Just The News is reporting that “Person 3” in the Comey indictment is not former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe but rather Columbia Professor Daniel Richman. According to the outlet, Richman is the former FBI employee in the indictment who allegedly leaked information about “Person 1,” who is believed to be Hillary Clinton. The report continues the long uncertainty over Richman’s role in these controversies. Richman has described himself as a friend, an FBI special employee, and the lawyer representing Comey at different times. He has also been a columnist and commentator, including for the site Lawfare run by Comey’s friend Ben Wittes. What Richman was doing at any given time remains strikingly uncertain. Professor Richman is not himself charged with any crime.
Richman’s fluid and changing roles are reminiscent of the debate over the role of Hunter Biden’s friend/lawyer/patron Kevin Morris. There was an evolution in the roles that Richman played over the years that left some of us confused as to his specific status at certain times.
At various points in the investigation, Richman alludes to being Comey’s lawyer, as well as a former aide and a friend. Comey used Richman as a conduit to the press and admitted that he was the means by which Comey leaked the contents of a memo that Comey improperly removed from the FBI after being fired.
The respected veteran investigative reporter Catherine Herridge reported on a June 2017 memorandum that documented a phone call with Richman and the so-called “Comey memos,” which detailed his conversations with President Trump.
According to sources, five days earlier, on June 8, 2017, Comey “asked Professor Richman to disclose the content of at least one of those memoranda to the press…”
In interviews, sources said that Richman was dismissive over the violation of federal rules stating “something to the effect of, ‘You do things by your rules’ and ‘I do things by my rules.’” Richman seemed to claim that he was serving as counsel and allegedly insisted that “there is a substantial extent to which I would raise attorney-client issues.” The suggestion was that, after leaving his position as a Justice Department adviser to Comey, he may have assumed the role as private counsel to Comey.
Richman admitted to media contacts but reportedly said that he did not think that he confirmed classified material from Comey to New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt.
Comey designated Richman as a Special Government Employee (SGE) at the FBI and subsequently utilized him as a conduit to the media. He gave him access to top-secret information, and Richman seems to have floated between Comey and other offices, such as the FBI’s General Counsel’s office.
The FBI said that “Comey instructed the FBI to hire Richman as a Special Government Employee” in 2015 and “to grant him a Top Secret clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information.” It also said its investigation “revealed Comey also hired Richman, so Comey could discuss sensitive matters, including classified information, with someone outside of the FBI’s regular leadership. Comey also used Richman as a liaison to the media.”
Comey’s use of Richman shows how obsessed he was with his image and framing news stories about his tenure as director. Richman would serve as both an unnamed source and a named source in articles.
Richman admitted to agents that he routinely communicated on behalf of Comey with Times reporter Michael Schmidt, who published some of the non-public information that was the subject of past investigations.
According to FBI memos, Richman explained that his role was “to correct stories critical of Comey, the FBI and to shape future press coverage” outside the bureau’s official press office.
The different roles eventually seemed to cause Richman to resign. He sent an email to FBI officials in early February 2017 saying that “I am resigning my SGE status, and will thus not, as of today, be formally working for the Bureau in the immediate future.” He added that “my SGE status is limiting what I can do in my extracurricular life.”
Richman later joined Wittes, who has described himself as a friend of Comey as well as figures like Peter Strzok, at Lawfare. With Wittes, Richman has written highly critical columns of the Trump Administration.
Comey admitted to being a leaker through Richman. He was accused of being a leaker in other stories through other individuals. Andrew McCabe said that he leaked information on behalf of Comey. Likewise, an FBI memo said that a prior investigation “revealed [FBI General Counsel James] Baker to be one of the two sources” in a leak and “revealed Baker disclosed USG classified information to the NYT under the belief he was ultimately instructed and authorized to do so by then FBI Director James Comey.”
Just in the News reported that a “newly-unredacted portion [of a report] added that ‘Baker indicated FBI chief of staff James Rybicki instructed him (Baker) to disclose the information to the NYT, and Baker understood Rybicki was conveying this instruction and authorization from Comey.’”
The question is what Richman was at any given time in this scandal. Ethics rules tend to reinforce clear lines in the roles played by lawyers. Richman has been described as a “friend” by Comey, but Richman has suggested that he was at times serving as his personal lawyer. During his time as an SGE, Richman also seemed to shift in his focus. Richman’s first term as an SGE ended in 2016 and then Comey brought him back to work as a “consultant” for the FBI’s Office of General Counsel. A good portion of his portfolio at times seemed to be running interference for Comey with the media and protecting his image in the press.
Richman has not been charged with any crime or accused of any ethics violation in any of these dealings or positions. Some of us, however, are concerned by the fluidity of these roles over the years as government employee, private counsel, and friend.
Comey appeared to select Richman in part for his loyalty and Richman has continued to defend Comey. Now, Richman has a new role as the main witness in a criminal prosecution against Comey. It may be the only time in this scandal that his role as been singular and clear.
Daniel Richman (Reichmann) was the yenta matchmaker (shadchan) between various media outlets, James Comey and Hillary Clinton.
True, not unlike Kevin Morris being a ‘friend’ directing the saga of Hunter Biden and the Laptop denial. The Deeper culprits in the Russian Goose Chase and Hunter Biden’s Laptop Cover Up are former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper..
