bubble. Comey is a swamp rat and will meet his end as such. But I would prefer to discuss interesting legal topics, or better yet, legal puzzles. For example, suppose someone is falling to his death, but on the way down he lands softly on some suspended wires which, due to the negligence of the electric company, electrocute him.* Is the electric company liable for wrongful death, when the victim would’ve died anyway absent the wires? (Just an example off the top of my head, I’m sure there are many other legal puzzles of similar interest, to me anyway.)
*P.S. “Electrocute” is a portmanteau of electricity and execute; it means to kill through electric shock. Today it is misused by many in the media to mean simply give non-lethal a shock to.
Kansas Elder — Unfortunately ‘electrocute’ also refers to serious but not fatal electric shocks.
Professor B, I realize some people use it that way, but I maintain that is an incorrect usage. As I explained, the word literally has “execute” built into it.
A reminder to Professor Turley, to jog his memory of Comey before Trump entered politics and gave Democrats their excuse for using Comey as their personal Laverinty Beria:
Comey is the one who chose and supervised the prosecutor who indicted and prosecuted Scooter Libby. Doing so despite the fact that the FBI and DoJ knew that Libby had absolutely nothing to do with Colin Powell’s staffer who actually leaked that name. The prosecutor didn’t prosecute the staffer who had come forward to admit to the leak. Instead, they tried to use the “investigation” to find some grounds to indict Bush’s VP, Dick Cheney.
Scooter Libby became Comey’s consolation prize when they failed to find anything Comey could use to take out Dick Cheney. Libby got the Democrat version of a fair trial in Washington DC as a Bush Administration official – after Comey’s prosecutor jailed a journalist until she changed her initial testimony to sing the tune Comey demanded.
In the days after 9/11 Comey, working with his fellow thug Robert Mueller, investigated and “leaked” the name of a government scientist active in local Republican politics as the terrorist supposedly responsible for the anthrax terrorist attacks that happened days later. Hounded and under attack in the weeks after 9/11, their target committed suicide.
Comey and his sidekick Mueller then targeted and “leaked” the name of another Republican scientist as the supposed terrorist responsible. But this target was a poor choice for their fraudulent police state fascism. This target came from a family with Old Money, who couldn’t be bankrupted into submission by FBI lawyers.
When the lawfare dust cleared taxpayers, not Comey and Mueller, paid their intended victim $6 million in damages plus legal fees for defamation and “leaking” his name during the supposed investigation. Comey never did find and lay charges against the actual terrorist, and the initial man they targeted and drove to suicide did not come back to life.
And finally, in 2012, still before Trump, Comey worked with Smith the first time a Democrat White House used Smith to take out the most dangerous political threat to a Democrat president’s reelection. In the case of their “investigation” into Governor Bob MacDonald, it worked at least long enough for Obama/Biden to win reelection before the conviction got to SCOTUS who threw it out.
What Comey did and attempted to do in targeting Trump, Carter Page, etc, was just a continuation of what he had been doing for the previous 20 years
James Comey was a vile unindicted police state fascist felon, like an American version of Lavarentiy Beria, years before Democrats could seize on Trump as their excuse for Comey’s criminal use of his office.
Rhetorical question: is Professor Turley completely unaware of all of this happening while he was living and working in the Washington DC Sea of Corruption before Trump?
Thank you, for more of Comey’s malfeasance.
I would further note that Comey drove the prosecution of Martha Stewart.
You can love her or hate her, but the prosecution was corrupt.
She too was convicted of lying to the FBI under circumstances similar to Flynn where it is impossible to tell what the lie was.
The crazy left goes nuts again. Attacking ICE.
JUST IN: Violence ERUPTS outside Illinois ICE facility
You know, Jim Comey’s presence, bearing, attitude and demeanor always seemed to remind of someone else. Being old, I had a hard time remembering who, exactly. Today, it hit me! Joachim Peiper! Here, watch Peiper on trial, starting at 13:00 in, and see if Peiper doesn’t match Comey, the way he holds himself, and his arrogance –
Comey’s slap on the wrist.
