James Comey made history this week by standing in the dock and entering a not guilty plea as the first FBI Director ever indicted in the history of the country. Comey hopes to be spared the added ignoble distinction of a trial scheduled for 2026. He and his counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, are reportedly going to seek a dismissal under three primary challenges: vindictive prosecution, selective prosecution, and challenging the status of the acting U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan. I wanted to briefly address these claims, including the one that has the most credibility.
As a threshold matter, there is a particular irony in the date selected for the Comey trial: January 5, 2026. That is the anniversary of a notorious briefing of President Barack Obama that laid the foundation for the Russian collusion investigation that Comey would push as director. The intelligence community had already debunked the infamous Steele Dossier, secretly funded and disseminated by the Clinton campaign. Indeed, an intelligence community assessment had found no evidence of a material impact of Russian actors on the 2016 election. Top officials immediately moved to bury the report and to order a new report by a carefully selected group in the final days of the Obama Administration. The result was a report that was ultimately leaked to the media suggesting that there was evidence of Russian interference with the election in support of Trump. Comey and others would use the report to justify what would later become the special counsel’s investigation that effectively derailed Trump’s first term.
Comey is now scheduled to answer for alleged lies and leaks on the ninth anniversary of that meeting.
Vindictive Prosecution
The first two claims are equally laden with a heavy dose of irony. Comey has been accused of intense bias in his actions as FBI Director in targeting Trump and his associates. His top aides expressed open animus for Trump, leaked stories to harm him, and even committed crimes to continue an investigation that was debunked before it started.
Vindictive prosecution claims focus on the motivations of the prosecutors in singling out the defendant. Comey will argue that the charges were the result of a retaliatory effort that originated at the very top with President Trump. The courts overwhelmingly reject these claims. Judges decline to consider the motivations of a prosecutor in an otherwise valid charge.
The vindictive prosecution claim by Comey will rely heavily on President Trump’s own statements. In a Sept. 20 post on Truth Social, Trump declared Comey was “guilty as hell” and, in a message directed toward Attorney General Pam Bondi, stated “We can’t delay any longer,” and “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” It was a remarkably inappropriate and damaging social media post. While the President deleted the posting, the damage was done. The controversy was a repeat from the first term when Trump’s social media postings were used to undermine Administration positions in court.
Despite this unforced error, the odds still favor the Administration in ultimately prevailing on this claim, even if the district court judge were to rule for Comey.
Selective Prosecution
The most ironic of the first two claims is that of selective prosecution, where a defendant argues that similarly situated people routinely commit the same acts but are not charged. Comey and the Special Counsel were accused of precisely that violation repeatedly. They prosecuted Trump associates on wafer-thin false statement claims that resulted in virtually no jail time for the defendants. In the case of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Comey bragged about how he circumvented standard procedures to nail Flynn in the opening days of the Trump Administration.
On his book tour heralding his own “ethical leadership,” Comey thrilled audiences by taking credit for the controversial charge. He explained that it was:
“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 is Comey claiming victim status in being selectively targeted for his own alleged false statements to Congress. As with vindictive prosecution, these claims are routinely and overwhelmingly rejected by courts. Once again, Comey is viewed as having a favorable Biden-appointed judge, but a dismissal on selective prosecution seems unlikely. To prevail in claiming a violation of equal protection, Comey must show that charges were “deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard.” Comey himself helped establish the record of other false statements.
Unlawful Appointment
The final claim may have more potential for Comey. He will claim that Lindsey Halligan, who signed off on the grand jury indictment, was unlawfully appointed to her position. This technicality could derail the case because the Administration does not have the luxury of going back and redoing the indictment. The Trump Administration brought down the indictment shortly before the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations. If any of these claims succeed, the case is likely dead as Delinger.
This issue turns on a somewhat arcane provision under Section 546(d) of Title 28 of the United States Code, which authorizes an Attorney General to appoint an interim United States Attorney for a term of 120 days. The problem is that the Trump Administration used that provision to appoint Erik Siebert, the predecessor of Halligan. The statute says that once the 120-day period has ended, “the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.”
Comey will argue that this is a one-time option and that the appointment of a new acting U.S. Attorney had to be made by the district court. If so, the indictment was invalid and, again, the case is dead and cannot be revived with the expiration of the statute of limitations.
In Siebert’s case, his term expired 120 days after his Jan. 21 appointment by Acting Attorney General James McHenry, on or about May 21. After that, Whelan said, Eastern District of Virginia judges appointed him to continue to serve.
Comey has the advantage of being able to cite a memorandum by none other than Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito from when he served in the Office of Legal Counsel in 1986. Alito concluded that “after the expiration of the 120-day period further interim appointments are to be made by the court rather than by the Attorney General.” He added, “it would appear that Congress intended to confer on the Attorney General only the power to make one interim appointment; a subsequent interim appointment would have to be made by the district court.”
The Trump Administration can argue that Trump fired Siebert, thereby vacating the office for a second time. Under this argument, the process restarts with the vacancy. Comey will argue that this could allow a president to circumvent the intent of Congress by firing acting U.S. Attorneys to daisy chain vacancies allowing endless new 120-day periods to run.