Here the list:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/holding-former-government-officials-accountablefor-election-interference-and-improper-disclosure-of-sensitive-governmental-information/
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/jim-jordan-puts-dozen-intel-veterans-notice-over-hunter-biden-laptop-letter
Both ‘Made for the Masses’ series received the coveted 🐂💩 Award for creative distractions related to the operations of the Deep State et.al.,
Runner Up in the category was Jeffery Epstein’s Adventures on Pedo Island.
After a word from our sponsors Lockheed Martin and the Committee to Re-elect Lindsey Graham , We’ll be back to bring you ‘LIVE’ coverage of the Real War with Russia.
Stay Tuned.
“a word from our sponsors Lockheed Martin and the Committee to Re-elect Lindsey Graham ”
Doesn’t that constitute just one single sponsor? Maybe you meant to type a “/” rather than the word “and”?
Here’s the playbook for the big game. When Fitz gets his hands on the government’s Bill of Particulars and/or the discovery material, he will learn that Comey’s pal, Richman, is cooperating with the prosecution. Richman’s appearance two weeks ago before a criminal grand jury was the key here. Richman is smart, former AUSA in SDNY for 5 years, flipped his share of defendants the same way that he now is being flipped. Fitz will tell Comey it’s hopeless, especially with the seized FBI emails showing the coms between Comey and Richman. Comey’s own video appearance and words are allowed under the exceptions to the Fifth Amendment. Fitz’s big job right now is to work out a plea deal for his client that keeps him out of the jug. That means bye-bye co-conspirators Brennan, Clapper, Yates, Obama, Rice, Biden and Hillary. Throw in McCabe, Rybacki, Baker, Page and Strzok, too, along with scores of named and unnamed media and non-media accomplices. Ironic how Comey sunk Hillary’s POTUS chances, then got fired by the winner, and now will be flipped and used to bring down the entire coup d’etat! Once his conviction is nailed down, he may be granted immunity and forced to squeal if he is still reluctant. If that doesn’t work, he may have to join Rosie in Dublin where they can meet for a Guinness or two while talking about their favorite POTUS.
“ Richman admitted to media contacts but reportedly said that he did not think that he confirmed classified material from Comey to New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt.
Comey designated Richman as a Special Government Employee (SGE) at the FBI and subsequently utilized him as a conduit to the media. He gave him access to top-secret information, and Richman seems to have floated between Comey and other offices, such as the FBI’s General Counsel’s office.”
The DOJ did not find Comey shared classified information with Richman.
“ At the time, the OIG was aware of Comey’s congressional testimony that, after his removal as FBI Director on May 9, 2017, he had authorized a friend to provide the contents of one of the memos—which did not contain classified information—to a reporter for The New York Times.
As described in today’s report, the OIG concluded that the memos were official FBI records. The OIG determined that Comey violated applicable policies and his FBI Employment Agreement by providing one of the unclassified memos that contained official FBI information, including sensitive investigative information, to his friend with instructions for the friend to share the contents of the memo with a reporter.”
https://oig.justice.gov/news/doj-oig-releases-report-investigation-former-fbi-director-james-comeys-disclosure-sensitive
Since “special employees” are not really members of the alleged agency Like Elon Musk was not the head of DOGE it is debatable tha Richman was in fact ‘the FBI’ according to Comey’s accusers.
Professor Turley acknowledges that the case against Comey is weak. It’s more than likely the charges will be tossed before any trial. It’s embarrassingly a weak case. It’s being prosecuted by an insurance lawyer with zero criminal trial experience.
X: Bet the mortgage, if you have one, on the fact that there’s lots of hard evidence to fill in any of the “I don’t remember” or “I cannot be sure” claims of Richman. Juries are not favorably impressed by such statements, especially if seen as self-serving. All Richman has to do is confirm knowing Comey and the rest will be filled in with hard evidence, including text messages, emails, etc. Remember, none of these scoundrels ever thought they would be caught and so they took very few precautions. It’s known in the trade as the “arrogance of certainty.”
The problem is that the evidence is not admissible. Comey’s comment from 2017 is not applicable here. The SOL expired on that one. There is more likelyhood the charges will be dismissed before there is even a trial.
This is what the DOJ said Comey said in 2020, “ I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”
Legally, he is not saying what he said in 2017. What he said in 2017 would have been prosecutable before the statute of limitations expired in 2022. He was not charged or indicted during that time period. The DOJ, or more specifically Trump wanted to charge Comey before the SOL on the second statement, “ I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.“ expired. The problem is that the second statement is not the same statement he made in 2017. Saying he stands by the testimony he gave in 2017 is not the same as repeating the exact words in 2020. He had to repeat the same statement he made in 2017 for the charges to stick. That is why it’s not mentioned in the indictment.
Professor Turley knows this and that is why he doesn’t lend much hope that the prosecution will succeed. Not because of a liberal jury or a judge will not deliver a conviction, but because the evidence against Comey is really, really weak. That is also why more experienced prosecutors are refusing to take this case.
There is no statute on evidence, dum dum
There is on the original comment from 2017. The 2017 comment is the evidence Comey could have been prosecuted with if they charged him for lying to Congress before 2022. The current comment the DOJ is relying on,
“ I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”
That is not a false statement.
