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.”
“because the 2017 statement would be inadmissible.”
This is how stupid our resident, legal beagle, the rabid Pavlov dog known as George X has become.
he is literally claiming that a statement made under oath cannot be used as evidence of a later crime once that statement is five years old.
Let’s give the slow and dumb one a chance to realize how ignorant he is.
let’s suppose that in 2017, comey had said, “yes i have leaked Information to the press”.
Then in 2022, in his testimony, he says “ I have never leaked information to the press”.
According to George, the statement made in 2017 cannot be used as evidence that Comey lied in 2022, because the statement is five years old.
George, come on dude, even you are not that dumb. You should complain to Jimmy Fallon for giving you that false talking point
“he is literally claiming that a statement made under oath cannot be used as evidence of a later crime once that statement is five years old.”
Because the law (statute of limitations) does not allow the prosecution to use the statements made in 2017. The 2020 statement is not a false statement therefore it cannot be used against Comey.
You really can’t grasp why it’s a problem. That’s on you anonymous.
“Because the law (statute of limitations) does not allow the prosecution to use the statements made in 2017.”
Thats a lie. Cite the law dum dum.
There is no such law that says you cant use statements made in 2017 as EVIDENCE in a case in 2025. Quote it George. Its the dumbest argument you’ve ever made. The SOL says he cant be CHARGED for that statement, it doesnt say the statement no longer exists. Dumbest argument ever.
And i already cited Cornel Law as saying he lied in 2022.
Under oath, a statement of “I stand by my previous statement” is an affirmation that his previous statement is true. He wasnt literally standing next to his statement, dumba$$. He was affirming that it was true.
Only you and Jimmy Fallon dont understand that
“There is no such law that says you cant use statements made in 2017 as EVIDENCE in a case in 2025. Quote it George.”
False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001): Prohibits knowingly and willfully making any false or fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch. A statement does not need to be under oath to be prosecuted under this statute. The statute of limitations is five years.
You can’t use statements made in 2017. The last year they could use it was 2022.
The 2020 statement is not the same statement he made in 2017.
“I stand by my previous statement” is an affirmation that his previous statement is true.”
Nope. He has to repeat the statement again in order to be valid. Because a court will ask what statement was he referring to? He cannot refer to the 2017 statement because it’s not admissible due to the statute of limitations that expired on 2022 for that statement.
Affirming is irrelevant. He has to make the same statement in order for it to be admissible.
You don’t understand how this works at all.
“The SOL says he cant be CHARGED for that statement, it doesnt say the statement no longer exists. Dumbest argument ever.”
The sol says the statement can’t be used against him. Because he can’t be charged for the falsity of the statement. Therefore it’s useless as evidence to prove the current charge applies. It means the statement can’t be used. That’s why they tried using the 2020 statement because the sol on that statement Was a week from expiring.
X – not only can it be entered into evidence – but Comey’s later statement restarted the SOL clock, so the 2017 Statement is still prosecutable perjury. And the later statement is both perjury and obstruction of justice
You really have zero understanding of SOL.
SOL law was addressed in great detail in the idiotic Bragg case against Trump.
But there is also massive caselaw on it.
While Bill Cosby had his conviction correctly reversed by the PA Supreme court that was NOT because evidence and actual crimes that could not be charged were admitted at trial.
The PA SC reversed because the Philadelphia DA’s office made a non-prosecution agreement with Cosby to remove 5th amendment protection for his testimony in a CIVIL case and then tried to use that testimony in his criminal case.
Regardless at the Cosby trial pattern evidence of simlar crimes commited by Cosby that could not longer be prosecuted was admitted as evidence.
Evidence or prior similar crimes is generally admissible.
But this is NOT merely a similar crime – it is prior evidence of an ONGOING crime of lying to congress.
The Two perjuries are ONE Crime – with multiple counts over many years the SOL clock starts with the LAST act in furtherance of that crime.
When you rob a bank the crime does not start when you pass a note to the teller demanding money.
It starts when you first start considering robbing the bank.
It does not finish when the Teller passes you the money – it continues through your efforts to escape, as well as to prevent law enforcement from catching you.
