I have previously expressed skepticism over some defamation cases against the media brought by President Donald Trump under existing case law. However, comedian Rosie O’Donnell may have supplied the President with a another defamation case if she cannot back up sensational claims made against the President to her 2.9 million TikTok followers. She states as a fact that the President is an “adjudicated rapist” and settled child abuse cases.
O’Donnell seems to spend much of her days in a constant rave about Trump, Republicans, and the demise of the United States from her new home in Ireland. That is fine and an exercise of free speech. However, it may have crossed the line into defamation in her latest posting.
O’Donnell stated:
“Did you think it a million years that they would reelect a man who orchestrated an insurrection against the government? They would reelect that guy with all the charges of sex abuse? — the adjudicated rapist…And then I just saw this thing today about all the cases he’s settled with children, children’s families, accusations about him, that he chose to settle.”
She added:
“When are we going to be able to go, ‘We’re grown up enough to understand that this kind of deviant, psychotic, mentally ill behavior goes on at the highest level sometimes, and no matter where it goes on, it is our duty to stop it,’” O’Donnell continued in her unhinged rant…Shame, people. Shame on what has become of us.”
Notably, at least eleven months ago, O’Donnell called Trump a “rapist” and a “serial pedophile rapist.”
Trump previously sued over the claim that he is a rapist. He lost such a case against E. Jean Carroll after a judge ruled that her claim to have been raped by Trump was “substantially true.” The judge wrote: “The only issue on which the jury did not find in Ms Carroll’s favour was whether she proved that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her within the narrow, technical meaning of that term in the New York penal law.”
Nevertheless, Trump was not legally “adjudicated” to be a rapist. The addition of the word “adjudicated” could move the claim outside of mere opinion.
Even without that word, it is considered potentially defamatory to claim that Trump is, in fact, a rapist despite the earlier ruling in New York. MSNBC and the show “Morning Joe,” for example, quickly retracted a statement that Trump was a “rapist.”
The earlier denial of the defamation case certainly would help O’Donnell, but it is not dispositive. More importantly, that is not all that she said.
The second claim is that Trump settled with the “children’s families” over abuse cases.
It is not clear what the basis for this allegation is, but Reuters reported months ago about fake headlines on the Internet claiming that prosecutors were considering “child molestation charges” against Trump.
It is not clear if O’Donnell can produce support for the claim. If she cannot, it would certainly constitute “per se” defamation.
The common law has long recognized per se categories of defamation where damages are presumed and special damages need not be proven. These include: (1) disparaging a person’s professional character or standing; (2) alleging a person is unchaste; (3) alleging that a person has committed a criminal act or act of moral turpitude; (4) alleging a person has a sexual or loathsome disease; and (5) attacking a person’s business or professional reputation.
Claiming that Trump settled child abuse cases would certainly trigger a couple of these categories.
The United Kingdom is generally a better jurisdiction to bring defamation cases than the United States, which has stronger free speech and free press protections.
In the United States, any such action would have to be brought under the higher standard. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court established the actual malice standard, requiring public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. That standard was later extended to public figures.
If O’Donnell had no credible sources for this claim, it would appear to be clearly a reckless disregard of the truth.
That she said this to millions of followers only magnifies the general damages presumed in such cases.
Unless O’Donnell can argue truth as a defense with credible support for such settlements, she may have just given Trump a golden opportunity to pursue his long-time critic. There is no love lost between these two, but there could soon be a defamation action.
“. . . all the cases he’s settled with . . .”
Rosie: Step away from the Brennan’s Stout and the Bushmills. At the very least, don’t use them to wash down your meds.
So much for her great plan……. (Fail)
________________________
Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) was hit with a federal indictment Wednesday, accusing her of stealing $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds to support her 2021 congressional campaign.
Cherfilus-McCormick, who has been under investigation by the House Ethics Committee since December 2023, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Miami and faces up to 53 years in prison if convicted.
NY Post.
What does that have to do with Rosie?
Nothing, why do you care. Worried about (another) dem screw up
So Gates and buddy and great friends.
_____________________________
Newly unsealed messages from Jeffrey Epstein’s files reveal his persistent attempts to worm his way back into Bill Gates’ inner circle, even as Gates’ then-wife Melinda stood firmly against it. The 2017 texts, part of a trove released by Congress on November 13, show Epstein communicating with an unnamed adviser to Gates about a proposed donor-advised fund that could offer tax benefits for charitable giving.
In one exchange, the adviser relayed Gates’ interest but Melinda’s veto: “He wants to talk to you but his wife won’t let him.” The messages continue with “he loves you,” “he says hi,” and “he feels bad about the [donor advised fund] btw He thought great idea but wife wouldn’t allow.”
OK dems you wanted all this info, you got it.
This could be very funny for the new mayor of NY.
_________________________________
‘That Is Insanity’: Byron Donalds Has to Remind Mamdani Why He Can’t Force NYC to Follow International Law
by Mariane Angela, DCNF
November 20, 2025
in Curated, Videos
(Mamdani) could find himself in jail….
you re off track what does that have to do with Rosie?
Did I hurt you.
Just showing another dem screw up
Pay up Rosie, or sit in the same cell as your drugged out daughter.
Disgusting Wen Bars just Disgusting!
Maybe Biden can pardon her?
Rosie is Completely Unhinged…she and the idiot who runs the Lincoln Project are ‘twin flames…’
Blue beer fart flames indeed!
I think Turley has a crush on Rosie.
I think Rosie could crush Turley if she sat on him.
That will be a few million for trump.
So, who goes down if James Comey is charged?
_____________________________________________________
“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/
Rosie went to the Beach over there in Ireland. The townspeople kept trying to roll her back out to sea. Green Peace even showed up, had to fend off the Japanese, Hishu Maru they kept trying to harpoon her. There she blows!