The indictment of Comey will be dismissed before trial for a number of reasons.
The case is very weak, and Turley knows this, but he is afraid to come right out and say so for fear of alienating his MAGA followers here. Instead he hedges by saying that Comey will probably be found not guilty by a liberal Democrat jury.
The indictment has a fatal flaw. It alleges that Comey made a false statement in answer to a question from Cruz on September 30, 2020, and thereby obstructed a proceedings of Congress.
The problem is that he did not make a false statement on September 30, 2020.
This is what actually happened when Comey was questioned by Cruz on September 30,2020.
Cruz specifically questioned Comey about his 2017 testimony where he stated under oath that he had never been an anonymous source or authorized others at the FBI to be anonymous sources in news reports about the Trump or Clinton investigations. Cruz then pointed out that Andrew McCabe had publicly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that Comey was aware of and authorized it. Cruz directly asked Comey to address the contradiction between his and McCabe’s statements, asking, “Who’s telling the truth?”. Comey responded by stating, “I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017”.
Comey’s response in 2020 is NOT a false statement. All he said was that he stands by his testimony in 2017. He may have made a false statement in 2017, but that is not relevant now, because the statute of limitations has run on THAT statement. He never repeated the statement from 2017.
In court, actual statements and actual dates actually mean something. The DOJ is making a huge stretch trying to imply that Comey made a false statement in 2020, which he clearly did not. In the absence of a false statement, the second count of obstruction also fails.
This is almost certainly why the fired US Attorney Erik Siebert and his team of line attorneys concluded that they were unlikely to get a conviction and refused to indict Comey.
The second problem that the government has, is that it will be trivial to prove vindictive prosecution, and thus have the case dismissed. There are two elements to proving this.
Firstly, the defense must prove that the prosecution is acting with animus. The evidence for this is overwhelming. We already know that there was a memo from career prosecutors In EDVA saying that there is no likelihood of a conviction. We already know that Erik Siebert, EDVA US Attorney, refused to file charges, and was fired. Trump explicitly said that he was fired because he refused to file charges against Comey. We know that Trump has been explicitly, and publicly, demanding that Comey be indicted. Trump has been demanding for years that Comey be indicted. Trump replaced Erik Siebert with one of his personal attorneys.Taken together, all of this conclusively proves animus.
Secondly, the judge must find that the charges would not have otherwise been brought except for the animus. Basically this means that even if there is animus the case can still proceed if there are legitimate charges.
The problem is, that as explained above, these are not legitimate charges. We know Siebert refused to bring an indictment. In the fullness of time, through defense motions, we will find out why he refused. If his refusal was based on the fact that Comey did not actually make a false statement on September 30, 2020, then the case is dismissed on the basis of vindictive prosecution. Such dismissals are not appealable.
End of case.
Comey restated in 2020 his testimony of 2017. If it was false in 2017 he restated that falsity in 2020.
The indictment is unclear about who Comey authorised to leak what in respect of the investigation of which person. Until these details are clarified, and non-public evidence is revealed, it is impossible to know the strength of the case.
Daniel
Boom! Thank you for a dose of reality.
“It’s the [venue], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
End of case.
Alternatively, the judge orders a change of venue to Oklahoma, nay, Boise, Idaho!
Daniel, unfortunately for you, that is not how things work.
The following is a verbatim extract from the indictment:
“On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES
B. COMEY JR., did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, Fictitious, and
fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the
Government of the United Stales, by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate
Judiciaiy Committee hearing that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., had not “authorized
someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” regarding an FBI
investigation concerning PERSON 1.”
The indictment states on or about September 30, 2020, James Comey said ” he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.”
He did not actually make that statement on September 30, 2020.
He said it in 2017.
This makes the indictment defective. The indictment has to be factually correct. It is not factually correct. He made a completely different statement in 2020.
He did not “restate his testimony”. That would require him to actually repeat the statement, which he did not.