Here’s the indictment,
https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/09/comey-indictment.pdf
Now can anyone show where is the statement they claim Comey made that is false?
VOX…………… just as bad a CNN. Try again
George
Please quote the prosecutor who “refused to take this case”
Or admit you made it up again.
Who is “George”?
Erik Seibert refused to prosecute the case because all the lawyers in the Virginia office concluded there is no probable cause seek charges. That is why the only lawyer who signed the indictment is Trump’s personal insurance lawyer who he appointed to replace Seibert. Nobody else would sign the indictment because they knew it was a very weak case with flimsy evidence. Yeah…it’s that bad.
X/George/Svelaz
While no one can blame you for wanting to divest yourself from the litany of ignorant, idiotic, and false statements you have made under your previous names, you know that we know who you are.
Its sad yet predictable that you would prove to be a coward as well. Your parents/wife/children must be so proud. Or is this your dirty little secret?
Of course I asked for a quote and you couldn’t provide one. Thanks for admitting again that you made it up.
A quote would be irrelevant. Everyone knows, including Professor Turley that Seibert and his team could not find probable cause to charge Comey. A quote won’t convince you of anything. Nothing was made up.
Thanks for admitting again that you made it up, like you always do
You haven’t proven I made up anything. A quote is not the only evidence you need to prove I’m wrong. Like I said, even if I provided one you would still not accept it. It’s the same game you play asking for evidence upon evidence that you are perfectly capable of getting yourself.
No quote, you made it up.
Thanks for admitting it for a 4th time.
X Neither have You!
X is absolutely correct that Halligan is trying to handle this herself because the AUSA’s refuse to be involved. But there is another problem as well.
Halligan is not properly appointed as US Attorney.
She is obviously handling the case by herself because none of the other AUSA’s appear to be involved. She appeared by herself at the grand jury hearing, and only her signature is on the indictment.
Unfortunately she is not properly appointed.
Her predecessor Erik Siebert was appointed as interim US Attorney on January 21. An interim appointment is only good for 120 days. In the absence of Senate confirmation, which has not yet happened, only one of two things can happen.
1. The District Court judges can extend the appointment. This is what happened for Seibert.
2.. The President can appoint an “Acting US Attorney”, but this person must have been previously confirmed by the Senate for some other position.
Neither of these situations apply to Halligan.
The President may not make a second appointment of an “Interim” US Attorney.
So the bottom line is that Halligan is not validly appointed as US Attorney.
It will be interesting to see how this is handled.
Maybe you’d like to provide a quote, rather than doubling down on idiot George’s made up nonsense?
GSX, as usual, you respond with a mix of weak facts, inference, speculation, and lies. It’s nonsense.
This morning I heard an inspiring address by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to all the military officers under his command. It gave me hope that we can still pull our nation out of this downward spiral. Hopefully Bondi and Patel will take note of his action and have the same resolve.
I notice how female conservatives are always the most rabid, delirious in their war cries, yet contribute nothing to the war effort. Even females can be cowards.
YAWN………….. try harder.
PS post some facts.
By the way, seen the polling fro the dems. In the tank baby
You must mean warmongering women like Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland? Or perhaps Susan “Trump’s a Surrender Monkey” Rice.
No one, male or female, is more rabid or delirious in their war cries than theses three.
-g
Annie sez: “I notice how female conservatives are always the most rabid, delirious in their war cries, yet contribute nothing to the war effort. Even females can be cowards”
Your demeaning conservative women is typical of most of your daily comments. Your daily commentary are not worthy for publication on this site. Conservative American woman have given all during time of conflict from the Molly Pitcher to Ashley White and Monica Lin Brown, my guess is your upset that the Secretary said no more “dudes in dresses”?
This is about the larger picture of Comey’s behavior long-term, Not that justice will be served on all of it.
He’d be doing life if that was the case, not just spoiling that ‘ethical image’ so important to him.
It’s so we can know EXACTLY what kind of unethical scumbag he is. That’s the image history will record.
Voters will take note of which politicians defended him and why.
His only defense is proving he is stricken with TDS and can no longer think for himself.
Because he has a political ideology contrary to whatever you have, he’s a scumbag?
Keep in mind , nothing has been proven, everything you read from FOX is allegations.
As for voter stake note… don’t forget the avg. American’s attention span… 30 seconds.
ano
Keep in mind , nothing has been proven.
Like Russia, russia.. BS.
How is the peee tape working out
Why would Richman be in any way relevant? Comey’s prosecution is based on a comment he made back in 2017 and the DOJ is alleging he repeated that comment in 2020.
Professor Turley already acknowledged that this case is weak and rife with problems.
Multiple experienced prosecutors have refused to try this case because it represents a case of vindictive prosecution. The “prosecutor” is Trump’s former personal lawyer who has never tried a criminal case and has already made some embarrassing mistakes. Trump only picked her because she’s pretty. Not because she’s competent.
The two charges against Comey are so weak that the defense is very likely to succeed in dismissing the charges before trial. Making matters worse for Lindsay Hallingan, trump’s pick to prosecute the case, is Trump’s blabbing to the AG to prosecute Comey and others because… “they are guilty as hell”.