Rosie is an un attractive woman who fails at comedy.
That was somewhat “kinky,” Dave.
Just sayin’.
LAME REPLY ANON!!
“You Really Got Me,” K?
That’s KINKY! Ha ha ha ANON?
Dave & K, That’s kinky “All Day And All Of The Night!”
DUMB ANON!! ANON thinks saying someone is unattractive and is no longer funny (she was previously a comedian) is kinky?? WOW
K, I’m so “Tired of Waiting For You” to get why it’s kinky, but I think Dave Davies knows.
Is Ray around anywhere?
You’re an Animal…and a Beast of Burden.
You really need another life.
You’re giving life advice now? Dustoff giving life advice… take your own advice…. move on.
So the court said the rape charge is “substantially true” except as to the [actual] “narrow legal definition” written in the law. This is like saying that a charge of setting a fire is “substantially true” except that according to the actual legal definition of setting a fire the accused did not actually set the fire. So then that this A is “substantially” except that it actually isn’t A. A ridiculous bit of balderdash by the judge.
Can’t Understand Normal Thinking attention whores care not for anything but attention
What happened to America ? Who are these vile people acting like they are human when they have zero humanity in them$
Trump may or may not sue ODonnell.
I do not think she is all that high on his target list – despite her animosity.
Trump’s defamation lawsuits are strategic. The purpose is not to win huge judgements.
But to get the media to Stop spewing nonsense as fact.
And that seems to be working.
Trump has settled almost a half a dozen cases with the media over the past 18+ months.
All have paid him millions – which si a pitance for them – though almost twice what Trump purportedly owes E Jean Carroll. If the Carroll vedict holds up which is Trump will still be net positive regarding defamation awards.
The significance of Trump’s settlements with the media are regardless of how small they are in terms of ABC or CNN
They constitute an admission. If they are followed by a similar defamation claim by Trump on conduct after the settlement the cases start with a presumption of guilt and a presumption of actual malice and subsequent awards could be staggering
Expect the same with the BBC case. BBC ad Trump will settle – and for far less than $5B.
BBC will appologize further, make promises, …
But he most important result will be that BBC in the future will be very careful about their coverage of Trump,
Because a 2nd lawsuit will be for Billions and will not be settled cheaply.
What Trump choses regarding ODonell is different.
Trump is not going to sue every idiot on Social Media that defames him.
Nor is he suing for money.
He is primarily suing to get the media to self check and stop makeing incredibly stupid claims all the time.
To take care to report the truth not try to spin it.
And we are already seeing changes in the media.
Suing ODonnel not does not accomplish that.
Speaking of The Universe, and its Mysterious Ways – I watched part of a youtube video the other day, about a trucker camping out in his cab in freezing weather. That night, I dreamed I went to sign up as a truck driver for Royal Trucking. They gave me a uniform, and even some Royal Underwear that I had to put on. There were three pieces of the underwear. First, white cotton women’s panties, then green frilly women’s panties, and then men’s briefs with the Royal Logo.
I thought this strange, as I am not into cross-dressing. I could see where the signing up as a truck driver came from, and even the men’s company undies. But where in the heck did the white and green panties come from – the white being “inside” and the “green” outside??? Crap, that was totally bizarre.
Then the next day, yesterday, I was sorting thru some hardware, and there was a medicine bottle with an electric switch in it, that I had put in there, well over 8 years ago, when I lived in the tool shed. Inside the bottle, was a slip of paper with instructions I had written down about the wiring. The wires were green and white, and the note read, “White wire inside, green wire outside.”
So, yes, there is more going on in this plane of existence than we know about.
It goes with the simple explanation of words. The “switch” is the garment translates to transsexuals which apparently really annoy you since electrocution is involved.
I’m not doing the remainder of your dream.
They gave me a uniform, and even some Royal Underwear that I had to put on.
Beyond a point, this gets very basic: people that care about other people in sanity do not seek to control them, period. It’s why our founders were so brilliant. I have pity for this woman – she is not well in the clinical sense, and has demonstrably not been for some time, and demonstrably, substances have been involved. I am sure that in actual fact there is not a damn thing lacking in her own personal life, nothing, and clearly she still has the freedom to express herself. It is real insanity. Totalitarian, my a$$.
Regarding the rest, no, no. Sane and loving people do not behave the way the modern DNC does in toto; they simply don’t – the dems’ behavior is anathema to sane and loving people. This is in my opinion simple truth, or call it common sense if you prefer. Though they may tag team each other at times, sanity and madness do not simultaneously coexist, they cannot occupy the same space at the same time. For nations, governments, classes, or individuals. The modern left are at this point, basically clinically insane. No good can come from that, and it won’t.
In similarly misleading language, low-IQ Jasmine Crockett is accusing Lee Zeldin of having Jeffrey Epstein contribute to a past campaign of his. The fact it is a different person named Jeffrey Epstein didn’t matter to her, it made for a good sound bite.
The Dems are sounding more desperate with each passing day.
https://x.com/LeeMZeldin/status/1990993148244312175
I saw that too. She sure didn’t win any points on that goof-up
OldManFromKS,
It appears her staff are not very bright either. But, they have to deflect from this, Leading fundraising group for Democrats solicited Epstein years after he pleaded guilty in Florida
“The revelation follows other documents that point to Democrats continuing to interact with Epstein post-conviction, raising uncomfortable questions for the party keen to pin the disgraced financier on Trump.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/leading-dems-fundraisers-solicited-jeffrey-epstein-years-after-he
If it were true ? So What ?
Isn;t thetre a famous democrat who said something to the effect of “I can take their money and then screw them”
I know that democrats beleive that all campaign contributions to republicans come with strings.
