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.”
Professor:
You must be proud that your thoughts have generated all these comments that produce all heat and no light. It was cute though how you tried to connect Comey and Mitchell. Why not explain to your fans how easy it is to get an indictment and how tough it is to get a guilty verdict? No President in our history would have handled this case as did POTUS, and you surely know that.
You sound a little butt-hurt that Comey is being treated like a liar….which he is. He just thought he was untouchable, which he may not be. Somebody needs to go to jail…a whole lot of people need to go to jail. If not, there is no justice.
Oh it gets even better.
It’s a threefer!!!
“REVEALED: “PERSON 1” in James Comey’s Indictment is Hillary Clinton”
–by Cristina Laila Sep. 26, 2025 7:40 pm
Excerpts:
“On Thursday evening, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted on two counts by a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia – false statements and obstruction.”
(Yeah, yeah, we know that already but, now the plot thickens…).
“Sources tell ABC News that “PERSON 1” is Clinton and “PERSON 3″ is Richman,” ABC reporter Mike Levine said.”
“Newly declassified memos reveal James Comey’s secret media mole, Daniel Richman, leaked classified information to The New York Times’s Michael Schmidt to help push for a special counsel in May 2017.
In newly declassified memos, it was revealed that Comey shared classified information with Daniel Richman. ABC News is reporting that Daniel Richman was Comey’s personal lawyer, however, Comey didn’t disclose this information until way later.”
Oddly enough, it reminds me somehow of, seashells on the seashore.
“She sells seashells by the seashore,
The shells she sells are seashells, I’m sure.
So if she sells seashells on the seashore,
Then I’m sure she sells seashore shells.”
–Terry Sullivan in 1909
—————————————-
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/revealed-person-1-james-comeys-indictment-is-hillary/
FAFO, James!
Definitely an antisocial type. Woof, woof, woof! That’s my other dog imitation.
——————————
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
A hero to Kelly.
The Left Excels at Twisting Itself Into Mental Pretzels
To rescue its darling Comey, the Left’s “argument” is:
During his Senate testimony of September 2020, he did *not* commit perjury. He merely reaffirmed the (perjurious) statement he made in 2017. *But he did not use the exact same words*. Perjury (maybe) in 2017, but not in 2020, means that the statute of limitations expired. Case dismissed.
By that “logic:”
Last year I said that there are little green men living on the moon. Yesterday, all I said was: “I still believe that.”
According to the Left’s pretzel logic: I was a lunatic then. But not now.
Will, that didn’t last long.
_____________________
Well, that was fast.
Just three days after Democrats and the media made a huge deal about Jimmy Kimmel’s big comeback, his ratings have utterly evaporated. Since the beginning of this week when he returned to the air, his ratings have dropped by 70 percent.
It looks like his much-hyped return was little more than hype. A sugar-high lasts longer than this.
Gutfield had much higher ratings
ABC is now reporting that the authorised leak was through Daniel Richman in relation to the Hillary Clinton investigation while Richman was employed at the FBI as a special government employee.
And Richman has very long ties to Comey
If Richman was employed by the FBI, then he couldn’t be Comey’s personal attorney.
The truth of the matter is that the lawyers always win. We select a jury of our peers to decide who hired the best legal team.
Perhaps he has a sugar daddy or sugar mama, otherwise he will have enormous legal bills and his coffee won’t taste quite as good in the morning. Even if the trial was held in D.C. a jury is not a slam dunk. So, there is that.
He is among many of the smug operators who smirk while they torture the truth.
..we must bear in mind, Prof. Turley, Lying o a FISA Application is a Federal Crime.. and there is more than ample evidence that that is Eaxctky what Comey did………………… lying is not only what one says.. but what one does not say in order to deceive.. to create the right narrative…………..
So why has he not been charged with that crime.
You mindless MAGA goobers live in a fantasy world
Why so angry. Don’t you want the truth?
Paid DNC trolls don’t give a sh!t about truth, they’re just lookin’ for a paycheck from Soros.
It’s a libtard, it swims in lies and corruption.