As an aside, note the spelling errors in the indictment.
“Fictitious” is inappropriately capitalized in the manner of Trump.
“States” is spelled “Stales”.
“Judiciary” is spelled “Judiciaiy”
This was thrown together in a rush by Lindsey Halligan, who has never tried a criminal case.
Further the 2020 testimony restarted the clock on the false statements in the 2017 testimony.
There are likely to be a number of prosecutions that are going to be based on the fact that new testimony restarts the clock on old testimoney.
A likely HUGE example is Fauxi – but this will also likely be true of the J6 committee destruction of evidence.
Both have been pardoned by Biden.
But they can still be made to testify. Further they can not claim the 5th – because they have been pardoned.
if they lie now, Everything from the past comes in. And if they do not lie – the public learns of the malfeasance committed.
John Say,
“ Further the 2020 testimony restarted the clock on the false statements in the 2017 testimony.”
No, it did not. That is not how it works. Comey did not repeat the statement he made in 2017. He would have had to restate verbatim what he said in 2017 back in 2020. He did not do that.
That is why more experienced prosecutors could not sign off on pressing charges. Even Pam Bondi acknowledged the evidence was not there to prosecute. But Trump, throwing a fit and demanding action forced the AG in charge to resign, and then Trump’s former assistant secretary with zero criminal trial experience and an insurance lawyer was appointed to lead the doomed case. This is why Professor Turley is hedging by floating the idea that a liberal democrat jury from DC will acquit.
This case was never about a crime. This was about Trump’s need for vengeance and punishing those he thinks did him wrong.
Pam Bondi should have told Trump “No, we can’t prosecute Comey because there is no evidence and the statute of limitations expired on the original comment.”
This case will be dismissed before any jury is seated. The evidence of vindictive prosecution is overwhelming. Furthermore, Comey’s lawyer is no spring chicken, He’s Patrick Fitzgerald. Trump’s prosecutor is an insurance lawyer with zero experience in federal criminal prosecution. It’s going to be an embarrassing display of her lack of experience. She had to sign the indictment because no other competent and experienced lawyer would sign it.
>”He may have made a false statement in 2017, but that is not relevant now, because the statute of limitations has run on THAT statement. He never repeated the statement from 2017.”
Everything is relative. .. that’s why Trump is president, again.
*Dismissed on a technicality sounds about right .. . reminds me of the saga of Hunter Biden’s long-outstanding tax liabilities.
As you’re cosplaying as a law professor with an Internet JD, why don’t you give us the link to your blog, rather than cosplay as an expert on Professor Turley’s blog?
(it’s georgie again. He said the same thing earlier.)
We all know you never repeat yourself.
What Turley says about the jury pool in eastern Virgina is not a deflection, but a statement of a reality. There was a strong case against Michael Sussman that he lied to the James Baker of the FBI about the origins of his “report” that there was a connection between Donald Trump and a Russian Bank, but the jury acquitted him anyway.
I am sure the defense will move to dismiss, and with the left wing nut judges that are likely to get this case that is possible.
But no the case is not weak.
The evidence against Comey is far stronger than that against Martha Stewart or Gen. Flynn.
“Comey’s response in 2020 is NOT a false statement. All he said was that he stands by his testimony in 2017. He may have made a false statement in 2017, but that is not relevant now, because the statute of limitations has run on THAT statement. He never repeated the statement from 2017.”
That is an absolutely horrible defense.
I lied in 2017, but I did not lie in 2020, when I said the lie that I told in 2017 was not a lie ?
Please try that with a Jury.
“In court, actual statements and actual dates actually mean something. ”
Really, they did not in your show chamber trial of Trump.
“The DOJ is making a huge stretch trying to imply that Comey made a false statement in 2020”
If the statement in 2017 was false the statement in 2020 is also false.
Your engaged in idiotic faux legal reasoning.