While these are tough claims to make in a criminal case, the case is equally challenging for the Trump Administration. Putting aside the fact that they are in front of a Biden-appointed judge in a heavily Democratic district, the claims of false statements and obstruction often turn on highly interpretative views of a person’s intent or knowledge. If Comey succeeds on these threshold challenges, the case could also be bogged down for years in appeals. A Democratic president could then scuttle any trial or he could be given a pardon to end the matter effectively.
In other words, it does not sound like Comey is going to jail any time soon.
Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a criminal defense attorney. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Translation: I’m guilty as charged and guilty as sin, but I don’t want the court and the American people to know.
Comey’s case will be dismissed early.
Trump, suffering from congestive heart failure, will see his kidneys begin to fail, have to get his lungs regularly drained, and fall from vertigo, stacking up his physical injuries.
He’ll be removed, or resign in the next months with a pardon from Vance. He’ll leave behind an active war within American borders as guerrillas begin to utilize drone and IED tactics against trump’s masked secret police.
Turley is paid to distract from all of this.
May you go BEFORE Trump does!! BOZO ANON!!!
Grow up child.
Where did you get your medical degree from?
And if Trump’s routine physical exam turns up nothing, will you admit your entire medical assessment of him was wrong?
You don’t need a medical degree to understand that healthy people do not require a “routine ANNUAL physical” every 5 months.
Something is very wrong.
Rabble:
But Biden was sharp as a tack and doing cartwheels around the interns in the White House, right?
He’s old! Of course he’d need more often medical checkups. If it’s serious, someone will come out with it (or MSM will fearmonger it), unlike the Resident-in-Chief we had 2020-2024
Routine? How is an annual physical 5 months after the last one a routine annual exam? That is not routine, unless he’s been having more checkups than we know about.
Trump is an unhealthy fat slob who keeps having fast food as a healthy party of his everyday diet. His age and fatness at 80 does not inspire confidence that he will last his full term. One good tumble down the stairs and it’s over. Womp, womp, womp…ploink! lights out.
Now george claims to be a doctor… Jezzz you are a special kind of stupid,
That is not a claim. It doesn’t take a doctor to see he’s in poor health.
He’s a fatso with a fast food fetish with the cankles to prove it. I wouldn’t be surprised if he ends up in a wheelchair by the end of his term, if he makes it that far.
OH, but it does take a doctor to SEE:
while Biden was stumbling and bumbling in obvious cognitive decline, you kept your eyes and mouths shut tight.
Seems your “wheelchair” prediction makes no difference, when you’ve already proven that you have no problem with “staffers” doing the president’s job—really now, what’s your beef???
Again… He’s just fine and you are NOT a doctor or a Nurse.
“He’s just fine”. LOL! I No he’s not. Are you gonna play the Biden defense now?
It doesn’t take a doctor to see he’s not healhty. He’s fat, has a hard time remembering things, rambles on and on about things nobody else is talking about, and he’s been awfully sleepy lately. He’s 79 years old. His diet of fast food and diet coke and the occasional lobster is a recipe for a heart attack. Lots of things are going on and everyone is noticing. That doesn’t take a doctor to be aware of his poor health.
Like I said, just one tumble down the stairs and it’s good night.
Rabble:
tumbles like the Resident-in-Chief?
George is trying to go 1 and 12 in his predictions.
But he wont wager a thousand dollars on Trump making it full term.
He doesnt believe his own vomit.
“It doesn’t take a doctor to see he’s in poor health.”
Says the moron who claimed that it takes a doctor to see that Biden is demented.
“That is not a claim. It doesn’t take a doctor to see he’s in poor health.”
GeorgeX, you’re the same cut like a marshmallow slob who just over a year ago was trying to assure us that feeble stumbling fellow degenerate of yours, Joe Biden, was so healthy and vigorous he was working his teams of young staffers to exhaustion.
DustOff,
Could it be yet another time the slow and dumb one will be proven wrong . . . again? 🙂
Back on the crackpipe again, First Felon Bagman Kid? We were assured you left it behind in the White House.
WOW! That’s a lot of hate and ignorance all in a single post!
I’m simply impressed! I hope you’re well paid to be this much of a shill.
What will you say next democrat comrade general secretary?
Will you copy the sentiments of democratic candidate for Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones?
– “Gilbert gets two bullets to the head.”
– “Gilbert’s wife would see her children die.”
– “Do I think Todd and Jennifer are evil? And that they’re breeding little fascists? Yes.”
– “Would you go to their funerals to p*** on their graves?”
@Anonymous
Your talking points are so tired. By all means, continue to watch while the rest of us blow right past you. May you and your ilk be once again relegated to street corners with cardboard signs made with sharpies, or bumper stickers that completely contradict the vehicle they are plastered on. Spare us. Nobody is listening, and after this comment I will not give it another single thought today; fathom that: you blow in like diarrhea, and afterward the rest of us are just glad it passed. That is literally the exchange. Go and do that – blow.
Eric Bentley said it right:
“Ours is the age of substitutes: instead of language, we have jargon; instead of principles, slogans; and, instead of genuine ideas, Bright Ideas.”
There may be yet more charges against Comey that are not rushed by the statute of limitations.
I don’t know, but it is too early to rule it out.