You Bolshevik Biden Boyz from the Democrat Borg think you’re winning arguments and changing minds with your single digit IQ spawned arguments and responses? But I’ll answer your question:
1. Because the Judge running the FISA courts is a guy named Judge Boasberg? You may have heard of him recently as the most prominent anti-Trump judicial activist claiming the Executive Branch answers to his court.
2. Wasn’t charged with that crime for the same reason Eric Holder wasn’t charged with his crime. And the same reason not a single one of Obama’s other Attorney Generals, FBI Directors, James Clapper, Brennan et al were never charged with their crimes of committing perjury.
Oh… I forgot one. Hillary Clinton… who Comey spent a long time narrating her crimes – and then said he would take it on himself to make the charging decision, rather than allowing the Attorney General who has that power as part of their job to make the decision.
not defending jimbo, but it would appear he was not confident in the fat black woman lynch to do here job, so he got out front himself…you know because he WAS the former deputy ag at one time. So I guess that and his racist stripes gives him the confidence to big foot right over lynch.
this james Comey is truly a piece of work..and the funny thing…the truly comedic tragic laugh factory that will be realized is that the radicals left gooners will not wet an eye when he gets convicted. because they KNOW he was a very bad boy…a white boy who treated hillary unfairly when it should have been the black woman lynch to do the talking.
yes, it is that simple and he will get his for that…and no one in his former camp will wet an eye…only the new York times and maybe the post. but they are no longer relevant. decades of manufacturing lies and deception are known to everyone.
everyone.
God Bless America
Because there is a difference between what people KNOW that Comey did and what they can prove.
Comey was director – and supervisor for the Crossfire huricane investigation.
Each fraudulent FISA warrant application that was file – he signed.
There is no longer any doubt the applications were fraudulent – Klinesmith has plead guilty to altering parts of the application – specifically the CIA told the FBI that Carter Page WAS a CIA asset, and Klinesmith changed the warrant to say that he was NOT. That is a HUGE deal. Much of the evidence for the Warrant was Pages contact with Russians. Contact that he was doing FOR the CIA.
Regardless, Klinesmith falsified the information in the warrant application – and Comey signed the warrant application claiming that he had verified EVERYTHING on it and that he was subject to prosecution for the crime of false statements under oath if the information was false.
All that said – while inarguably Comey committed a crime in doing so – if you want to be sure of a conviction you must prove that Comey KNEW about Klinesmiths falsification.
While it is arguably likely, it is not proveably likely. A jury could acquit and an EDVA jury likely would.
I would further note there were NUMEROUS crimes committed in the crossfire hurican investigation – as well as the subsequent special counsel investigation – but there is an unfortunate gulf between proving that there was a crime, and proving which of many suspect – or even ALL committed that crime.
Finally – aside from the politics of trying this in EDVA, there is the separate issue that when we SHOULD hold those in the criminal justice system even MORE accountable that ordinary people, in reality we hold them LESS accountable.
Pretty much no matter what DOJ comes up with on Comey – a conviction in EDVA is going to be an uphill slog.
The jury is likely to be mostly federal government workers and they are unlikely to convict one of their own, for anything short of bank robbery.
you missed the most important facts. the CIA was already telling the fbi (sans the clinesmith wordshithing), about the Russia Russia hoax as political opposition research.
it’s not necessary to convince a jury that Comey knew about clinesmith.
Tulsi gabbard released unredacted evidence that the fbi was fully aware that the Steele report was false and was manufatured by perkins coi. You should read it.
now, back to our regular session of news that we already know about.
God Bless America
Comey’s other crimes, including lying to the FISA Court, will be in his next indictments.
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
– Bill Clinton
Seems to me that DOJ has a conviction in its pocket. It calls McCabe at trial and McCabe either provides the goods on Comey’s lie or he lies at trial and gets indicted for perjury.
Seems to me that you are a moron
While a conviction is not quite so simple – GESQ is likely correct – the DOJ is likely to put McCabe on the stand.
McCabe can either implicate himself or implicate Comey
There is ZERO question that multiple leaks came through McCabe – There is lots of evidence, and ultimately McCabe admitted it but claimed that Comey had authorized them.