The clock on the SOL does not start with the first step you make towards robbing the bank, if starts with the last act you committed to avoid getting caught.
I would Further note – and some of this was discussed in the Trump/Bragg case – over the past several decades the courts have tolled the SOL for myriads of reasons – merely being out of state can stop the clock until you return. Courts have found actions that had nothing to do with trying to hide the crime – STILL toll the stature of limitations.
I disagree wih many of these decisions – but that does not matter – the are still the law.
“merely being out of state can stop the clock until you return.”
Yes, i did explain the SOL to George in great detail during the Bragg case. He refused to accept reality.Typical.
But he incorrectly claimed it could be tolled for a simple weekend golf trip. This is NOT TRUE. Nor is “simply leaving the state” cause for tolling. The state must show where that absence somehow affected or delayed the investigation or prosecution of the case.
If you have a case where a judge ruled it could be tolled without an actual cause, please cite it.
As usual, i suspect you wont. You and George are a lot alike in that way.
I also already explained the ongoing scheme doctrine to George.
He has the comprehension of a third grader.
His familiar response was once again “nuh-uhh”
John Say,
“X – not only can it be entered into evidence – but Comey’s later statement restarted the SOL clock, so the 2017 Statement is still prosecutable perjury.”
Wrong again. It is you who has no idea how SOL works.
Comey’s later statement does not restart the clock. I never did. Because they have to refer to it in order to justify the the second. The first statement is no longer admissible That is why they are using the 202O statement.
The SOL law using the Bragg case is different. It’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. The Cosby case is completely irrelevant.
The only thing Halligan can use against Comey is the statement he made in 2020 and that is not perjury. It’s not a false statement. She will have to rely on the 2017 statement to support her argument that the 2020 statement couunts as a repeat of the 2017 statement and it is not. It does not work that way. This is why Eric Seibert and the rest of the DOJ lawyers could not bring this to the grand jury. Because it is not admissible evidence.
Comey’s case wil be dismissed before any of this is argued in court. Halligan signed the indictment and we both know Halligan was illegally appointed. Once the court grants the dismissal everything will be null and void. The same will happen with James’ case. Both were destined to fail the moment Halligan pursued the cases everyone else including Turley knew had no chance of success.
“The continuous wrong doctrine is an exception to the general rule that the statute of limitations runs from the time of the crime. Where applicable, the doctrine “serves to toll the running of a period of limitations to the date of the commission of the last wrongful act” and “may only be predicated on continuing, unlawful acts”
When Comey made his statement in 2022 that his testimoney in 2017 was truthful, tolled the SOL for the 2017 perjury”
It is all getting in X
Again I will refer you to the Bragg idiocy in NY.
Even with the Bragg game of pretending Trump’s payments were in furtherance of an unspecified felony that no evidence was presented at trial – and that is How bragg got arround the SOL .
Several of he payments to Cohen were STILL prior to the SOL – atleast according to your claims.
And Most all the evidence presented a trial – was outside the SOL.
The alleged laison with Daniels was more than a decade prior, everything Cohen did in negotiating with Daniels was prior to the SOL. The only acts that fell within the SOL were some of the check Trump wrote to Cohen.
The Bragg case will eventually be tossed 0 but not because evidence was used that predated the SOL.
But because there was no crime.
Even if Trump wins on SOL grounds – it will be because the predicate crime that converted the misdemeanor into a felony was neither charged nor evidence presented in court. And without the predicate crime – the SOL could not be extended.
“He cannot refer to the 2017 statement because it’s not admissible due to the statute of limitations that expired on 2022 for that statement.”
George Svelaz, you need a lot more brain power to deal with this question, and you have barely enough to know you should wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
Check out Martha Stewart. The situation is similar, and she went to jail.
“Because the law (statute of limitations) does not allow the prosecution to use the statements made in 2017.”
When have you EVER been right about the law.
It is possible that you may prove correct abou the unconstitutional decisions the judge makes.
This case should be a slam dunk, but it is not – we all know that. We all know why it will be a difficult case.
Comey is going to be tried by a left wing nut judge who beleives that lying under oath to “get Trump” is justified,
And the jury will be made up of other left wing nuts who will again find it impossible to hold comey accountable for a crime they would have commited themselves int he same position.