Charges for what? The best they could manage was two and that is after the Grand jury declined a third one. They don’t have anything but Trump needs Comey to be charged with something because he’s guilty as hell.
Anon: You don’t know how the process works. The prosecutor presents only the evidence for crimes she wants the GJ to vote on. If all the evidence of all the crimes is not presented, the gj does not get to vote on what it doesn’t hear.
JJC,
Thank you for highlighting the legal process for those who do not know or understand.
jjc, there were TWO documents presented to the judge. One had three charges with one being no-billed by the grand jury. Another had two charges. Halligan signed BOTH and the judge confused about why there were TWO documents on his bench when there is supposed to be one.
It seems Halligan originallly presented three charges. The grand jury no-billed one of them and the accepted two. Then she presented only two charges so she could have a document not show the grand jury no-billed on the first attempt. It was a pretty embarrassing snafu for Halligan.
As part of this trial, will prosecutors serve fresh subpoenas upon the FBI? Will they then take fresh depositions? How does that work? It could be that there are previously unproduced documents with bearing on this case, right?
After dismissal there will be nothing more they can do. They don’t have evidence or legal authority to proceed with a prosecution. No experienced prosecutor will touch this. That is why Halligan is having trouble finding people to help her.
Anyone notice that Trump is going to Walter Reed Hospital today for his “routine annual checkup”, just 5 months after his last “routine annual checkup”.
Something is very seriously wrong.
His peripheral edema (swollen ankles) has obviously been getting worse and there is clearly a serious underlying problem, most likely congestive heart failure.
He is circling the drain.
Circling the drain? Get lost ANON!
The man is nearly 80 and overweight. He might very well have another 3.25 years in him, but nobody who can count to 20 with his shoes on would be at all surprised if he doesn’t.
And then we’d get to see what President Vance would be like. (Since that’s the only way he’ll ever get the job.)
My money would be on “mediocre.” Most of ’em have been, after all… Presidents don’t come from Lake Wobegon.
–Shannon
You can’t count to 20 with your shoes on!! Ha ha ha ANON. My money says that you are mediocre x 20!!
Bet you Biden will be gone first
Says a couch potato Biden Birthing Boy, cut like a marshmallow, and desperately waiting for his first menstrual cycle to arrive! The picture of Democrat Tranny health!
It’s very funny to me that those that couldn’t find anything wrong with Biden in 4 yrs of showing mental and physical deterioration the few times he appeared in public are now finding signs of near death on Trump, that appears almost daily in public, faces the press constantly, plays golf regularly (for which he is of course criticized) and doesn’t have to use the small stairs on Air Force One.
All of us, including @Anonymous can die at any moment but predicting his demise is just wishful thinking of those that also wished just a year ago he would be in jail at this time.
FYI I have been overweight for years, have swollen ankles, was a smoker for 60 years, just turned 85 and I wish I would have been able to play golf when I was 80.
I know you don’t like Trump, I’m not a big fan of him either, but stop wishing death on the man.
Vincrod,
Well said. Happy belated birthday!
Must be george again…
No wonder you are Anonymous.
We did notice that you’re back, First Felon Crackhead Son. Speaking of medical issues: how’s The Oval Office House Plant doing, now that he’s retired from Biden White House Crime LLC?
Comey’s choice of Fitzgerald as his defense attorney is an interesting one in terms of Comey’s history. There’s a 20+ year close personal FBI police state fascist relationship between the two.
Really Professor Turley; have you forgotten that the Comey/Fitzgerald relationship goes back to when Comey chose Fitzgerald to be the Special Counsel he sent to take out another Republican president and Vice President: Bush and Cheney?
You’ve forgotten that, just like Comey trying to take out Trump as a “Russian stooge” while Comey already knew that the felonious Russia Dossier was false, Comey and Fitzgerald went after Cheney despite the fact both knew before Fitzgerald’s appointment that the person who disclosed the name of the CIA office bureaucrat was one of Colin Powell’s staff who had already admitted to being the one responsible?
And when all that failed, Comey and Fitzgerald after Scooter Libby who they knew to be innocent, and used lawfare to destroy him and come away with a trophy? Remember that?
You didn’t notice the similarity between Comey back then going after Bush and then Comey years later going after Trump with yet another Fitzgerald type Special Prosecutor appointment – Mueller, a friend to both Comey and Fitzgerald?
Didn’t notice the similarity in Comey’s first Special Counsel taking out Scooter Libby in hopes of Libby singing a tune they could use against Bush, and Comey’s second Special Counsel taking out General Flynn in hoping to coerce him to sing a tune to help them take out Trump?
And they’re all Democrat lawyers, members of good character and standing in the Washington DC Bar Association. Professor Turley didn’t notice his relationship Comey, Fitzgerald and Mueller in their Bar Association as well!
While Democrats yap that Comey is a Republican, he outed himself just before appointing Fitzgerald as Special Counsel in a magazine interview. Where he told the interviewer he was a devoted communist as John Brennan also was, until the election of Jimmy Carter who he voted for made him realize that to move forward he would have to change who he was.