McCabe has said under oath that his leaks werre authorized by Comey.
Comey has said under oath that he never authorized any leaks.
McCabe is not the only one saying that Comey authorized leaks.
He is just the only one saying that Comey did so directly in person.
It is likely that Baker will also testify that Comey authorized leaks.
But his testimony todate is NOT Comey told him to leak information,
but that he was told by others that Comey had directed him to leak information.
again, need to provide clarity and completeness.
they will put richman, mccabe and Baker on the stand.
and of course Comey.
all four of these people made statements under oath about the leak of classified material to the times. one or some, OR ALL OF THEM ARE LYING.
so it’s going to be quite the fireworks…
sorry, not sorry jimbo….you are going down sucker.
Thank you for your rational well-reasoned response.
I see you graduamated from the Rudi Ghouliani law school
Jonathan: You know I am on top of all the breaking news. In case you missed it here is the latest:
Alex Jones, the right-wing conspiracy theorist, went on his “InfoWars” show yesterday sporting a new mustache. It is a dead ringer for the infamous “Hitler mustache”. Jones is proud of his upper lip, calling his mustache a “social experiment”. He also thinks the mustache is a total babe magnet. Jones’ “social experiment” comes just after JD “Shady” Vance demanded on Wednesday that Americans stop using the word “Nazi” to describe him and all the other fascists in the DJT regime.
For all the MAGA trolls and conspiracy theorists out there on this blog, you need to start growing your own Alex Jones mustache to show being a “Nazi” is now in. Heil, der Fuhrer!
Jonathan: You know I am on top of all the breaking news. In case you missed it here is the latest:
Tovarisch, you’re a particularly incompetent Bolshevik Birthing Boy if that’s what you think the latest news is. That might get you a Grindr date with a Tranny wannabe assassin, but here’s what you missed:
NY Attorney General Letitia James Expected to Be Indicted by Federal Prosecutors
https://www.dailyfetched.com/ny-attorney-general-letitia-james-expected-to-be-indicted-by-federal-prosecutors/
The James case is more likely to get a conviction. First – the members of the jury will likely be aware that THEY could be prosecuted for misrepresentations on Mortgage disclosure documents.
But equally important – James has filed false mortgage paper multiple times – that makes trying to blame others harder, AND she has filled lots of other false paperwork for her rental properties.
AND finally she went after Trump for claims that were LESS consequential than what she did herself.
The false paperwork for her rental properties would be a state crime in NY – she can not be tried for that by a federal court. But it can be used as evidence of a long pattern of deceipt.
James is in more trouble that Comey.
Everyone with a mustache is not Hilter.
Dog and pony show.
The existance of strawman chattel, i endure remains the core problem for our Republic.
Your exempt, trumps exempt, i and all American patriots are not.
Like the 90 draftees shot in the back in vietnam by theier enlisted superiors.
Treason normalized is capital crime demands capital punishment.
A problem cannot be solved at its own level.
The revolutionary war is as spititual as it is physical. Endures 250 years.
Truth vs farse
The appropriate word is ‘tyrant’ as in:
Trump is a tyrant
Lincoln was the tyrant; just ask John Wilkes Booth, who referenced “Crazy Abe” when he recited, “Sic Semper Tyrannis!”
According to CNN, Lincoln was shot by a Union soldier celebrating.
There you go!
Because ?
Trump is following federal law and the constitution – He has won 19 straight cases at SCOTUS, most of the left wing lawfare against him – those 130+ cases are now gone.
But equally importantly – he is SHRINKING the federal govenrment.
Tyrants do not do that.
Those of you on the left confuse – someone undoing your precious and often unconstitutionally accomplished policies with tyranny.
Trump is doing what he promised to get elected – and he is doing it within the law and constitution.
That is the opposite of Tyranny.
You tried to sell this garbage his first term – and lost.
You behave as lawless tyrants in your efforts to deprive him of a 2nd term TWICE,
Right now he is burning your unconstitutionally implimented policies to the ground.
He is trying to reduce government.
He is trying to reduce spending.
That is anti-tyanny.