But for the most part political donations large and small are becase the donor wants the candidate to win.
And what the donor hopes for is that the candidate will do what they promised.
While there is a great deal of truth to the assertion that donations open doors – politicans schedule meetings faster with donors than others. There is very little evidence that they result in actions by the politicians different from their public campaign promises.
The voting system must be changed. The money behind it must be changed. Btw, the Clinton Foundation has a bundle.
“[We gave you] a [severely restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
_________________
You couldn’t.
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
Yes, laws restricting political participation – including limits to campaign contributions must be struck down as unconstitutional.
Harris spent over $2B to defeat Trump – and fell significantly short.
A little bit of money makes a huge difference to a small campaign but we see pleanty of instances where democrats spend double and tripple what republicans do and lose.
There is a point at which more money does not change anything.
We should stop trying to control the free choices of people.
Such as how they spend their money
There was never Comey Indictment. Trumps DOJ lied to the grand jury AND the judge. Criminal contempt charges may next for Halligan and Bondi.
LOL
The entire Nation has seen Comey’ s lies to Congress. He went on television and boasted, he wrote notes. Let’s wait and see what happens, you may be surprised.
Not to worry george. Another Lawyer will take the case against comey.
There may be no case to answer.
It is not simply a matter of having another attorney take over the case. That is not the issue.
If the judge rules that the indictment document was not properly presented to the full grand jury, then there never was a valid indictment in the first place.
The judge would not have to dismiss the indictment, since no valid indictment ever existed before the court.
In that circumstance, no valid case was ever presented to the court.
There would actually be nothing to dismiss.
This would not be correctable, since the statute of limitations has expired.
ATS – your legal analysis is incorrect.
There is existing law regarding errors in an indictment.
If this judge successfully tosses the entire indictiment.
DOJ has 6 months to reindict.
That is the relevant law.
Further – voiding indictments is extremely hard.
Why ? Because errors really do not matter much.
A grand jury is technically an investigative process – though in the US at a federal level the constitution requires an indictment to prosecute a crime.
For the most part investigative processes are outside the domain of the courts.
Not completely, but the criteria for judicial review of investigative processes are very narrow and in this case the DOJ easily met the constitutional standards.
A GJ is NOT an adversarial process – again it is primarily investigative.
The standard for indictment is low and easily met – preponderance of evidence as determined by a majority of grand jurors, and often only a majority of a quorum.
Why are the standards so low ?
Because everything that a prosecutor must prove o get an indictment – the prosecutor must prove AGAIN to a judge and jury in a criminal trial.
Every single issue this judge claims with respect to the Comey GJ – is outside his jurisdiction regarding the GJ,
BUT will be inside his jurisdiction when Comey raises it with respect to the upcoming criminal trial.
This decision to attempt to invalidate the indictment will with near certtainty be tossed.
But every claim raised by Comey’s lawyers and the judge will be raised again at trial.
And at that time the judge will have jurisdiction but over the trial not the Grand Jury.
He will likely make the same decisions, they will be appealed, and likely the judge will be overruled AGAIN
But with a biased judge and a likely biased jury – Comey is not going to get convicted – in a court of law.
But he has already been convicted in the court of public opinion.
John Say the Stupid
As usual you completely miss the point and fly off on some nonsensical irrelevant tangent.
The point is whether the indictment document submitted to the court was properly presented to the full grand jury. If it was not, then no valid indictment can be said to exist.
Both Halligan and prosecutor Lemons admitted in court today that the document was never properly presented to the full grand jury.
Multiple legal experts have commented today that this has never happened before, and presents a novel situation.
That is why the judge, on being told the indictment was never presented to the grand jury, abruptly ended the hearing today with an order demanding that the DOJ file an explanation of this matter by 5:00pm today.
The question is whether a valid indictment even EXISTS. It is not a matter of simply “correcting” the indictment.
If the judge rules that no valid indictment ever existed, then there is nothing for him to dismiss. He cannot dismiss something that never existed.
This would effectively end the case.
There would be no actual dismissal of a valid indictment, and the 6 month rule would not apply, and the DOJ would not be able to go back to the grand jury again because the statute of limitations has expired.
IT IS OVER !!!!!!!
I’m not certain that what you say is true.
I’d like to hear how you would address:
(1) one, whether the amended indictment (the one NOT presented to the grand jury) could be considered a superseding indictment relating back to the first,* (the one presented to the grand jury) — i.e., “whether a superseding indictment ‘materially broadens or substantially amends’ an earlier indictment turns on whether the first indictment put the defendant on notice of the nature of the ultimate charges against him, thereby allowing him to prepare an adequate defense;” (the Ojedokun case) thereby defeating SOL expiration;
and (2) two, whether, arguendo, the government’s error could be considered “harmless error,” accordingly.
(*don’t know if first indictment had been dismissed at the time second one was filed, but I think it was not?)
(I am not guessing or pretending I know the answer.)
Thanks
lin
Gaither vs US established the relevant precedent here.
Gaither was indicted for grand larceny in 1969. The USDA prepared an indictment document which the jury foreperson signed. The final document was never presented to the full grand jury. At the time it was the practice of the USDA to pick and choose which charges to bring if there was more than one indicted charge. They would leave out charges that they thought were weak, even though the GJ indicted those charges, and they would not include charges that the GJ refused to indict, and they would not present the final document to the full GJ with any changes they made to the GJ bill.
Gaither appealed the indictment because the USDA did not present the final executed document to the full GJ.
The prosecutor never showed the completed indictment to the grand jury. That omission was held by the D.C. Circuit to violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee of the defendant’s right to a grand jury indictment.
They ruled that it wasn’t a valid grand jury indictment if the jury didn’t see and approve the FINAL version.
It was also ruled that the prosecutor could not make a decision to drop charges that the GJ indicted.