While this is sworn testimony in public before congress, it is a common tactic by FBI and DOJ – whether democrats or Republicans are in power to question the participants in criminal conspiracies on their past involvement after the statute of limitations has expired – because if they lie, they can now be prosecuted.
I would note that in 2020, the statute of limitations on the 2017 lie had NOT expired. That means when he AGAIN lied in 2020 – the 2017 statute of limitations restarted. The clock does not start running until after the last act in furtherance of a crime.
“In the absence of a false statement, the second count of obstruction also fails.”
That is not what those of you on the left said repeatedly with respect to Trump and the others you prosecuted.
“This is almost certainly why the fired US Attorney Erik Siebert and his team of line attorneys concluded that they were unlikely to get a conviction and refused to indict Comey.”
Siebert is condemned by the FACT that a North VA grand Jury indicted on several counts (and returned no true bill) on another. The indictment proves that the evidence is good enough to persuade a majority of left wing nuts.
I agree with Turley that a conviction is not likely – but that is primarily because of the Venue. In 95% of this country a conviction would be certain.
“The second problem that the government has, is that it will be trivial to prove vindictive prosecution, and thus have the case dismissed. There are two elements to proving this.”
Again as the left has told us for the past several years there is no such thing.
The question in court is NOT Whether the President and DOJ hate Comey. It is Whether Comey committed a crime.
If Comey murdered someone and it was captured on video – do you think there is a judge in the world that would care that Trump has an axe to grind ?
A Jury will get to consider whether Trump’s animus towards comey has resulted in over prosecution of a weak case.
But it is not grounds to dissmiss.
“Firstly, the defense must prove that the prosecution is acting with animus.”
I am not even sure if the court will allow them to try that.
Regardless, I agree the prosecution is hostile to Comey – the prosecution is nearly always hostile to the defendant.
There is also good reason for the prosecution to be hostile to Comey – EVERYONE is aware of Comey’s Lawless tenure as FBI Director – and others here have provided evidence that lawlessness goes way way way back.
Nor is Comey’s self serving lawlessness exclusively political in the left right sense. Comey’s handling of the Clinton case – while improperly preventing prosecution, likely also cost her the election.
And “Saint” James Comey knew exactly what he was doing.
“The evidence for this is overwhelming.”
And irrelevant.
“We already know that there was a memo from career prosecutors In EDVA saying that there is no likelihood of a conviction. We already know that Erik Siebert, EDVA US Attorney, refused to file charges, and was fired.”
And irrelevant. Sieberts claims have been falsified by the indictment.
“Trump explicitly said that he was fired because he refused to file charges against Comey. We know that Trump has been explicitly, and publicly, demanding that Comey be indicted. Trump has been demanding for years that Comey be indicted. Trump replaced Erik Siebert with one of his personal attorneys.Taken together, all of this conclusively proves animus.”
All irrelevant. Thomas Jefferson ordered his AG to Personally prosecute Aaron Burr – which he did, and Burr was acquitted.
“Secondly, the judge must find that the charges would not have otherwise been brought except for the animus. ”
And if he did he will be overturned on appeal. To the very limited extent the judge can dismiss, he can do so only because a required element for one of the charges has no evidence at all.
There is no “the prosecution has animus towards the defense” grounds for dismissal – or every case would be dismissed.
The reason the Trump prosecutions benefited Trump is because ordinary people throughout the country decided there was NO basis for prosecution EXCEPT political animus.
It is nearly universal that the prosecution has a hostile relationship with the defendant.
Should prosecutors be in love with Mafiaso’s or Serial killers ?
The police and prosecutors are quite often predisposed to investigate and prosecute people because of some kind of animus. We do not dismiss those prosecutions because of animus. We do dismiss them because of lack of evidence.
There is little question about the evidence in this case.
There is also little question that much of the evidence predates Trump’s animus for Comey.
“Basically this means that even if there is animus the case can still proceed if there are legitimate charges.”
Correct.
“The problem is, that as explained above, these are not legitimate charges.”
But there obviously are, Whjile you tried to spin things – you proved the case.