That is the only consequential impediment convicting Comey.
But that is a difficult one to overcome.
But that is OK – We are all going to remind YOU every day about the myriads of others you convicted or tried to convict for lies that were not lies
My understanding is the court cannot infer what that the congress intent was in writing a statute but only rule on the actual text of the statute.
Oh, yeah, you mean like “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” and “no person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” and “Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare…”?
Absolute-ly!
There is a long set of rules for statutory interpretation.
There are SOME instances in which the courts can use the legislative history to clairfy ambiguous provisions of a law, that could not be resolved by higher priority rules of statutory interpretation.
How wonderful. The DOJ indicted Letitia James.
Long overdue. She should already be wearing a large–very large–orange outfit.
Now do Schiff.
It’s a target-rich environment!
I see criminals everywhere!
Oh, —- yes!
A Damn Schiff needs to happen!
Meyer – I just heard that on the radio, and then I burst out laughing when they played a clip of her complaining that the justice system was being weaponized for political purposes. That was truly the laugh of the month!
Oldman–
Hasn’t she claimed racism yet? It’s coming.
Rabble:
As the left are fond of quoting when their side is on the line, “you can indict a ham sandwich.” Indictment just means a case can be heard. I would expect, given it’s in Virginia, for the case to be ultimately thrown out.
I wouldn’t guess, but I am noting a lot of people are getting angry at the way Democrats manage their affairs. They may not like a NY AG getting privileges that they are denied.
That’s another case that has big flaws like Comey’s.
It’s another case, Seibert did not find evidence for a criminal charge.
So? That is why it is going to trial. There is no doubt that what she did was wrong.
X an indictment as a matter of law means that a Grand Jury found there was evidence meeting the probable cause standard that a crime had been committed.
The grand jury does NOT uses the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
But as a matter of law it is beyond dispute at this time that there is evidence constituting probable cause that Comey committed the crimes he was indicted for (as well as james).
You are free to beleive Siebert and not the grand jury – but the COURT is NOT.
There is no opinion regarding whether there is evidence of probable cause of a crime that the Judge can consider EXCEPT that of the grandjury – atleast not until the trial begins and the prosecution makes its case.
Big flaws….. LOL
It’s called paper work and her signature is all over it.
Lying again geroge. Just like the rubber bullets
After James Comey’s arraignment, experts warned that indicting everyone who has lied to Congress would dangerously overcrowd the nation’s prisons.
According to imprisonment experts, “If we’re going to put all the people who lied to Congress in prison, we’re going to need a huge number of new prisons.”
“You’re looking at mass incarceration on an unprecedented scale,”.
Experts note that one cost-efficient solution would be to repurpose the White House as a federal penitentiary since so many eventual inmates are already there.
So funny I forgot to laugh.
She’s making a curry chickpea stew for supper….she’s short B12. Cut her slack.
Rabble:
I know where you got this talking point from, and I will rebut with the same response the reporter gave Double-40 Pelosi: “Trump wasn’t under oath, though.”
Isn’t that why Trump wants to buy Greenland – To put all these jokers on Ice.
And yet those oh so many people who have lied to congress are …. democrats.
Dems decide to torpedo Katie Porter – Found on Free Republic –
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4345316/posts
Released by Politico
She wanted some campaign cash, nothing else.
The mounting of a defense based on technicalities (rather than the substance of the allegation) speaks to the corrupt, honorless mindset of lawyers. A guy like Comey discounts the fact that the laws apply to him.
Even if he doesn’t go to prison, the nation deserves to hear the facts presented at trial.
Nobody is above the law, but nobody is below it either. If the technicalities are part of the law, he and anyone else is entitled to use them. His lawyers would be breaching their ethical duty to advance their client’s interests if they failed to try and get the case dismissed on technicalities. That’s not saying I hope they succeed. I think Comey is as corrupt as the day is long and I hope he pays for what he did to the fullest extent the law allows. I’m just saying that his lawyers have a professional obligation to try.
Oldman–
Thank you for that. Comey’s lawyers do have a professional obligation to do their best.