From that point on prosecutors have taken the final executed indictment document back to the full GJ, where they read the document, show them the physical document, and seek their approval.
This has become known as “Gaitherizing” an indictment, in a similar vein as Mirandizing an arrest.
This was not done here in the Comey case due to incompetence on the part of Halligan.
The indictment was not Gaitherized.
There is no valid indictment in existence.
https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201612/doing-time-enduring-criminal-law-lecturer-bob-weinberg
Forgot to add that the Judge in Comey’s case made a very telling comment after questioning Halligan and prosecutor Lemons, who both confirmed that the final indictment document was never presented to the full Grand Jury.
After questioning both of them, the Judge made the comment that he “just wanted to make sure that the Grand Jury never saw the final indictment document.”
This case is over.
Thanks, appreciated. (never practiced criminal law) (except defending my nephew for off-campus traffic violation with marijuana in his pocket, ha ha!) (charges dismissed.)
This evening I had a chance to look at this and better understand the issue(s).
Your Gaither argument holds significant weight, but the judge may turn the whole case on the pending “retroactive” appointment authority for Halligan. Could that make Halligan’s otherwise timely indictment void ab initio, making any six-month SOL extension moot? (“This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution.”) Even defendants’ honored request for dismissal with prejudice would be appealed. I really dunno.
Accordingly and speculatively arguendo ONLY:
In Gaither, the indictment was defective/flawed for lacking the requisite 12 GJs,
YET/STILL the court found it harmless error (“no prejudice”) and upheld the convictions. (This morning I threw out the question about harmless error in this case- not having read Gaither). (I see the Gaither court expressly clarified that subsequent cases would require full GJs to review and “find” indictment for each charge–I assume that is what you are referencing as “gaitherizing?” Your point is well taken and indeed, Gaither on its surface could be controlling.
Still, there is another ankle-biter: the Ex Parte Bain case, which SCOTUS referred to in Russell v. U.S., noting “the settled rule in the federal courts that an indictment may not be amended except by resubmission to the grand jury, unless the change is merely a matter of form.”
So I ask, what qualifies or is included in “merely a matter of form????”
In Gaither, the court says, “The grand jury here voted the bare presentment, and nothing more. The presentment on its face shows no more than the grand jury’s decision that appellants should be charged with grand larceny. None of the essential substantive elements of an indictment are shown. Neither the elements of the offense nor the date or place of the alleged crime is set out. A mere perusal of the text of this presentment refutes the suggestion that it amounts to anything like a proper indictment which needed only to be processed through ‘clerical procedures’ before being returned into court.”
THat, IMHO, tempers its application.
I have not seen or read the actual indictment, but the facts appear distinguishable in the present case, -in the distinction between presentment and “finding” (in Gaither), as well as in the fact that there were more convoluted/additional differences between what prosecutors did in Gaither and this case.
Also, the fact that the judge took this under advisement without ruling, noting the complexity, tells me that both sides have presented merit for consideration (despite a hint of siding with defendants).
Thanks again, appreciated it. This is disjointed, but it’s late and I am r.e.a.l.l.y. tired.
The supreme court ruled that the 14th amendment barred Trump from the 2024 Ballot.
How did that work out for you ?
The case is far from over. This is going to drag out for years.
I would note that YOU keep undermining your own argument.
You say the judge established that the GJ did not vote on the FINAL indictment
If True – SO WHAT ?
All that matters is that they voted to indict Comey for SOMETHING
Even if that vote was deeply flawed.
DOJ still gets 6 months to reindict.
The only way this is over is if either the GJ voted “no true bill” and Halligan lied to the courts,
In which case she is in very deep $hit – and I have not heard anyone actually allege that.
OR The GJ never voted to indict Comey for anything in any form.
Diferences between what the GJ voted on, and what Was filed with the court are merely defects and can be corrected by reindictment under the worst of circumstances.
All well and good, but also not relevant.
The CORE question here is whether there was ANY valid indictment.
If there was – even a defective one, then DOJ has 6 months to get a valid indictment.
Halligan had a miniscule amount of time to prepare an indictment and get it through the GJ.
This was Caused because the Fired US attorney – who was friends with Comey’s son sat on this for months.
While that is not legally relevant, it will have some influence on the courts decisions.
The courts are unlikely to want to allow someone who clearly committed multiple crimes including obvious perjuries to completely avoid even a trial, because he was fortunate enough to have a Friend in the DOJ who stalled the indictment.
If there was actual communications between Comey or his attorney’s and Siebert over this there are potentially additional charges of obstruction against both Comey and Siebert.
We keep gettting all this legal garbage from those of you on the left.
First we had the claim that there was no indictment because a carreer US attonery determined there was not enough evidence.
That was always OBVIOUS BS – Comey testified to congress, McCabe Testified under oath – there is no reconciling their testimoney – one is lying. That alone is easily enough to indict one or both.
But it is worse than that Richamn WAS a special employee of the FBI. Comey secured that job for him.
Comey provided him with memos and documents, some of which were classified and instructed Richman to leak them.
That is all well documented – by comey’s own emails and documents, as well as by testimony by richman
That alone is enough to indict.
Even if Comey carelessly provided the documents to Richman and you try to argue that he did not specifically direct Richman to leak them, For classified information there is a negligance and recklessness standard.
Further Comey was absolutely aware those documents were leaked and commented favorably on that.
While not alone proving that he authorized the leak, it meets the requirements for reckless and/or negligence.
AND even more importantly it makes his testimony to congress perjury.
Now will a biased judge and an EDVA jury convict on that – possibly not.
But there is far far far more than enough to indict AND to convict in 95% of the US.
So the idiots who were claiming that siebert legitimately refused to indict are full of schiff.