Here’s an idea. If Comey has a son or daughter just threaten to indict one of them. Unlike Flynn, Comey wouldn’t care and instead of pleading guilty he’ll let his kid take the rap. If you’re a traitor you’ll be a traitor to everyone including your family just to say it wasn’t your fault that your behind fell out of your onesie. Benedict Arnold believed that he was saving the nation too. Comey and Arnold will be spoken of in the same breath of American history. A great artist will depict both of them in white wigs and colonial attire being given shoe shines by their attendees Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok slappin on the polish and poppin that rag. All the time whistlin that 8647 rag time tune of renown. Some said then that Arnold was a hero and some on this forum say the same thing about Comey even to this day. If there’s one thing we have learnt it’s that traitors won’t go easy. Traitors nonetheless.
As usual, Turley plays fast and loose with the facts and the law in order to appease his rabid audience here.
He seems to think that the provisions of 28 USC 546(d) are “arcane”. This section was extensively amended in 2007, just 18 years ago for the purpose of clarifying how US Attorneys are appointed. It is hardly “arcane”.
Halligan’s appointment is unequivocally illegal. Turley seems to think that when Seibert resigned, the AG had the power to make a second appointment of an interim US Attorney. He argues that position of US Attorney “restarts with the vacancy”, so the AG can make a second interim appointment for the next 120 days.
This is absurd and flies in the face of the obvious intent of 28 USC 546 which Alito clearly delineated in his memo. The purpose of this section is to prevent the AG and the President from making serial interim 120 day appointments ad infinitum, which would completely subvert the Constitutional requirement for Senate confirmation.
Apart from this obvious requirement, Turley’s claim that Seibert’s resignation “restarts the vacancy”, allowing a second interim appointment is equally absurd. Seibert’s appointment for 120 days started in January 2025 and expired in May 2025. Since he had not been confirmed and the President had not appointed an Acting US Attorney who had been previously confirmed by the Senate, then the District Court judges appointed him to continue serving.
Here is the order:
https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/Order%20of%20Appointment.pdf
At this point the position came under the authority of the District Court judges. Seibert was THEIR appointee, not an appointee of the AG or Trump. When Seibert resigned, and he did resign rather than get fired as Turley incorrectly claims, only the judges can make another appointment unless an individual with Senate confirmation can be appointed by Trump. Since no appointment of a confirmed individual was forthcoming, only the judges can fill the vacancy.
Turley also claims that a motion for dismissal based on vindictive prosecution is a long shot unlikely to succeed. He bases this opinion on the belief that Comey will rely heavily on Trump’s statements on Truth Social. The reality is that Comey will probably not even mention these statements. He has much more powerful evidence.
We already know that John Durham spent 4 years examining the origins of the FBI investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and its alleged ties to Russia. Apparently, the federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of VA met with Durham to ascertain what evidence he had uncovered about Comey, and he told them that he was unable to find evidence that would support false statements or obstruction charges against the former FBI director. This is why he never attempted to indict Comey, despite an obvious inclination to do so.
After conducting their own investigation, prosecutors in Virginia reached the same conclusion as both Durham and the D.C. prosecutors. They would be unable to prove Comey made false statements to Congress to obstruct their investigation. Presenting their findings in a lengthy declination memo to US Attorney Erik Siebert, the prosecutors explicitly mentioned the two other investigations to bolster their recommendation that probable cause does not exist to charge Comey.
This is the evidence that Comey will present to support a vindictive prosecution dismissal.
Once discovery begins the DOJ will have to turn over all of Durham’s findings including any exculpatory evidence. Comey will almost certainly be able to call Durham as a defense witness to explain his findings, and he may even be able to call Erik Seibert and the career prosecutors at EDVA, to explain why they declined to indict Comey.
The vindictive prosecution claim is a slam dunk.
Excellent!
GeorgeX proclaims his anonymous repetition of what he’s previously posted is now “Excellent!”.
Let the lyin’ and denyin’ continue!
You have done nothing to disprove the claims. All you have is insults and personal attacks. It shows how useless your posts are.
No one has to disprove your posts George.
You’ve done nothing to disprove the reports that you’re a pedophile
^^^ Rabid George pretending that wasnt him.
“Excellent!”
Isn’t that perfect.
The intellectually dishonest jumps in bed with the intellectually dishonest.
Anon: You need to read the page and a half indictment. All your gibberish about Durham’s investigation is meaningless. Comey and Richman have already admitted to most of the two counts in the indictment and Comey can argue whatever he wants but will have to take the stand to rebut his own perjured testimony. By the way, selective and invidious prosecutions defense is rare. NY District Attorney Bragg used it in NY to prosecute Trump for a series of misdemeanors that mysteriously morphed into felonies but the claim of selective/invidious prosecution, thus far, has gone nowhere. The only chance Comey has is to get indictment dismissed as unconstitutional because USA was inappropriately appointed. Judge Cannon did this in Florida last year to toss Smith’s indictment against Trump for the Mar-a-Lago case. A “vindictive claim” is not a slam dunk if the underlying grounds are indeed a crime. Courts od law don’t often take them up but a court of public opinion may elect one president upon such a claim. 🙂
JJC,
Again, thank you for your legal analysis and cutting through the “gibberish.”
You have obviously never been in a federal court. Vindictive prosecution is never a slam dunk. Same with selective prosecution. It is the equivalent of an attorney arguing “ineffective assistance of counsel” on appeal. Everyone argues it! The Courts listen and then ignore (except in truly rare circumstances).