For what it is worth, here is full transcript of Comey testimony on 9/30/2025.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/james-comey-testimony-on-russia-investigation-transcript-september-30
Here is the relevant part during Cruz’s questioning:
All right. Let’s shift to another topic. On May 3rd, 2017, in this committee, Chairman Grassley asked you point blank, “Have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?” You responded under oath, “Never.” He then asked you, “Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?” You responded again under oath, “No.” Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who’s telling the truth? Mr. Comey: (01:52:43) I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017. Senator Cruz: (01:52:50) So your testimony is you’ve never authorized anyone to leak? And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth, is that correct? Mr. Comey: (01:52:58) Again, I’m not going to characterize Andy’s testimony, but mine is the same today.
DOJ almost failed to indict.
Only 14 of 23 grand jurors voted to indict.
So in the absence of evidence from the defense, a bare majority voted to indict. Not a strong case !!
What will happen when trial jurors hear a vigorous defense ?????
This case is going nowhere fast !!
Probably, but who knows? They got Al Capone on tax charges.
You just proved the grand jury corrupt; Comey is guilty of a veritable plethora of crimes; it was criminal to decline to prosecute Hillary, as but one example.
The case is going to trial. Likely a relatively long one.
Convicting Comey will be hard – mostly because he will likely get a judge and jury that are heavily biased.
But there will be two juries in this case – the one in EDVA,
and the american people.
Comey might not get convicted by the first, but he will by the 2nd.
Regardless, I doubt that Trump’s goal is a conviction – while I am sure that he wants one.
The goal is to put Comey and Democrats on trial – and Trump is going to have that.
Joe Biden is never going on trial for his corrupt dealings as Senator and VP.
But that is not necescary – most of the american people have convicted him.
ATS 14 voted to indict – there is no “absence of evidence”.
There is merely differences of opinion among the grand jurors as to whether that evidence is sufficient.
Sufficiency is NOT the same as absence.
He didn’t say it’s the truth, the 2017 testimony?
Shabbat shalom, everyone 🙂
Have a peaceful sabbath
Shalom
Happy New Year!
Unfortunately, gelatinous posers like James Comey have seen their lack of principles turned into the profession’s single most sought after asset by elected leaders who like their law enforcement politicized and subdued. Attesting to this fact are the thousands of lap dog police chiefs who, while heeling submissively and praying for double-dipping futures, have barked out Yes! to DEI, No! to carotid restraints, Don’t! to effective baton tactics, More, More, More! to affirmative action, Keep it to yourselves! about the color of crime, and Si, Si, Si! to illegal immigration.
High paid sellouts who, to paraphrase a great man, wouldn’t make a pimple on a real cop’s ass.
SCOTUS issues a stay on ruling by Biden nominated US District Judge “Amir H. Ali, a 39-year-old civil rights litigator on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Ali is the fifth Muslim American nominated as an Article III judge by President Biden. Prior to the start of the Biden administration, there had never been a Muslim Article III judge in the history of the country.”
https://vettingroom.org/2024/02/05/amir-ali/
Muslim fanfare not withstanding, SCOTUS wasnt impressed with his fatwa against the US Constitution
On September 3, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a preliminary injunction directing the Executive to obligate roughly $10.5 billion of appropriated aid funding set to expire on September 30. Of that $10.5 billion, $4 billion was proposed to be rescinded in a “special message” transmitted pursuant to the Impoundment Control Act. See 2 U. S. C. §681 et seq. After the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied stays of that order, the Government filed this application to stay the District Court’s injunction. The application for stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted.
The Government, at this early stage, has made a sufficient showing that the Impoundment Control Act precludes respondents’ suit, brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, to enforce the appropriations at issue here. The Government has also made a sufficient showing that mandamus relief is unavailable to respondents. And, on the record before the Court, the asserted harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced
by respondents.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a269_bp7c.pdf
The 39 year old litigator turned Judge via Biden’s auto-pen might want to reconsider his legal career now that he has sullied it.
Who exactly is going to show up in court to prosecute this case ???
Usually a team of career line prosecutors is assigned to do the actual legwork of litigation.