American law was at its best when John Adams defended the British soldiers in “The Boston Massacre” case and won against Robert Treat Payne, the prosecutor who, as it happens is a distant relative of mine.
Fitzgerald is obligated to do his best to represent Comey.
My problems with Fitzgerald is – that according to NY Times reports at the time of Comey’s leaks – Fitgerald was involved in those leaks,
and based on past conduct – Fitzgerald is not ethical.
But then I would not expect Saint James to have an ethical lawyer.
Comey’s lawyer – Fitgerald, is a long time friend, has a problem in that he was involved in the leaking and could be a witness,
Fitzgerald was also the prosecutor in the Scooter Libby case – where Fitgerald was investigating a leak – despite the fact that it was already established where the leak came from and Fitzgerald was not going to prosecute the actual leak,
Instead he jailed on journalist and threatened others, to get them to provide him with information he already had.
The real purpose of the Fitgerald prosecution was to get a scalp in the Bush WH – not to investigate a leak that everyone already knew everything abut.
Or put differently – Fitgerald is Comey lite.
Richman – who was a conduit for Comey;s leaking, is another member of that cabal.
OT
The wheel of the environmental and climate psyops keep rolling down the river, Rollin, rollin.Rollin..
Don’t waste money on faux products. Dawn was a fabulous soap but gone. The name was kept. Buy the cheapest or just wash dishes in water or sand maybe.
Comey is a spook. He’ll do or say anything as ordered. Remove them without conscience. They have none. Just empty boxes. Work on getting children into safe, moral schools. There’ll be something to work with in that way.
Comey restated what he said so it’s ongoing. No timeline.
I just wonder if this case against James Comey is yet another red herring, a cover for someone else.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent.”
– Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, January 23, 2018
_______________________________________________________________
New FBI texts highlight a motive to conceal the president’s involvement.
From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton–emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call — not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.) The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-emails-key-decision-not-indict-hillary/
Comey has the goods on Hillary and Clinton.
Dear Prof Turley,
First, there should be no love lost on Dir. Comey, esq. .. the Clintons, the swampy ‘left’ or the 51 top intel officials who claimed Hunter Biden’s laptop ‘had all the classic hallmarks of Russian disinformation’. *note. that’s the sort of mis/disinformation that can cause global thermal nuclear ‘war’!
Otoh, the ‘irony’ of any claims of selective and vindictive prosecution by either party is not lost on me either. It just seems lately if the ‘left’ didn’t get you .. . Trump will.
Despite Trump’s ‘unforced error’, I agree the ‘”odds still favor the Administration in ultimately prevailing on this claim, even if the district court judge were to rule for Comey” .. . but it’s not very likely, and it takes such a long time.
Unlawful Appointment. As I understand it today, by definition everything the President does is lawful? (see also Nixon.)
*In other words, it does not sound like Comey is going to jail any time soon.
“Nobody is above the law” we heard over and over and over again from the Dems and their aparatchik DNC Pravda media. “But that doesn’t apply to Democrats and anyone on our side!!” :0
Arcane provision about an unlawful appointment is right. Among any other arguments the administration may have to counter it should be that Section 546(d) is unconstitutional. The part about Congress giving the Judiciary the authority to make an Executive appointment when Congress itself (the Senate) cannot or will not approve the nomination of the US Attorney within an arbitrary 120-day timeframe should be challenged on Constitutional grounds. How can Congress give to the Judiciary what belongs to the Executive when it is Congress that is creating the problem in the first place? Comey’s argument about that section should be challenged in this case and, if necessary, appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
But they are going to cost him a lot of money of ill-gotten gains from his books and from his tours, and all of that couldn’t happen to a finer person
It is unlikely that Comey will incur any significant costs.
He is represented by a close friend who is unlikely to charge any significant fees.
I am not sure how attorneys handle services to fellow attorneys, but in the medical field, physicians rarely charge for services rendered to fellow physicians.
As a retired physician I can say that it is a generally accepted rule that physicians do not charge other physicians. I never once sent a bill to a fellow physician in my many decades of practice, and I cared for many physicians for many years.
I suspect that Comey may incur de minimis charges if any at all.