Here, there is way more than a scintilla of evidence to show that the charges are legit, even if Trump has a big mouth. And I think everyone R or D would agree that Trump does have a big mouth.
The rest of what you said is window dressing. None of it binding. All of it a responsible attorney ensures is put into the record for any future motions (pending Brady production) or appeal.
In these situations the burden shifting process starts with Comey. And the bar for his first 2 defenses is very very high.
I admit I’m not well versed on the 3rd (the appointment). Never had to argue it or heard it argued. On that I guess I lean into what Turley and other people here have posted regarding it. Sounds messy…
Makes me wonder why you would follow a blog that plays fast and loose with the facts
Rabid George ^^^^
“*Turley’s claim* that Seibert’s resignation ‘restarts the vacancy’, . . .” (emphasis added)
You either don’t know how to read or are intellectually dishonest. (I’m guessing the latter.)
JT made no such claim. Or any of the other claims you claim he made.
He very clearly explained what the Trump administration might argue:
“The Trump Administration can argue that . . . Under this argument . . .”
If U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff is looking for any reason to dismiss the Indictment of Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), then Supreme Court Justice Alito’s 1986 memorandum is almost solid gold.
Throw the book at Comey and ALL his cronies. We cannot live in a world with a two-tiered justice system.
While I never disagree with you I will say the Grand conspiracy charges will be substantial so these pending charges are just a place holder for later additional charges and also allow for additional discovery I dont fear Comeys discovery because he knows whats in the safes But the Govs discovery will be farther reaching knowing they are emptying whats in the burn bags It will be devastating to Comeys case Not just the Bias But as its released it will incriminate Comey in a much deeper plot to frame Trump for a Hoax that obviously didnt exist I’m inclined to look at the 6 level chess not these first round of charges They are looking a bit farther down the road than just these dropped dimes on Comey and I think there working on the premise Comey’s team and he focuses on just these charges as they prepare a Case for Grander conspiracy Fo rme I Believe in Karma not Retribution I believe its there for all of US and that Comey will receive his fair measure regardless what Trump Bondi and the courts can dish out It already has As your Piece mentioned Hes the first Head of the FBI charged criminally LOL
I hope so.
Professor Turley’s fellow Democrat members of the Washington DC Bar Association never fail to provide him with grist for his journalism mill to grind. I wonder how this relationship works when they belly up to the liquor bar beside each other after Bar Association functions?
I doubt anyone in the current DoJ or Trump’s advisors has or ever had any realistic belief that these courts in these Democrat districts would ever convict Comey on these charges, no matter which federal prosecutor brought these charges after the Grand Jury found the evidence warranted indictment. I certainly don’t expect anything to happen to this serial felon.
No more than they would have convicted him on his serial perjury before Judge Boasberg’s FISA courts just over eight years ago, where he repeatedly obtained fraudulent spy warrants that he then used to strip thousands of Americans of their civil rights through color of law.
The courts in these areas have rejected civil suits brought by their original victim in this criminal perjury conspiracy, American veteran and hero, Carter Page. When these courts reject the validity of Page’s civil claim, Comey is at no risk of criminal sanctions even if a criminal trial occurs.
Comey, like his close friend Robert Mueller, has been successful as a corrupt Washington DC lawyer in the FBI, going back to long before either Obama or Trump were running for president. These two police state fascists will never face any accountability in the courts.
And until they chose to no longer renew their Washington DC Bar Association memberships, will remain beside Professor Turley as his fellow members, considered to be in good standing of their Bar Association.
The FBI employs forensic psychiatrists for internal and external reasons. They counsel fellow agents who are exposed to stressful situations, and they also help outthink criminal minds, providing insights that can make or break a high-stakes case. In my opinion, James Comey was selected first in line for prosecution because his psychological profile suggested he is a good candidate to flip and become a government witness if convicted of any crime with a likely prison sentence.
Some years ago, under questioning by a savvy reporter, Comey admitted that his secret Twitter name was Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), A Protestant theologian and political writer who, in 1932, authored “Moral Man and Immoral Society,” a book that called itself “a study in ethics and politics.” Charles A. Ellwood, president of the International Institute of Sociology at the time, wrote that “The thesis of the book is that ‘a sharp distinction must be drawn between the moral behavior of individuals and of social groups, national, racial, and economic.’” Comey studied Niebuhr and not only borrowed his name for his secret Twitter account, but also wrote an undergraduate thesis about him.
Comey appears to have personalized Niebuhr’s thesis by placing his views above those of the masses, whose moral behavior, he may believe, is determined not by those most ethical but by those most powerful. Some might see this as a “messiah complex.” On the other hand, a forensic psychiatrist might view this as a sign that Comey, if confronted by power, might temporarily align with those in power if doing so means he can preserve his liberty to pursue what he believes are his moral and ethical goals. Convicting someone of being a liar generally weakens their future as a “cooperating witness.” Still, in this instance, the goal is not prosecution as much as simply telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the American people so we can prevent this from happening again.
“…prevent this from happening again.”
The cause is moral decay and duty.
“the case is dead and cannot be revived with the expiration of the statute of limitations.”
Is there no case to be made for tolling the statute? It seems to me that a correctable error is precisely a good reason to do so.