Usually the entire team signs off on the indictment formally announcing their involvement to the court. However, we already know that the line prosecutors evaluated the facts and found no reasonable possibility of conviction. They sent a memo to the US Attorney Erik Siebert who declined to indict.
The only signature on the indictment is Lindsey Halligan, a 36 year old attorney who practices insurance law and has never tried a criminal case.
Halligan appeared before the Grand Jury alone to argue her case. A clear sign that the career line attorneys want no part of this.
The line attorneys have already concluded there is no case, so is Halligan also going to show up alone to prosecute????
Halligan is not even licensed to practice in Virginia.
And the Eastern District has a reputation for running a “Rocket Docket” with absolutely no tolerance for unprofessionalism or showboating
Get your popcorn ready folks !!!!!
You do know that the people you call “career prosecutors” are all political appointees.
Their Career is not Law, it is politics.
There is more legal accumen among Fox’s hosts, than the people you call “career prosecutors”
Many Fox hosts and consultant were AUSAs or USAs. Many were criminal lawyers, many clerked for Supreme court justices.
Trump has had 19+ straight wins at SCOTUS – these cases are argued by the lawyers Trump appointed – they are argued by them at lower courts, through appeals all the way to the supreme court – and ultimately they are winning.
A major reason is because our law schools have been churning out badly educated incompetent left wing nuts for decades.
They are being beaten by people who actually bothered to read the constitution and the law.
I have just looked at the two-page indictment.
(1). For curious/legal minds, there are two principles to generally explore, that I can see. (there may be more, I am in a hurry.)
One involves the requisite “specificity” needed to satisfy a “reaffirmation” of prior testimony (((Comey refused to answer Cruz in 2020, instead merely stating, -without specificity, -that he “stands by” his previous 2017 answers))) in order to defeat any statute of limitations issues.
The second (and related to the above^^) involves the “relates back” or “relation back” principles for amended pleadings.
(2) As to whether Comey “authorized” any leaks or information given to the media, I do not know who “PERSON 3” is, in the indictment, whether McCabe or Richman or other person? But Comey is no fool as to the parameters of “authorization” or ex post facto “ratification.”
(3) (As to the third Count that the grand jury rejected, it appears that it related to Hillary Clinton campaign’s “Russia” plans and questions from Lindsey Graham, not Ted Cruz.)
Any thoughts from others? I gotta go but I might be able to check in sometime this weekend. THx
I also had questions about the specificity. Then I watched video, here below, and my concerns were addressed. IMHO, Comey made a positive affirmation. Here is a transcription:
All right. Let’s shift to another topic. On May 3rd, 2017, in this committee, Chairman Grassley asked you point blank, “Have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?” You responded under oath, “Never.” He then asked you, “Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?” You responded again under oath, “No.” Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who’s telling the truth? Mr. Comey: (01:52:43) I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017. Senator Cruz: (01:52:50) So your testimony is you’ve never authorized anyone to leak? And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth, is that correct? Mr. Comey: (01:52:58) Again, I’m not going to characterize Andy’s testimony, but mine is the same today.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/james-comey-testimony-on-russia-investigation-transcript-september-30
A way pf saying—> I’m not doing your homework?
Lin, I think it’s pretty clear that Comey in effect restated in 2020 the same answers he gave in 2017. He may have done so because if he had repudiated them in 2020 the statute of limitations would not have run on his 2017 statements.
It’s not just Richman or McCabe; James Baker also says he leaked information at the request of Comey given through Rybicki.
It’s hard to assess the strength of the indictment until we are informed about the specifics and the non-public evidence.
Statue of limitations clocks generally do not start until after the last act that is part of the crime.
While I think Comey’s testimony in 2020 constitutes perjury – I am not sure that matters.
So long as it was part of the original crime.
The original crime BTW is leaking information on a criminal investigation.
The 2017 perjury is an effort to cover up that illegal leaking.
and he 2020 testimony – even if you do not beleive it was perjury was still an effort to continue the coverup.
At the very least it still resets the clock.
I would further note that the courts have a long history of finding ways to circumvent statutes of limitation.
They should not. but they do.