The statute of limitations expired on the original statement made in 2017. Comey did not repeat that statement back in 2020 “resetting the statute of limitations” nothing of the sort occurred. This case is going to be a disaster for Trump and predictibly he or more likely Professor Turley will blame the outcome on liberal DC and it’s “obvious” biased judges and juries. Professor Turley already setup the excuse early on. That does not bode well for the prosecution.
This is the fifth time you have posted this utter nonsense, despite having been schooled the last 4 times.
You reek of desperation George.
Have you proven I’m wrong about the Comey case? No.
Time will just like all the others
The question, George Svelaz X, is whether you’ve ever proved yourself right. Why do I say that? Because in almost every encounter with you, your defense has been, “Have you proven I’m wrong?” The answer, over time, has come through the record: as cases are settled and facts come to light, we see you were wrong in nearly every one. And on the rare occasions you weren’t wrong, you were right for the wrong reasons.
Present score: GSX — 0.
S. Meyer, then perhaps you can prove me wrong on the Comey case.
Why can or can’t the prosecution use the original statement he made in 2017?
Why is this statement from 2020,
“ I stand by the testimony you
summarized that I gave in May of 2017”
is it evidence Comey lied?
Is anything Comey said or did prior to the SOL expiring in 2022 admissible today? Why or why not?
Let’s see if you can make an argument supporting your views.
You are known for nonsense, lies, and stupidity, so why should anyone have to prove you wrong? When we look in the past, after the noise clears, we find you are always wrong.
S. Meyer, thanks for proving you can’t answer simple questions.
GSX, prove yourself right. I am not known for being shy about answering questions, but you are ignorant and a liar who runs away as soon as the facts come out.
I guess you can’t prove yourself right while almost everyone knows I can prove you wrong if I want to.
And yet you always fall for the trap.
“That does not bode well for the prosecution.”
Says the legal prognosticator, George, who was wrong on
Fani Willis
Colorado 14th
Rahimi
Hunters gun case
Hunters tax case
Both Smith cases
Hannah Dugan case
And who can forget his pathetic definition of perjury, that made him change his name to X?
Do you just enjoy looking like a stooge, George?
X: You need to read the indictment. The crimes alleged occurred in both cases at the same time, on September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, when Comey was testifying by video because of the COVID problem at the time. The evidence is not barred by the statute of limitations, only the prosecution of the crimes that occurred exactly five years ago today. Had the government waited to indict until tomorrow, Comey would be in the free on these two simple charges. The goal here is to convict Comey, flip him, and use him to indict the rest of the coup organizers, including the bigwigs like Obama, Biden, and, of course, Hillary.
Game, set and match for jjc.
JJC, you need to read the indictment more closely. It is devoid of details. That is problem no. 1. Second the DOJ alleges Comey gave the memo to McCabe, but in fact he gave it to Richman who was at the time a special employee of the FBI. He was not the FBI. It’s the same situation Trump used to describe Elon Musk when Congressional committees tried to pinpoint who was in charge of DOGE. According to the Trump administration. Elon was not in charge because he was just a special employee.
The charges are making a false statement and and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. Both charges are flimsy and devoid of any specifics.
To make things worse. The accusations are based on what Sen. Grassley asked Comey, which had nothing to do with what Ted Cruz asked.
Cruz’s question to Comey during the 2020 hearing was ambiguous: Cruz misquoted Grassley and asked Comey about “the Clinton administration.” Cruz seems to have meant to refer to an FBI probe into the Clinton Foundation. And at the 2017 hearing, Grassley was focused on the higher-profile investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
“ The evidence is not barred by the statute of limitations, only the prosecution of the crimes that occurred exactly five years ago today.”
But five years ago Comey did not say what the DOJ alleges he said. All he said was, “ I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017” He had to repeat verbatim exactly what he said in 2017 in order to “reset” the statute of limitations. He did not do so in 2020. That is the problem. The law requires specificity and exactness in order to apply. The statute of limitations expired for the original comment, the actual comment he is accused of making. He was not prosecuted or charged within that statute of limitations.
Further complicating the case is Trump’s order to Pam Bondi to prosecute Comey. That makes it a clear case of vindictive prosecution. Because the evidence against Comey is a comment he made in 2017 to Congress which was not prosecutable after 5 years. They missed their opportunity.
The question is not whether JJC read the indictment, but whether you did. We already know you didn’t, or if you looked at it, you didn’t understand it.
It names Richman, describes the you handoff from Comey, and quotes the 2017 testimony verbatim, and references his 2017 testimony; the basis for the statute’s restart. It also cites Grassley’s exchange, not Cruz’s misquote, and lists the false-statement and obstruction counts with supporting exhibits. Every premise you offered is contradicted on the face of the filing.
Start again GSX. You remain at 0 vs the others, 100%
S. Meyer,
“ The question is not whether JJC read the indictment, but whether you did. We already know you didn’t, or if you looked at it, you didn’t understand it.”
And how do you know that? Mind reading. I bet YOU haven’t read it.