DOJ would have to prove a conspiracy between Siebert and Comey to charge him with a further crime,
That is not likely.
But they have morfe than enough evidence that Siebert improperly stalled the indictment and that he did so because of a relationship with Comey that the courts are not going to punish DOJ because Siebert stalled on the indictment.
His conduct may not have been proveably criminal, but it is provably wrong.
DOJ is not going to get punished by unbiased judges for a rush job caused by a biased US attorney’s Conflict trying to protect Comey.
Gaither was 1969 – 18 U.S. Code § 3289 was 1988.
18 USC 3289 and probably other laws regarding indictments, reindictments and tolling the SOL apply.
JS, Gaither is still good law and was actually cited in current case involving Halligan.
Here is a piece from something published TODAY about it. (anonymous and “Lin” exchanged their views on it YESTERDAY and could not have known about it.
https://newrepublic.com/article/203431/comey-hearing-lindsey-halligan-scandalous
“Nachmanoff, [the judge] who was exceptionally well prepared and even-tempered, may have been the only person in the courtroom who anticipated the possibility that the government had not presented the indictment to the grand jury at all. He was ready with a 1969 case, Gaither v. United States, from the D.C. Circuit—a case that did not present this particular set of facts (it’s not clear any case ever has) but was highly relevant in its emphasis on the grand jury’s independent constitutional role.
“That case rejected the idea that similar irregularities were mere clerical errors and applied a test focused on the grand jury’s actual intention. If Nachmanoff applies that framework, there is at least a colorable argument that the grand jury, despite the comedy of errors, intended to green-light the two charges that appeared in the indictment it never actually saw.”
didn’t the judge ask the parties to brief him on the applicability of Gaither to this case? He would not have done that if the statute superseded Gaither.
Lin:
AI string: James Comey’s burn bag
The term “James Comey’s burn bag” refers to documents discovered by FBI Director Kash Patel in July 2025, reportedly in a “secret room” at FBI headquarters, not a personal burn bag belonging to Comey. These documents related to the Trump-Russia investigation (“Crossfire Hurricane”). The Department of Justice (DOJ) was informed of these findings in late July 2025.
The documents themselves were found within the FBI, an agency under the DOJ, and were not transferred to the DOJ from an outside source on a specific date after their discovery. Instead, the discovery initiated a new investigation within the DOJ in August 2025 into whether former FBI officials mishandled these documents.
—
Patel found thousands of sensitive rump–Russia probe docs inside ‘burn bags’ in secret room at FBI
FBI Director Kash Patel has turned over the documents to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley
EXCLUSIVE: FBI Director Kash Patel found a trove of sensitive documents related to the origins of the Trump–Russia probe buried in multiple “burn bags” in a secret room inside the bureau, sources told Fox News Digital.
Sources told Fox News Digital that the “burn bag” system is used to destroy documents designated as classified or higher.
By: Brooke Singman Fox News ~ July 30, 2025 (Wednesday)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/patel-found-thousands-sensitive-trump-russia-probe-docs-inside-burn-bags-secret-room-fbi
Note: On or About July 30, 2025 (Wednesday) the Burn Bags were ‘discovered’. This starts the Statue-of-Limitations clock ticking.
The statute of limitations is a deadline for filing a lawsuit, but it can be extended in cases of newly discovered evidence through a legal principle called the “discovery rule” or specific exceptions. The discovery rule postpones the start of the limitation period until the plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered the facts of their claim, particularly in cases involving hidden facts or breaches of duty. Some statutes also have a separate provision for newly discovered evidence that can allow for filing a motion after the deadline, such as a one-year window under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f)(4) for federal prisoners.
Examples of statutes of limitations and new evidence
Federal Crimes: The standard five-year statute of limitations for federal crimes can be extended for certain offenses, such as arson, which have a 10-year limit.
i.e.: Bondi needs to file a motion to extend the time of the statute of limitations under the “discovery rule”.
Cont.
Read:
The Situation: Where’s the Lie?
Benjamin Wittes, Anna Bower – Tuesday, November 4, 2025
[Link] lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation–where-s-the-lie
… (Scroll down to the bottom of the Story or use Find: Burn Bag) …
Having set out the supposed factual basis for the prosecution’s case against Comey, the brief then takes a bizarre detour. On pages 14-15, the government describes an incident in which a team of investigators at the FBI were “alerted to a seemingly unused SCIF in FBI headquarters.” According to the government, the SCIF contained “a random collection of classified documents,” many of which were located “on the floor in five burn bags.” The brief alleges that the documents recovered from the SCIF included copies of notes Comey had written during his tenure as FBI director. The alleged notes, dated Sept. 26, 2016, read in part: “HRC plan to tie Trump.”
The government claims that the handwritten notes purportedly discovered in the “burn bag” SCIF is somehow relevant in light of Comey’s prior testimony before Congress on Sept. 30, 2020. Specifically, the brief notes that Comey, under questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), was asked whether he recalled being told about “U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Comey responded by stating that it “doesn’t ring any bells with me.”
Graham’s question appears to be a reference to a referral of a possible “Clinton campaign plan” that later became the subject of the so-called Durham annex, discussed in this earlier “The Situation” column. For any number of reasons discussed then, this is not a plausible basis to charge Comey with lying. None of them matters for present purposes, however, because Comey is not charged with lying about the Durham annex or the so-called Clinton plan; indeed, the grand jury apparently rejected Halligan’s effort to indict Comey based on that very testimony. Comey is charged, rather, only in relation to his testimony about whether he authorized someone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source in news reports about the Clinton investigation. The “burn bag” SCIF, the handwritten notes, and Comey’s 2020 testimony about the “Clinton plan” are wholly irrelevant to the crimes with which he is charged.
Cont.