You say that because Comey did not say exactly the same thing in 2020 that he did in 2017 that the fact that he lied in 2017 is irrelevant. But it is NOT. His testimony in 2020 resests the clock on the 2017 testimony.
“We know Siebert refused to bring an indictment. ”
We do – and we know that another AUSA was able to get an indictment – so Siebert’s opinions are irrelevant.
Regardless, Ciebert was fired properly. He is an at will employee in the executive branch he was told to prosecute a case. He refused and was fired – and worse still his replacement got the indictment that he refused to get.
I am not sure that DOJ expects to get a conviction. While that would be good for Trump, and frankly bad for all those who acted illegally to “get him”, even a loss is a political win – Comey has been labeled – and correctly I might add.
Do you really want people who behave like he did as FBI Director ? Even as FBI Agent ?
DOJ has two major obstacles in this case – the likely left wing nut judge, and the likely left wing nut jury.
The evidence contra to Turley and you is NOT the problem.
Frankly I hope Comey is convicted – Martha Stewart, Flynn and all the other victims of HIS persecutions deserve that.
Comey was also involved in the Richard Jewel case.
Comey has been involved in ever botched FBI case during his tenure.
“In the fullness of time, through defense motions, we will find out why he refused.”
The defense is not going to get to call Siebert. Not that it matters.
“If his refusal was based on the fact that Comey did not actually make a false statement on September 30, 2020, then the case is dismissed on the basis of vindictive prosecution. Such dismissals are not appealable.”
Nope. You are actually wrong about all of that. There is no rule about “vindictive prosecutions”.
Comey can challenge the investigation – that must have been started with “reasonable suspicion” – but that is easily the case – unlike xfire huricane. Comey really can not challenge the indictment – but he can challenge the charges – has the prosecution offered in its charges evidence for each element of the alleged crime – but the judge does not – atleast not until after the prosecution has presented its case get to decide how strong that evidence is, only whether it exists – which it most certainly does.
There is no such grounds for dismissal as “vindictive prosecution” – or all the cases against Trump would have been dismissed. and any decision of a judge prior to the jury being empaneled is appealable by either side.
I read every word. Not!
Geez, man, get a grip!
As usual, John Say comes up with an interminably long word salad, of nonsensical non-sequiturs, completely devoid of meaning and relevance.
He simply makes stuff up.
The bottom line is that the indictment is defective.
The indictment makes false allegations.
The indictment reads:
“On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES
B. COMEY JR., did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, Fictitious, and
fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the
Government of the United Stales, by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate
Judiciaiy Committee hearing that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., had not “authorized
someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” regarding an FBI
investigation concerning PERSON 1.”
THIS IS FALSE.
Comey did NOT make this statement on September 30, 2020.
He made the statement in 2017.
An indictment must state the facts.
An indictment must be factually correct.
Lindsey Halligan has sworn under oath that the facts in the indictment are correct.
The stated facts are false.
She will eventually face disciplinary action for filing an indictment that makes false allegations.
What was Comey’s motive, John Say? Motive in the big picture? What is his gain?
John Say,
“ I am sure the defense will move to dismiss, and with the left wing nut judges that are likely to get this case that is possible.”
You’re already making excuses for Trump’s weak case. Just like Turley setting up the excuse of a liberal democrat jury pool when the DOJ fails to prosecute the case successfully.
You should really work on reducing the length of your posts to more manageable responses. The rambling response just makes it look like overcompensating for a weak argument.
“ We do – and we know that another AUSA was able to get an indictment – so Siebert’s opinions are irrelevant.”
You mean Hallibrand? She is not an experienced prosecutor. She’s Trump’s former personal laywer who deals with insurance. She has zero experience with criminal prosecutions. You can tell by the way she wrote the indicting documents. Very sloppy.
There is a reason more experienced and professional prosecutors refused to press charges is because they did not have evidence or probable cause to press charges.
Charlie Kirk is a martyr. Comey is the liar.
Hear, hear!