Justice is not served by arbitrarily claiming that such a delay destroys the basic fairness of the case. That argument is not just arbitrary, its stupid.
George keeps claiming that Comey cant be charged with perjury for the second statement. To the utter denial of reality. Thats exactly what he has been indicted for.
Notice dum dum…comeys lawyer didnt list “uh the statute expired” as one of his reasons for dismissal.
He also didnt say “you cant use a prior statement as evidence because there is an SOL on it being a crime”. Dumbest argument ever.
If you’ll recall, George also had all these brilliant novel ideas that he read in Vogue, for how Hunter was going to avoid conviction. Remember that GeorgeX?
Too bad Hunter hired the idiot Abbe Lowell, instead of George the legal beagle (rabid dog).
No one cares about george. Don’t give him any attention. Same dustoff, and old kkk from kansas.
I smell desperation in that post
Anonynous,
“ Notice dum dum…comeys lawyer didnt list “uh the statute expired” as one of his reasons for dismissal.”
They don’t need to. Because That would only be required IF the case goes to trial. The easiest and fastest way to get a dismissal is to use the appointment issue. Halligan was not legally appointed to the position as Turley pointed out. Based on that alone she’s authorized to prosecute the case at all, meaning the indictment itself is worthless. It is most certain the case will be dismissed on that alone. When that happens, as Professor Turley mentioned, the case will be dead. Nothing else can be done.
“ Is there no case to be made for tolling the statute? It seems to me that a correctable error is precisely a good reason to do so.“
Nope. What is a correctale error in your view? Trump messed up when he posted what he though was a priveate text to Bondi to the entire nation. That text alone is almost ironclad evidence of vindictive/selective prosecution.
“ Comey cant be charged with perjury for the second statement. To the utter denial of reality. Thats exactly what he has been indicted for.”
He can’t. Because the second statement is NOT a false statement. The statement he made in 2020 is not a false statement. The 2017 statement was. They can’t use it against him because SOL prevents the DOJ from using it to charge Comey.
This is how it works. Let’s pretent the trial is already underway. The Prosecution states Comey lied to Congress in 2020. They will use the statement he made in 2020 as evidence. This is what he said in 2020 according to the DOJ,
“ I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017,”
Now, is that statement true or false?
The Prosecution will have to bring up the statement he made in 2017 to show exactly what the false statement was. But there is a problem with that. They can’t use it because of the statute of limitations prevents the use of that statement to be used against Comey. All they have is, “ I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017,”
The defense will raise an objection and explain the statement made in 2017 is no longer admissible because of the SOL. The Prosecution needs to use that statement to show the court what Comey meant by when he said, “ I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017,”
Because, again this is crucial, “ I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017,” is not the statement he made in 2017. The statement he made in 2020 is not a false statement. How does the prosecution prove in court the 2020 statement was a lie?
“ I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017,”
“Now, is that statement true or false?”
I already answered that for you, ya goddam imbecile.
I cited the CORNELL LAW explanation of what that statement means in a legal setting under oath.
It means he affirmed his previous statement as being TRUE. So that means he LIED AGAIN, because the original statement wasnt true.
Did you get that? Do you numbskull?? He was affirming that his previous statement was true. He was not literally standing next to his statement. You think that clever little gotcha you read about in Vox is a legal argument that will hold up in court??? Then you’re even dumber than i thought.
“Nope. What is a correctable error in your view?”
Nope?? Thats your argument? Nope?? Oh well, in that case, of course you’re right George.
Only one problem, you just acknowledged in your question that you have no idea what i was even talking about. Typical.
The correctable error is in the attorney bringing the case. Easily corrected with a proper attorney.
You claimed that the SOL could be tolled for a goddam weekend gold trip, ya spastic. Now you won’t toll it so that the proper procedure can be followed? You are the lamest debater on the entire planet.
Even Demented David Benson can remember what he said yesterday. A
“But there is a problem with that. They can’t use it because of the statute of limitations prevents the use of that statement to be used against Comey.”
Again, you keep repeating nonsense that has been utterly destroyed the last time you puked it up.
If comey had threatened to kill Senator Cruz in 2017, that would be a crime with a 5 year SOL. If Comey murdered Cruz in 2025, his 2017 statement can ABSOLUTELY be used against him. THAT IS how it works. There is a SOL on the crime he committed in 2017. There is no SOL on EVIDENCE.
JUST KEEP REPEATING THAT RIDICULOUS NONSENSE LIKE A RABID DOG GEORGE.
A fourth defense: He can claim he is transitioning from James to his new identity “Jill” or “Jamie” replete with an array of new pronouns.
It worked for Nicholas Roske.
An opinion by a practicing attorney like Alito has no precedential value, of course. It is an argument for a point of view. And an OLC advisory opinion should be conservative legally. But the court, of course can adopt the reasoning, and Martha Stewart’s tormentor could walk.
Re the selective prosecution claim,,,, might the admin respond by saying “How does Mr. Comey know that no other similar prosecutions are in the works?” Seems to me a selective prosecution claim is asking the govt to bring more cases so Mr. Comey won’t feel so all alone. (Of course, the remedy to Comey feeling so all alone is that everybody must get stoned)
In other words, it does not sound like Comey is going to jail any time soon.