I would agree that the evidence found in the SCIF is about a completely different crime.
However it does provide atleast prima fascia evidence of concealment.
That opens the possibility of extending the SOL for that crime.
Depending on details it may ALSO open up the possibility of extending the SOL for other crimes – particularly if it can be argued that it is all part of a single criminal conspiracy.
Comey’s lie to congress was about leaking information.
But the purpose of the leaks was to advance the Collusion Delusion, and the purpose of the lies was to conceal the efforts to advance the collusion delusion.
So long as it is all part of a common criminal conspiracy ANY effort to conceal tolls the statute of limitations.
Bringing it together.
Bondi and Halligan has blown this Trial – It could be salvageable (lol) but at what price to not getting all penalty possible due Comey.
Bondi should scuttle it now so Comey can be brought up on clear Indictments. In other words, the DOJ needs to open a new Investigation utilizing the Burn Bag evidence and to All that ‘the evidence’ is connected.
SO now Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, are now gone, that leaves December-July / 8 months to get new, Investigations, Indictments, and Filings done, relative to the date of the discovery of the Burn Bags – that goes for all the People connected to that discovery.
Comey had committed multiple offenses:
Lying to an Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz:
Lying to an Inspector General while under investigation is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make a false or fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. This is often referred to as the “false statements” crime. It is a serious offense that can lead to severe penalties, including imprisonment.
Review on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election
[Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Horowitz#Review_on_FBI_and_DOJ_actions_in_the_2016_election
Report of Investigation of Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James
Comey’s Disclosure of Sensitive Investigative Information and Handling of Certain Memoranda
[Archive Link – PDF] web.archive.org/web/20221128094652/https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o1902.pdf
Review on 4 FISA Applications and the Crossfire Hurricane investigation
[Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Horowitz#Review_on_4_FISA_Applications_and_the_Crossfire_Hurricane_investigation
There are multiple offenses committed (“Lying under oath” perjury) within each of these IG (Michael E. Horowitz) investigations.
Lying to a Special Investigator John Durham:
Lying to a Special Investigator is a violation of laws against making false statements to federal agents, such as
18 U.S.C. § 1001, and potentially other offenses like perjury if under oath. These actions are serious and can lead to felony charges, fines, and imprisonment.
There are multiple offenses committed (“Lying under oath” perjury) within the Special Investigator (John Durham) investigations.
903. False Statements, Concealment—18 U.S.C. § 1001 as Amended
[Link] justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-903-false-statements-concealment-18-usc-1001
Cont.
To be clear – it is NOT Halligan that “blew” this – regardless of the complaints against Halligan the FACT is that The fired AUSA on the case who has conflicting links to Comey was obstructing.
Halligan is not responsible for the fact that she had very little time to secure a complex indictment.
DOJ/Bondi may bear some responsibility – the AUSA should have been fired sooner.
Absolutely this is a mess. But Halligan did not make the mess and it is arguable that Comey did.
It is probably not criminally arguable, But it is certainly arguable that Comey benefited from a conflicted AUSA stonewalling his case.
I have no idea how this judge will deal with that – but presuming this is dead is more than premature.
Next – the odds of getting an EDVA jury to convict Comey are slim. I would love to see a successful prosecution.
Among other reasons because it might reduce the amount of leaks in govenrment.
But a significant part of the goal here is that the process itself is the punishment.
DOJ may be on its back foot in the case for sometime.
But the case is going to go forward, and Comey is going to have to defend for years to come.
RE:
A. Comey made Multiple False Statements (Lied) to Investigators.
B. Comey Concealed evidence from Investigators.
C. Comey destroyed the evidence (although the Burn Bags never made it to the Incinerator, because Someone knew that the Burn Bag Documents (evidence) was relevant to the commissions of crimes).
—
Bondi needs to get her ass moving with better ‘Seasoned’ Prosecutors and the best Investigators she can find.
Say good-bye to Lindsey Halligan, start over, stay organized and focused.
—
END
Only in your demented, MAGA delusions.
This is pure BS and nothing will come of it.
And Trump will be barred from the ballot in 2024 by the 14th amendment …. oops.
Try listening to legal scholars that actually get it right.
Well actually Anon,
Pam Bondi could bring a motion to extend the Statues of Limitations in the current Court, however She can also bring a new Pleading directly to the Appeals Court, or even make a Pleading to a new Court Venue – Today. On the basis of the discovery of the Burn Bags given that the: Time, Place, and Personnel at the discovery are well establish (In the FBI Building on July 30th 2025). Hence extending the Limitation to the Courts determination.
This is not over by any stretch of the imagination.
ATS
Please name any “defect” to a GJ indictment that you think requires reindictment, but is NOT sufficient to claim the indictment never existed ?
That is just a stupid claim.
It is trivial to argue that Any defect that requires DOJ to reindict means that indictment never existed.
Any defect that does not mean the indictment does not exist – does not require correction.
This is a stupid argument.
The law that allows the DOJ to reindict was enacted specifically for this type of situation.
Statutes of Limitations are creations of LAW, they are NOT rights.
I wish they were, but they are not,
As a result they are entirely creatures of the law,
Congress passed law that says that when an indictment is defective DOJ can reindict anytime for 6 months.
That tolls the SOL.
Even if DOJ deliberately filed a bogus indictment just to toll the SOL they would still get 6 more months.
I would note that even the claim that this indictment is defective is far from proven.
The claims that the entire GJ must see the actual indictment and vote on it are bogus.
I beleive the standard is that the majority of a Quorum must vote on it.
If the indictment presented to the court and that presented to the GJ do not exactly match – that is at worst a DEFECT.
So first you have the fact that the claims being made are far from proven.
And then you have that even if proven – they still can be
outside the judges jurisdiction.
or deminimus,
or correctable by reindictment.