Did you know it’s only 4 pages long? It’s incredibly easy to read.
https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/09/comey-indictment.pdf
“It names Richman, describes the you handoff from Comey, and quotes the 2017 testimony verbatim, and references his 2017 testimony; the basis for the statute’s restart. It also cites Grassley’s exchange, not Cruz’s misquote, and lists the false-statement and obstruction counts with supporting exhibits.“
So where is the Verbatim testimony? Point it out. It’s only four pages so it shouldn’t be hard for you.
I’m pretty sure YOU haven’t read it.
You’re the one who cant present a case George.
I asked for one single citation to support your made up nonsense and you cant provide it.
Instead you link something from VOX???
You are a laughingstock.
S. Meyer.
Clearly you have not read the indictment.
Richman’s name is not in the indictment. The names of other actors in the allegations are NEVER in an indictment per the Federal rules of criminal procedure.
The 2017 testimony is NOT quoted verbatim. There is a 14 word summary of what he is alleged to have said in 2020, but this is false, because it was said in 2017.
The indictment does NOT contain exhibits supporting the charges. Federal rules of criminal procedure forbid the attachment of exhibits or evidence to an indictment. Any exhibits or evidentiary material can only be disclosed by discovery, after the trial has commenced.
Just like the mentally deranged John Say, you have proclivity to simply make stuff up.
“And how do you know that? “
All one has to do is read your garbage. Learn context. I don’t have to teach you how to think, but then, in your case, it is likely the brain power isn’t strong enough to do so. You already mixed weak facts with inference, speculation, and lies.
jjc, thanks for your legal analysis. refreshing actually
as for “X”, the person to whom you have replied, he’s a paid operative by George Soros funded “Media Matters” to promote chaos on the forum, insult and otherwise do what Leftists do ala Saul Alinsky. Many of us who have been here a number of years know what his posts look like in spite of his scores and scores of sock puppet accounts. His cult behavior provides insight into how authoritarians throughout world history came to plunder respective nations, by using such cowards as X.
So once again, thanks for providing your legal analysis of these fairly complex cases with convoluted back stories
Thank you for that info. Thankfully, we live in a nation of laws not people like X that make it up as they go along .
Yes, we live in a nation of laws. And currently the law says the prosecution cannot use the 2020 comment to charge Comey for a crime. Because the statement,
“ I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”
is not a lie.
He did not repeat what he said in 2017 in 2020. which is the alleged perjurious comment. The SOL for prosecuting Comey on perjury for the original comment expired in 2022. So what is the lie Comey said in 2020 according to the DOJ?
I stand by it means i affirm it to be true.
Thats a lie. It wasnt true.
You’re an idiot.
ROFL!
“ I stand by it means i affirm it to be true.”
Nope.
“ I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”
What exactly is false about that statement? Because that is what the DOJ is basing its charge on. The 2020 statement above is not a false statement.
He stands by a statement, one that is no longer admissible as evidence because the SOL expired in 2022. He did not repeat the statement verbatim. He needs to repeat it exactly as he did in 2017 in order to count as a lie and the charge to stick.
“one that is no longer admissible as evidence”
ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!
Idiot.
There is no statute on evidence. The second statement was in
furtherance of the original crime.
You gotta be the dumbest commenter ever. And you start that silly
giggling routine every time you realize you stepped in doo doo. Just
like George and Svelaz.
“He needs to repeat it exactly as he did in 2017 in order to count as a lie”
Acording to WHAT? Because you said so?
If I say to you, “In 2017 you claimed you lost your right arm in an
industrial accident”, but you still have your right arm, and you say “I
stand by that statement from 2017 that you summarized”, then you just
LIED again. Everyone but YOU knows that. ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!
Anonymous,
“ There is no statute on evidence. The second statement was in
furtherance of the original crime.”
Nope. There is a statute on the comment. The comment from 2017 IS the evidence they need to prosecute Comey. They can’t use it because the SOL expired on that comment.
“ Acording to WHAT? Because you said so?”
According to the law.
Because what he said in 2020.
“ I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”
is not a lie. It’s not what he said in 2017. If he repeated what he said in 2017 there might be a case to prosecute. Obviously that is not what Comey said in 2020.
“ If I say to you, “In 2017 you claimed you lost your right arm in an
industrial accident”, but you still have your right arm, and you say “I
stand by that statement from 2017 that you summarized”, then you just
LIED again. Everyone but YOU knows that.”
That makes absolutely no sense.
It’s obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You can’t grasp the concept of that the lawyers are saying why the statements from 2020 are not a lie.
The stature of limitations applies to anything Comey said or did. Those are considered evidence in a court of law. Since the charges are only about lying to congress and their case rests on the comment he made in 2020,
“I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”
That is not a lie. He stands by a statement the DOJ can no longer use as evidence against him because of SOL. Saying he stands by it is not the same as repeating it, which is what he would have had to do in order to be charged for making a false statement to Congress. You can’t wrap your mind around it because it’s so simple.
That is why in the indictment they don’t specify what exactly did he say that was a lie.
George
Please cite a single reference stating that a previous statement (whether false or not) can be used as evidence for a crime committed 3 years later.
You cant and you wont. You’ll just keep repeating the same desperate nonsense.
Anonymous,
“ Please cite a single reference stating that a previous statement (whether false or not) can be used as evidence for a crime committed 3 years later.”