Unless if….
1. seashells are found on Rehoboth Beach in Delaware near Joe Biden’s beach home that prognosticate, “86 Comey”
and
2. the National Review publishes a piece that indicates Jay Jones texted:
Three people, two bullets
GilbertComey, hitler, and pol potGilbertComey, gets two bullets to the head Spoiler: putGilbertComey, in the crew with the two worst people you know and he receives both bullets every timeAlas none of this is alarming since Nancy Pelosi told CNN that:
“Well, that’s up to the people. The leaders in Virginia, they have said he has apologized. What I understand is they say that on balance, he’s a better person to be attorney general, but that’s up to them”
So Comey might not get off of the hook if one were to believe seashells, Jay Jones and Nancy Pelosi
/s
Professor Turley says Comey is doing a “Hail Mary”? Hardly. This case was doomed to failure before the indictment. Of course, the Professor serves up the usual excuse, “ Putting aside the fact that they are in front of a Biden-appointed judge in a heavily Democratic district, the claims of false statements and obstruction often turn on highly interpretative views of a person’s intent or knowledge.” Because it’s a Biden judge, he often uses that excuse whenever he tries to paint the Trump administration’s bumbling approach to prosecutions in the best possible light.
The case is certain to be dismissed before any trial. The evidence for dismissal is overwhelming. This is why experienced prosecutors would not work with Halligan at all. Even former investigator Durham could not find evidence of a crime against Comey.
Thanks to Trump’s post on Truth Social, which revealed that it was supposed to be a private massege to Bondi, the argument for vindictive/selective prosecution is stronger than Professor Turley would like to admit. Trump’s incessant yapping about the case created a strong argument for dismissal.
The two charges are so flimsy and unsupportable that no AUSA would touch it. Halligan a two time beauty contest winner with zero prosecutorial experience had no chance to succeed.
I get that the Professor is tying to put this fiasco in the best possible light for Trump’s and MAGA’s benefit, but it’s seriously hilarious. He would have been more honest if he he just stated the obvious without the excuses of “Biden Judges and Democratic strongholds”. Even a conservative judge would have found the evidence against Comey too flimsy to allow the case to proceed. Turley pretty much admitted to it when he brought up the fact that Comey’s lawyers would bring up Justice Alito’s opinion on DA appointments.
Comey didn’t commit a crime. The use of false statements to Congress can no longer be used against him. The 2020 statement could not be used either since it is not a repetition of the statement he made back in 2017. The 2020 statement would have never counted as a “resetting” of the 5 year statute of limitations.
Which of these statements is True:
1. James Comey lied to Congress.
2. James Comey did not lie to Congress.
If he lied to Congress in 2017 he could no longer be prosecuted for it today. The statute of limitations expired on that opportunity.
Durham didn’t find enough evidence to charge Comey with a crime.
So, what is left?
The prosecutor in charge of this case is not even legally authorized to be a prosecutor in this case. That is a problem.
George has repeated this nonsense no less than 10 times in the last 2 weeks.
He.is like a RABID DOG.
He’s Turley’s puppy, showing up every day to nip at Turley’s heels.
He’s a Pavlov dog, responding to Turley exactly as expected every time.
And folks keep taking the bait. Ignore him.
Anonymous is like a lost puppy, he keeps hanging around because of my posts and because he can’t help himself. He’s so cute.
Sure george, when you said the capital police didn’t use rubber bullets on Jan 6.
Even though I posted a news report from NPR stating they did.
JUst keep lying bud
Dustoff, they didn’t use rubber bullets. Your evidence was an article that didn’t say they used rubber bullets. They only said ‘other non-leathal weapons. Any mention of rubber bullets were in quotation marks which is odd because it implies they assume they were.
Your one other “evidence” was a rioter telling a reporter he used a pallet to protect himself from rubber bullets and batons. That is not confirmation that he encountered rubber bullets.
NPR’s article did not directly say they used rubber bullets. Care to try again?
Plus the videos when the police fired gas but it blew back in their face. I’ve watched them george, yes people were hit by these rubber bullets. So stop the stupid lies, that you do so often
Dustoff, you have not provided anything to substantiate your claim that rubber bullets were used beyond the NPR article which does NOT say rubber bullets were used.
Fired gas? I assume you meant tear gas.
“Fired gas but that blew back in their face”?
What does that even mean?
There were zero reports of people injured by rubber bullets.
https://www.newsweek.com/report-finds-capitol-police-ordered-not-use-crowd-disbursement-weapons-during-riot-1583601
There were no rubber bullets used. Unless you have something more than the NPR article citing uncorroborated eyewitness accounts your claim seems to be false.
Enjoy george
Multiple news outlets and an official watchdog report have confirmed that some Capitol Police officers used Multiple news outlets and an official watchdog report have confirmed that some Capitol Police officers used less-lethal projectiles, including “rubber bullets,” against rioters on January 6, 2021
Try reading again george
some Capitol Police officers used less-lethal projectiles, including “rubber bullets,” against rioters on January 6, 2021
All you do is lies… Just like you claimed t know so much about AF1 747
Dustoff, nothing you cited confirms anything. Uncorroborated eyewitness accounts and alleged news outlets which you do not cite is not evidence of your claim.