ATS – Did the majority of a quorum of the GJ vote on anything ?
If so – you are just fighting over the significance of defects.
The only way you have no indictment is if there was never any vote, or if the GJ voted no true bill.
Here again John Say displays his astonishing stupidity and ignorance.
Did you bother to read the above regarding Gaither vs US ????
Your incoherent rambling and babbling about GJ procedures is of absolutely no relevance to the issues that have been raised in the Comey case.
Gaither vs US is controlling precedent here. The facts are very similar to Comey.
Gaither was indicted for grand larceny, and successfully challenged the indictment because the indictment document prepared by the USDA was never presented to the full GJ. The USDA and GJ foreman signed the indictment document, but the signed executed document was never presented to the full GJ before submission to the court. The court held that this omission violated the Fifth Amendment guarantee of the defendant’s right to a grand jury indictment. They also held that this omission was not correctable by a harmless error defense. They held that the indictment was defective, vacated Gaither’s conviction, and required that the government go back to the GJ for an indictment that followed proper procedures. They ruled that any indictment must be signed by the USDA and GJ foreperson and THEN it must be returned to the full GJ for their final approval before submission to the court. Failure to do this renders the indictment null and void, and is not correctable by any method.
This is exactly what happened in Comey.
At yesterday’s hearing, the judge questioned Halligan and prosecutor Lemons closely about the sequence of events surrounding the submission of the indictment. Both of them confirmed that the final signed and executed indictment document was never taken back to the full GJ for approval. Thus, according to Gaither, the indictment is defective and uncorrectable. The judge then abruptly ended the hearing with an order for the prosecution to file a brief regarding the specific relevance of Gaither to this situation by 5:00pm that same day. They filed a brief that was laughably nonsensical, trying to invoke precedent from other irrelevant cases to justify their procedures that are in direct conflict with Gaither.
So at this point it is clear that the indictment is defective.
A valid indictment never existed.
The indictment will not be “dismissed”, because a valid indictment never existed and therefore the 60 day rule does not apply. This rule only applies to an indictment that is DISMISSED.
In Gaither’s case, this ruling was not harmful to the government because they were able to go back to the GJ to get a legitimate indictment, followed by conviction.
But in Comey, the statute of limitations has expired, so the government is stymied.
THIS CASE IS OVER !!!!!!
There is no case. The indictment is invalid. That’s the whole problem. One of many.
Based on what, George/X? Put it in your own words. We will be able to trace you lifting or copycatting from your INternet searches.
^ X says: November 19, 2025 at 8:00 PM ^
“There is no case. The indictment is invalid. That’s the whole problem. One of many.”
What happens if Bondi’s prosecution of Comey falls completely flat?
Well, just as today’s Public Outcry to release the Epstein Files, and the President signing the measure.
Senator Grassley’s Committee holds the Comey’s Burn Bags. Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) needs only to bring forth a Bill to “Release the Burn Bags”, a Public Outcry needs to swell (MAGA), and the GOP get behind it. (Trump will definitely sign the Bill – no question about that).
This does several things: It patches things up between MTG and Trump, it puts the focus upon the prior Investigations, the Bag’s contents provides hours & hours of Media Attention, and the timing is right before the Mid-Terms. The Dems will fight like hell to keep the Bags in the closet. Ironic as it is.
Checkmate Dems.
Does the 92 year old Chair of the Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley and the 53 year old Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform James Comer have the balls to do it? They are both sitting upon a preponderance of evidence. Marjorie Taylor Greene obviously does.
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
The 1969 case that is on point that is cited here, ultimately resulted in law in 1989 allowing DOJ to reindict for 6 months after the end of the SOL.
I would love to here you explain what the difference between an invalid and a defective indictiment is.
Further NEITHER label would matter.
This is over ONLY if there is no indictment at all.
If the GJ either voted “no true bill” or did not vote on ANYTHING at all.
If the GJ voted to indict – in any form then the SOL is tolled and DOJ can correct by reindicting.
LOL⬆ Keep on dreaming, because the TDS can only survive in your dreams. It may not have been a wise decision to INDICT Comey, but the (many times laughably) low standard of Probable Cause has certainly been met… A US Attorney can indict a ham sandwich if they want to. Comey most definitely qualifies under that standard.
There is nothing wrong with the decison to indict Comey.
The only issue is expecting that this judge and a EDVA jury will convict.
There will be no conviction. The case was flawed before it even got to the grand jury. The case will be dismissed or collapse from Halligan’s incompetence or Halligan being unlawfully appointed.
I agree there will be no conviction, but the only flaw in the case is that Comey drew a favorably biased judge and will inevtiably get a biased jury in EDVA.
As to the rest – I have no idea if Haligan is competent – nor do you.
I do KNOW that you have accused everyone affilliated with Trump of being incompetent and they are having you for breakfast.
Trump has an enviable 95% record at SCOTUS right now and 24 straight wins.
That is unheard of.
The Solicitor General was involved in the James case and another of those you called incompetent.
Trump’s lawyers from the Bragg and Carrol Cases are in the DOJ now and scoring wins all over.
They have a poor record ONLY with Biased left wingnut judges in lower courts in deep Blue districts – and even there they win 50% of the time on direct appeal and almost always at SCOTUS
Will Comey win with this judge right now ? Probably.
Is this case dead ? not even close.
Your posts would be far more compelling if you were really and truly debating the law.
But you are not.
One of the major problems with most of the left wing nut posters here is that you do not care about the law.
you do not care about the constitution, you do not care about the rule of law, you do not care about perjury or leaking classified information.
All you care about is does “your side” win.
And “your side” is anyone who hates Trump.
Comey lied under oath. There is absolutely zero doubt about that.