18 U.S. Code § 3282 – Offenses not capital.
In General.—
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.
“Any offense” means anything, like a statement or evidence.
Lmao where does it say the statement cant be used as evidence, George?
Bwahahahahaha
The comment from 2017 IS the evidence they need to prosecute Comey. They can’t use it because the SOL expired on that comment.
You literally just claimed there is a statute of limitations on evidence.
Recorded comments you make live in perpetuity, ya dimwitted tool. This evidence does not age out.
God, you’re dumb. You are trying to argue something you heard or read, with zero understanding of it.
“ Lmao where does it say the statement cant be used as evidence, George?
Bwahahahahaha”
Anonynous, anything that was said or done before the SOL expired cannot be used once it has expired. That is how it works. That you don’t understand it shows just how much you don’t know what you are talking about.
“Anonynous, anything that was said or done before the SOL expired cannot be used once it has expired. That is how it works.”
Lmao just keep repeating it George. It wont make it true. The moon is still not made of cheese.
Just like the definition of perjury you kept denying even after I provided you the EXACT STATUTE.
A statement Comey made under oath in 2001 could still be used AS EVIDENCE in a trial for an offense committed in 2022.
The statute you pointed to says the cant be PROSECUTED for the statement made in 2017. It doesnt say it cant be used as evidence for a crime committed in 2022. Thats so dumb it hardly bares addressing.
Remember how you told me that i dont know how perjury works, right before i made you look like a total imbecile? Same here.
If Comey said in 2017 that he was going to kill Cruz, that threat has a statute of limitations. So what? The statement could still be used as EVIDENCE against him if he killed Cruz 20 years later.
There is not SOL on evidence.
Go ahead shagoff, prove your illiteracy once again and say that doesnt make sense.
OK, dum dum, why dont you tell us what “ I stand by the testimony you
summarized that I gave in May of 2017.” means?
You are relying on this idiotic “Duh dup duh dup, thats true, he does
stand by it, yup, thats not a lie”.
His TESTIMONY, affirming the voracity of his initial statement, is
alleged to be false.
If you dont think he was affirming the truthfulness of his prior
statement, then tell us what exactly he WAS saying, according to you???
You won’t answer, as usual. You’ll just repeat the same nonsense.
According to Cornell Law:
“I stand by that statement” means the speaker strongly supports,
defends, and maintains the accuracy or truthfulness of a previously
made statement. They are affirming their belief in what they said
and are not retracting or changing their position on the matter.
“ OK, dum dum, why dont you tell us what “ I stand by the testimony you
summarized that I gave in May of 2017.” means?”
It means he stands by the statement. That’s it. He’s not saying exactly what the statement is. The statement in question is the one he said in 2017. That statement is the evidence needed to prosecute Comey, BUT the SOL expired before he could be prosecuted for making the exact statement. In 2020, he did not repeat that statement. He only said he stood by it. That is not in any way saying the same thing he said back in 2017.
What you are not getting is that he needs to repeat the statement again in order to qualify as evidence because the same statement from 2017 cannot be used against him now. The ability to use it against him expired in 2022. All he said in 2020 was,
“ I stand by the testimony you
summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”
He did not repeat the claim he made in 2017. If he did it again then it could be used against him today.
Affirming it is not the same as saying it. He has to say it in order to count. That’s how it works in a court of law. If a judge asks what did he say in 2020 that was false and the prosecution offers, “I stand by the testimony you
summarized that I gave in May of 2017” as evidence, he would then ask how is that a false statement? The prosecution cannot use the original statement from 2017 because of the SOL.
That is why the more experienced AUSA’s including Eric Seibert could not go forward with the charges Trump demanded.
If the DOJ chose to prosecute Comey prior to 2022 for the statement he made in 2017 they could have had a stronger case. But they didn’t do that.
George says:
“It means he stands by the statement. That’s it.”
Cornell Law says:
“I stand by that statement” means the speaker strongly supports,
defends, and maintains the accuracy or truthfulness of a previously
made statement. They are affirming their belief in what they said
and are not retracting or changing their position on the matter.
But George is right LMAO
“The 2020 statement above is not a false statement.”
That’s unfortunate for Comey. If it were false, he’d have a case to dismiss based on SoL.
Since his 2020 statement is true, he’s cooked his own goose.
He made many statements. Which one?
If you dont know, you dont belong in this conversation.
Specifically, the one that CRUZ SUIMMARIZED, dum dum.
GSX, do you know what you are saying? Obviously not. You write whatever comes into your head and never look at what is said.
Nazi.
People are ignoring the big picture: The Executive Branch is subject to Congressional oversight. Executive Branch employees should not be able to lie to Congress and get away with it, because that would make oversight impossible.
We need another Dianne Feinstein, a Senator who called out agency heads like Hayden when they lied to Congress.
They can get away with it if the statute of limitations applies.
Says the idiot who said the SOL could be tolled for a weekend golf trip.
X/George/Svelaz
While no one can blame you for wanting to divest yourself from the litany of ignorant, idiotic, and false statements you have made under your previous names, you know that we know who you are.
Its sad yet predictable that you would prove to be a coward as well. Your parents/wife/children must be so proud. Or is this your dirty little secret?
Grassley covered it.
remember when they JAILED Gen Flynn and threatened to jail his son? What was that “crime”?