Really. The dems are no longer a political party – they are part of a regime. I do not expect Comey to face any consequences of any significance; what will be important is the disclosure. At present, that’s the best we can do. The Clinton/Soros/Obama and beyond entropy of our society is going to take a very long time to fix; at least we have begun. We have to keep going.
What is clear: Comey is a snake and a narcissist; may he never be trusted in public life ever again. These people really do count on us being stupid, such is their hubris. Exhibit B: do not forget that Kamala didn’t garner even 2% support in her own party’s primary, she was placed without an election in 2024, and anything that is happening with her now is entirely, 100%, manufactured and funded (after she blew through the equivalent of a generational fortune failing the first time). Do not trust the DNC ever again. Bears repeating now and again: I say this as someone who is decidedly NOT a Conservative, and never has been. We are DONE with this boosheet.
Watch Jimmy Comey lie, right there in person, to Congress!
‘They’ should concentrate on Comey’s pursuit of Gen Flynn. That was outrageous, even by Washington D.C. standards .. . Gen Flynn was only doing his job (i.e. Trump’s incoming DNI).
*going after ‘leaks’ in Washington D.C. is like spitting into the wind.
Concerning Comey’s many “false statements,” from his “8647” orchestrated to seem like an innocent and providential message, all the way back to his pious and heady social-media/news-entertainment blitz against trump in which he bragged how easy it was to isolate and fool General Flynn, who was then PROSECUTED in their own “retaliation and retribution” escapades, there should be plenty more evidence to pull this overgrown worm (Comey) out of the system.
Calm down Bec. .. you’re HURTING my ears.
We’ll sort out all this ‘pious’ pimping in due course.. . lots of swamp rats in D.C. act like they’re sitting right at the foot of the cross.
*note. “8647” was not a ‘false statement’ .. . I believe Comey et al genuinely wanted to deep six (i.e. ’86’) 47, and probably still do!
As for “8647,” the false statement Comey made was that he innocently and randomly “found” the shells in all their holy significance—thus we are to believe in TDS providence, and succumb to the lie that an entire world spends their time artfully wishing for the 86 of 47.
There was nothing UN-calm about what I originally said, in all somber seriousness: the “retaliation and retribution” racket, its origin and worst effects, belong to the left.
To bad Pam Bondi couldn’t find a away to bring the case Indictments in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.
But alas Comey would Appeal and get set free of all charges in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Idaho brought back the firing squad as the state’s primary method of execution in March 2025, when Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 37 into law, to take effect in July 2026. This legislation makes the firing squad the default method if lethal injection cannot be administered, making Idaho the only state to do so. The law follows previous legislation in 2023 that allowed the firing squad as an alternative method when lethal injection drugs were unavailable.
Idaho governor signs firing squad execution bill into law
https://apnews.com/article/death-penalty-executions-firing-squads-idaho-law-de6a68243433a4f58f70256c03891adb
So Comey gets a baby spanking of– you lied and it’ll come to nothing.
Meanwhile people are being murdered right and left and we listen to Hakeem Jeffries talk in cliches meaningless.
C ya
Now that Muller’s a vegetable, Comey figures he can get away with rewriting history and come out smelling like a rose.
“A crushing irony…” I love this guy!
Dear Prof Turley,
‘Revenge is a dish best served cold’ ~ The Wrath of Khan
This is no way to run a country, I can tell you that much son-brother (an Appalachian term of endearment.) .. . much less a leader of the free world.
Yeah, Comey’s carefully cultivated prim and squeaky-clean persona has never resonated with me. He wears flag pins as a fashion statement.. . tbh, I haven’t had any real confidence in an FBI director since J. Edger Hoover.
note. I think Trump/Bondi can scratch Mueller off the list – by all accounts, he’s not all there now . .. if he ever was.
*catch you later alligator ~
“Not too soon, old baboon”
Mueller was not all there when he presented his report to congress – that was obvious.
He is not getting prosecuted – he is not even competent to testify.