There were rumors of rubber bullet use but they were never confirmed. Same with Tear gas. No confirmation if it was really tear gas or just a pepper ball.
And George/X you show up here every single day as a bitter defeated communist Kluxxer (including the days I’m not here) hanging around because Professor Turley’s posts never fail to enrage your inner Democrat fascist.
Not cute. Just as predictable as night following sunlight.
I will confess to taking a guilty pleasure out of taking a few moments to trash your lies and denial with all the effort it takes to club a baby seal.
Anonymous, all you are doing is showing everyone you don’t have anything to offer besides insults, put-downs and personal attacks because it’s just about all you can do. At least I’m here posing a different point of view, something Professor Turley has always championed as part of free speech.
You don’t have anything to offer.
“
AnonymousGeorge is like a lost puppy, he keeps hanging around because ofmyTurley’s posts and because he can’t help himself. He’s so cute.”George is too stupid to see the irony in his lame attempt to distract from his rabid responses. He can’t help himself.
See how easy that was, George? You’ve been mocked successfully again.
I was around before you changed your name from Svelaz to George and then to X, and will be long after you tire of looking like an idiot and change your name again.
Waters
“The case is certain to be dismissed before any trial.”
—-George, about the Comey case
“The case is certain to be dismissed before any trial.”
—-George, about the Hunter gun case
“The case is certain to be dismissed before any trial.”
—-George, about the Hunter tax case
“The case is certain to be dismissed before any trial.”
—-George, about the Hannah Dugan case
George, you rabid dog, dont your ever tire of being wrong???
“Durham didn’t find enough evidence to charge Comey with a crime.”
Another GeorgeX lie: Durham’s report – which you’ve never bothered to read (given your reading comprehension as you continue your quest to complete primary school) didn’t say anything remotely like “I didn’t find enough evidence to charge Comey with repeatedly lying to the FISA courts”.
The singular failure of the American experiment is generations of voters allowing the insurrectionist Confederate DNC to continue to exist to the point where it has now corrupted all American courts all the way up to SCOTUS with the communists and police state fascists that they place in those courts.
And the police state fascists like Comey who work hand in glove with them, given permission by judges like FISA court head justice Judge Boasberg, to repeatedly commit the felony of perjury in those courts in perfect security.
No surprise, GeorgeX: Comey once proudly told Americans in an interview in the early 2000s that he was one of your fellow communists until after Jimmy Carter, when he realized he would have to change who he was to be more successful in his career.
Trump’s prosecutors interviewed Durham while investigating the possibility of charging Comey. Durham told them he did not find evidence to charge Comey with a crime. Obviously you’re not paying attention.
Obviously, GeorgeX’s ongoing lack of reading comprehension is a good indication of why he’s still struggling to complete Grade 6 and has to resort to a daily litany of lies and denial to attack his host here Professor Turley and President Trump.
Don’t change your sophomoric tactics that worked so well in the 2024 election, GeorgeX, you Furry commie Democrat.
It was a simple question for you. I will repeat it, since you seemed not to understand. I am assuming that English is your first language. Or, you just plain don’t want to answer because the Truth is not your friend.
Which of these statements is True:
1. James Comey lied to Congress.
2. James Comey did not lie to Congress.
(Cleverly, if you pick No. 2, then it is sorta “No. 2” – – – 🙂
LIED
“The 2020 statement would have never counted as a “resetting” of the 5 year statute of limitations”
A conclusory statement, not an argument.
it’s a fact. They can’t use the 2020 statement without referrign to the 2017 statement because the 2017 statement would be inadmissible. So what do they have besides,
“ I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017,”?
The bigger problem is the case won’t even get to trial. Professor Turley already knows the case will be dismissed because Halligan’s appointment as prosecutor is not legal.
“because the 2017 statement would be inadmissible.”
What the literal fvck are you talking about George.
There is no SOL on evidence.
You just used the term “admissible”.
Not admissible as what George??
Not admissible as EVIDENCE.
So you are claiming that a statement that is 5 years old is inadmissible as evidence.
Are you whacked out on some sort of drugs???
Wacked out? Yes.
Drugs? Unlikely. George x was born dumb and whacked out.
“The case is certain to be dismissed before any trial.”
—-George, about the Comey case
“The case is certain to be dismissed before any trial.”
—-George, about the Hunter gun case
“The case is certain to be dismissed before any trial.”
—-George, about the Hunter tax case
“The case is certain to be dismissed before any trial.”
—-George, about the Hannah Dugan case
George, you rabid dog, dont your ever tire of being wrong???
George has been WRONG on his predictions for
Rahimii
Rittenhouse
Garland v Cargill
Colorado 14th
Hunter gun charge
Hunter tax charge
Judge Duggan
Trump Georgia indictment
Trump Florida indictment
Trump DC indictment
Vote for Biden impeachment inquiry
He is a big fat donut hole on correct predictions.
Yet here our legal Nostradamus tries to raise his record to 1 and 11.
Lmao what a stooge.
So george goes from a engineer for aircraft (747) to a lawyer.
Talk about BS
Horrible crimes that no one seems to go to jail for.
Draining the swamp has always been the #1 problem. If we can not fix this, the Republic is lost.