Wikipedia is a good place to start. let us know when you’ve found it.
We are building Grokipedia @xAI.
Will be a massive improvement over Wikipedia.
Frankly, it is a necessary step towards the xAI goal of understanding the Universe. https://t.co/xvSeWkpALy
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 30, 2025
a prime example of a guy FUNDED with Federal Aid via Columbia. Time to END Federal Aid to cities, states, non-profits and colleges
Outlaw Public Unions
STOP Funding Democrat Terrorism!
Outlaw unions?
so when they raided Roger Stone at 3am…what was his “crime”?
Wikipedia is a good place to start.
Wikipedia is a “good” source – as unbiased as NYT, LA Times, Washington Post, Politico, The Atlantic, Vox, The Hill, Rolling Stone, USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, and the DNC.
Where Google search engine returns links to all the “News”.
‘This Is Amazing!’: Tucker Carlson Stunned As Wikipedia Co-Founder Walks Him Through Site’s Blacklist
https://dailycaller.com/2025/09/29/tucker-carlson-stunned-wikipedia-co-founder-walks-him-through-sites-blacklist/
Very strange how the same people keep showing up here and there through all of this story over the last 9-10 yrs. Much of it seems to still be conjecture but then I have not bothered to read the indictments. I plan to wait and see what plays out.
I don’t like Mr. Comey and from the first I was was aware of him years ago that has been true so I will wait and see what case is made.
Almost sounds like Mr. Richman was a handyman fixer, in some ways, like Mr. Cohen and that did not turn out well. But I will wait. Having been on a few juries over the years as well as evaluating malpractice on pretrial commissions, you simply have to look at the evidence and see if it holds together and makes sense. This will likely be a slog.
Why wait, we demand burning at the stake – NOW!
don’t let the FASCIST Democrats win
the Democrats need to be jailed by the 10,000’s for
1) Russian Hoax and Trump Persecution
2) Protecting bidens and others crimes
3) Jan 6th entrapment
4) Vote Crimes
5) Helping Illegals
6) Child endangerment!
7) Killing Charlie Kirk and calls for violence
Lets start with concentration camps and then expand them with gas chambers and ovens.
Professor Daniel Richman is not a biologist but, instead, a law professor at one of the best law schools on the planet. He knows quite well the meaning of the fraud-principle exception to the lawyer-client privilege. A lawyer is prohibited from furthering or concealing a client’s crime. For this exception to apply, the client must have been in the process of committing a crime or planning to commit a crime.
Comey has hired Patrick Fitzgerald, the former US Attorney in Illinois who prosecuted Scooter Libby for, guess what, doing exactly as Fitz’s current client has allegedly done: lie to a government body. Fitz is going to have difficulty if Person 3 is Professor Richman. But let’s not forget that the Comey indictment is only a page and a half and contains two counts: 18 USC 1001 and 18 USC 1505. The first is false statements and the second is obstruction of a congressional proceeding. This is a one-day, maybe two- or three-day trial at most. Fitz can slow but not stop the train.
The evidence for both crimes is clear and compelling, and Richman is living proof of the first, and Comey’s virtual appearance (during COVID) before Congress is living proof of the second. The objective here is straightforward: secure a quick and uncomplicated conviction for Comey so that he agrees to cooperate and disclose the evidence against his numerous co-conspirators and media associates, some of whom are already known and others are yet to be identified. Whammo, Comey’s last case for the FBI will no doubt be his biggest!
This is an example of how a third grader could call foul on sleaze bags such as the miscreants in this ongoing saga (Comey, etc) Yet, the accused will deploy expensive lawyers who will twist, bend and torture the law into a convoluted “not guilty” verdict.
“sleaze bags such as the miscreants..” You got a lot of hate in your mind. They are after all Americans, just like you, with faults just like you.
Telling the truth dives you nuts. Doesn’t it…
Enjoy the ride
Richman “leaked the contents of a memo that Comey improperly removed from the FBI after being fired.”
So I work for a company whose proprietary information I really want to publicize. But I don’t want to get caught.
So I use a cutout whose motto is: “I do things by my rules.”
When you have no moral principles, no moral compass — there’s your MO: The ends justifies the means.
Agree. It’s torture mind, body and soul. Presumably the academics examine the errors in law as a form of historical preservation. Sort of a tomb of offenses no longer alive and applicable are noted. Idk
The enemies of the US are claiming territory, NY and California and claims continue.
If Professor Richman was indeed acting as Mr. Comey’s personal attorney, then he should be able to produce a signed retainer agreement dated at the time such representation began, no?
No. has to subpoenaed first in order to part of an official record.
it was just printed at FBI HQ by a friend
printed? what the subpoena or the retainer?
Thank you MAGA, Success.
Measles is the highest in 30 years. Unlike crime that is the lowest in 30 years. But hey, at least measles is up. The annual U.S. count now stands at 1,527 confirmed cases—the highest in 30 years. Utah and Arizona are experiencing a single confirmed outbreak that has spread across state borders and is growing exponentially:
Thank you RFK JR and MAGA. Disease is more common.
Hey, don’t forget farmers, They are loving it.