As an attorney himself, he will undoubtedly be fully engaged in the process, and will be able to do much of the leg work himself. Comey should be able to a lot of the work to prepare motions, with Fitzpatrick simply overseeing and advising. Fitzpatrick may be able to do this in his spare time.
And also, Comey’s daughter is a former federal prosecutor, recently resigned from the DOJ.
She will undoubtedly be actively involved.
Most likely Fitzpatrick will just supervise the preparation of motions and court filings, and make court appearances.
I doubt that he will charge any significant fees.
So incest?
Ok Jonathan – What’d say lets give Comey a pass and move directly onto Hillary ASAP.
WOW another great lib, if they are not wanting you to shot, then they go down this road.
_____________________________________
Brockman, 41, was charged with two counts of indecent liberties with a child and two counts of statutory rape of someone between the ages of 13 and 15.
Meanwhile, in the Real World, 3,477 dead in one year. Which, is either a bad thing, or a very good thing disguised as a bad thing. When evil, perverse people self-delete, you kinda feel sorry for them because they are dead, but at the same time, there goes 3,477 pieces of crap who were breaking into cars and houses to steal stuff to sell for drugs, who were sucking up Medicaid and Snap money, who were financing the drug dealers, who were turning downtown areas into third world poopy-holes, and who were worthless drags on the rest of society.
Rabble:
Obvious AI thumbnail is obvious.
Also, not seeing anything about this, other than this video. Maybe the CC conflated different events together?
No, it is for real.
https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/major-drug-operation-sinaloa-cartel
It is for real:
https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/major-drug-operation-sinaloa-cartel
I doubt, based on the locale alone, anything will come of this but exposure (not just for the dems but for the current state of our legal system in general) and a great deal of money spent; still, I’ll take it. 2016 onward, but especially 2020 onward, was easily the most corrupt period in our nation’s history; I would actually say 2007 onward (when the deep state seemed to have taken full control, even Bill Clinton was chastised, at one time), and more and more eyes are opening, all the time. Let them show us who they are. No one sane is on board, in spite of the noise and chatter.
OT
AOC, Stephen Miller is 4’10”!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrjStSqu_w4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrjStSqu_w4
AOC has donkey teeth… Happy now
.410 is a Shotgun. She’s a clever girl. 😏
Comey persecuted Flynn until bankruptcy. The only reason DJT survived lawfare was because he had the moneybags. How many good people stay away from politics? Most all.
Comey will pay the piper.
AOC wants Chuckey’s Senate seat. Remember that Chucky said to AOC, that we’re the best of friends. But AOC is an ambush predator and back shooter. Good bye Chucky. AOC will be a Senator soon.
Almost as good as Braveheart clip and schoolkids. Greta thunderbird maybe…
@Anonymous
AOC is a fat, privileged, tool. She is about as organic as McDonald’s, as is Mamdani (his mother is *literally* a wealthy and successful actress and producer with ties to governments) – these morons were hired as front-facing puppets to capture demographics, not elected, and they are very well funded, just like Kamala. The modern dems are a clown show, period, and anyone with two brain cells can see it. Elitists on parade. We need to continue to remind them that the days of serfdom have been over for centuries, whether they got the memo or not. Here in America, we are not impressed, and do not give a sheet. Kamala had to freaking *hire* Beyoncé, at great cost, to get her to even show up, for Pete’s sake. Makes me wonder how much people were paid to show up under Obama, the celebrity POTUS extraordinaire.
James for adventure,
AOC was a barmaid. Could AOC make a Harvey Wall Banger or a Suffering Bast..ard?
“Sex On The Beach!”
You better think nice thoughts or Anthony will turn you into a jack-in-the box.
I’m having curry chickpea stew and kale for supper. .
Not a lawyer here, but all three of the defenses you’ve analyzed avoid the core issue being charged, and argue about the circumstances of the charge being brought.
So is Comey’s defense team effectively admitting that he’s guilty?
I am a retired atty. No, Comey’s defense bringing technical defenses is not an admission of guilt. They are just an attempt to avoid drawn out legal time and expenses.
Vindicative sounds like Connecticut and seems like something good, like in a trial when you’re the defendant and someone else confesses to the crime.
Vindictive sounds harsh and bad.