“We’re in a hell of a mess here,” said Ohio farmer Chris Gibbs as he worked on his combine at the start of harvest season.
“A severe cash flow mess,” he sighed. “A working capital mess.”
Oops, wrong story, turns out nobody wants to buy U.S. farm products when trump destroys international relations.
You’re losing and America is winning. Deal with it.
I’m not sure about America, but measles in America is certainly winning.
The last big measles outbreak in the US was also caused by followers of Menno Simons.
In this case, Amish from Ohio had flown to the Philippines to render humanitarian aid. They were infected, and infected their fellow villagers on their return.
Persuading them that God would want them to be vaccinated should be all that would be required.
Soon ebola will be the winner. There’s no vaccine or maybe you can dream it up. Microbes are the BIG winners. Populate your universities with losers . At least everyone loses. Equity.
Stupid suckers.
Biden’s destruction continues as measles brought over the southern border by unvaccinated, infected illegal aliens spreads through population of American citizens.
Close the border.
Oops!
Winning what exactly?
Unfortunately, we can hold another election today to convince you to shut up, but trust me, you’d lose.
Elections can not just happen “today”, convince me how?
Why can’t elections just happen today?
I mean having a vote today for either Trump or the Dynamic Douchebags. They’d lose worse.
No they would not.
It turns out that China would rather deprive its citizens of food than stop flooding our country with cheap goods.
The idea that there is a vast world reservoir of unsold soybeans outside the US, that China can tap at will, is a nonstarter.
If China wants them they’ll get them. China has 1.5 BILLION people to feed but then India has more? The HUGE consumers.
You’re idiots
Lmao arent you vaccinated? What are you worried about?
What a douche.
Maybe you can tell us douche, since DHS certainly doesnt know…
How many of the 20 million unvetted illegals that Biden let in are vaccinated for MMR??
And the vector of this measles epidemic – millions of unvaccinated, unvetted, illegal aliens who streamed across our southern border.
But hey.
Thank you Biden and Open Border Advocates.
You quote case statistic from Utah and Arizona, both states in close proximity to our southern border.
The root cause of our measles crisis originated before RFK Jr had any influence on our public health policies.
The Texas measles outbreak was caused, not by adherents of RFK, Jr, but by Mennonites, And the Mennonites avoided vaccination, not for any specific religious reason, but from a general antipathy to living as the rest of society does. But they do have to trade with the outside world.
So, most likely an adult Mennonite went to town, where he crossed paths with a diseased migrant.
So tell me monkey’s ass, what have you won? Please give the details on all the good you’ve won.
“Measles is the highest in 30 years.”
Hey – and all within NINE MONTHS!
No measles already brought here by unvaccinated and ill Illegal Alien Guest Democrat Voters and anchor baby unaccompanied children? Biden’s guest measles that has been running through the Illegal Alien enclaves as they Hide In The Dark?
Not only that – Americans immediately ceased immunizing their children the day of Trump’s inauguration (except the half who are Democrats, of course: none of their children have measles).
EVERY ONE OF THESE NEW CASES IS AN AMERICAN REPUBLICAN’S CHILD WHO WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN MEASLES IF VACCINATED! NOT A SINGLE ONE IS AN UNVACCINATED ILLEGAL ALIEN CHILD BIDEN FUTURE VOTER!
Of course, there ARE vaccination and medical examination requirements for LEGAL, REAL IMMIGRANTS. But hey… let’s not talk about that.
Let’s claim Trump is destroying the magnificent international relations Biden built with the Taliban, Iran’s Mad Mullahs, Putin, Xi, etc.
I was amazed that Comey got indicted in the People’s Republic of D.C., but like many people, I doubt Comey can be convicted in D.C. because most of his coconspirators won’t be called to the witness stand. They’ll be in the jury pool.
Amazed? Maybe because of proof of facts?
No, because Leftists in every Western country have proven themselves to be violent hypocrites when it comes to the law.
Leftist… violent … hypocrites … law? What a silly rant.
Why rant? Why silly?
Take a look at the clown moron congress and the place is finished, bankrupt. Are you drug testing them, yet?
To be specific, Comey was indicted in the EDVA. But the EDVA is divided into four districts. Comey was indicted in the Alexandria district, because he made his perjurious Zoom call from his McLean home. Further, by the local rules of the EDVA, Comey’s jury pool will be limited to citizens of the Alexandria District, which is so populated with Federal government employees and Federal government contractors, that I suspect they mirror the population of DC itself. But I can’t prove it, bc Virginia does not record party affiliation.
You’re probably correct about the outcome. I understood it’s within Alexandria’s jurisdiction, but it’s just seven miles outside of D.C., so it’s a distinction without a difference. Most people in western Virginia would reluctantly agree.
Nothing “minor” about Richman, many credentials , nor is he an “official”. Private citizen in fact.
“Richman has not been charged with any crime”, yet he held a security clearance and leaked classified information?
“yet he held a security clearance ..” Yes, because he has not been charged with any crime.
For many a minor corrupt official, loyalty ends at the prison door. Let’s see if the DOJ can worry this boy into spilling his guts.
Nothing “minor” about Richman, many credentials , nor is he an “official”. Private citizen in fact.
What’s the back story on Richman as to the reason he’s talking? Oh yeah, Google.