Yet you were one of the idiots argueing that the corrupt AUSA that was fired for blocking this indictment actually did so for lack of evidence. He lied under oath before congress on TV with millions of people watching. There are MILLIONS of witnesses.
There is a very real Statute of limitations issue in this case.
And a small chance Comey will get off because of that.
But that does not change one iota the fact that he is guilty as sin.
There are severall others here noting myriads of other crimes that do nott have SOL problems that Comey could be prosecuted for.
I am not sure of the strength of THOSE cases.
I have very little doubt Comey committed LOTS of fellonies.
The only question is do we have enough evidence for any of those that is not barred by the SOL to convict Comey before a biased jury.
Very few of us beleive Comey will be convicted of any of the meany crimes he has committed.
But we DO expect him to be tried at the very least.
No this is not over.
And the fact that you actually think it is and are cheering that is revolting.
While we should uphold the letter of the law – even if that means that Comey walks free.
It is repugnant to celebrate when the guilty go free.
But all you care about is anything that appears to weaken Trump.
You do not care about the rule of law, or the constitution or justice.
OOPS
___________________
Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick–appointed by partisan DC-area Democrat judges in 2022–is going out of his way to carry water for James Comey.
Fitzpatrick–through his highly irregular ruling–is grasping at straws to make his findings that Lindsey Halligan (somehow) did something wrong.
She did not.
Fitzpatrick is even pretending there is missing evidence.
Is there any basis for his conspiracy theory?
They know the evidence against Comey is damning.
Dustoff
As usual, no proof, no links.
Just making stuff up.
Just lying as usual.
ATS – most of us are aware of the damning evidence against Comey,
There is no doubt of Comey’s guilt – nearly all the evidence is Comey’s own words and conduct often in public.
But for the possibility of jury nullification Comey would be screwed.
As to the claims regarding the GJ.
A grand Jury is not a criminal trial. It is an investigative told that he constitution requires for a federal criminal prosecution.
There are some constitutional constraints on a GJ – but they are very small compared to a criminal trial.
Further GJ proceedings are secret.
All that is occuring here is the judge is trying to give Comey th oportunity to retry the DJ indictment as if it was a criminal trial. That is not in the power of the judge, and Comey gets the oportunity to challenge all the GJ evidence that is used during the trial.
Further even if by some miracle the judge is upheld on apeal – DOJ has 6 months to re-indict.
Speaker of the House response to the Judge you moron.
Saw it too Dusty
Do YOU ever provide links?
Nope. I try to always post them, but sometimes you can’t.
Those who establish;ish a track record of credibility do not owe others proof of the claims they made.
Those who are constantly caught lying, owe everyone proof of even the smallest assertion.
X the indictment is real.
You and aparently Fitzgerald are clueless about the indictment process.
First a different judge suprevises the Grand Jury – all these issues should have been raised with that judge.
2nd with very few exceptions nothing about a grand jury is reviewable or appealable.
Why ? Because any errors in the grand jury process can be corrected at trial.
Trump attacked the completely corrupt GJ process used by Smith and Willis and others and got nowhere.
There were myriads of instances of improper conduct by prosecutors in those GJs – far more than is alleged here.
Trump got nowhere.
Why ? Because each and every one of those claims WILL be addressed as part of the trial.
It the GJ did not get all the evidence – the defense and judge will assure the petite jury does.
The judge is way ahead of his skis. While he is perfectly within his jurisdiction to dictate the application fo the law and the admissibility of evidence at trial – and his trial decisions are apealable.
There is very little he can do about the Grand Jury.
But lets just say that this judge prevails. And the Indictment is thrown out. And even Halligan is tossed.
By law DOJ now has 6 months to reindict.
This is just Comey and his legal team subjecting himself to chinese water torture.
This will be a long drawn out process. Ultimately I expect Comey to avoid conviction – even though he has committed multiple crimes, because he has a biased judge that has already shown he will not follow the law, and will with near certainty get a biased jury.
But that is OK – the actual case against Comey will be adjudicated not by a Judge and Jury in VAn but by the public – and Comey has already lost.
St. James has already been exposed as asanctimonious hypocrit.
I
We have seen a few recent prosecutors face charges.
James and shortly likely Fanni Wilson.
Both for bad conduct entirely unrelated to their actions as prosecutors.
Expectations that there will be charges against Halligan and Bondi are complete idiocy.
DOJ would have to bring those charges. The judiciary does NOT have the power to initiate a prosecution.
We divide the legal process between adjudication and prosecution deliberately. Mostly to protect peoples rights.
But that works both ways.
This is incredibiliy important and it is precisely what is wrong with Brazil right now, and it is what is wrong with most left wing nut countries where the separation between the judiciary and the executive has disintegrated.
You never ever ever want unchecked power in hands of prosecutors, cheif executives or judges. Or the legislature.
Trump like all presidents has taken a broad view to his powers as president.
He has been challenged at every effort to excercise that power – and those challenges are all proper.
There has been serious error by the courts in improperly adjudicating those cases, and by the courts in presuming they have executive power. There is a giant gulf between
What YOU chose to do is either unlawful or unconstitutional, and
A judge gets to decide what the executive must do.
Regardless Trump has been improperly thwarted by left wing judges at lower levels. That is WRONG,
and these actions have been so bad there should be a price. But the system is still working.
Trump has followed the judges orders – even the bad ones. He has appealed,
He has won in about 50% of these cases in lower level appeals courts. and of those cases that make it to SCOTUS he has 24 straight wins and about a 95% win rate – with a large number of 9-0 decisions.
That is our system working.
Trump will lose some cases. It appears he may lose the IEEPA tariff case – though if you are expecting that wll end Trump’s tariff’s you are a fool. IEEPA is the broadest Tariff authority Trump is claiming, but it is just one of half a dozen laws that have enabled the president to impose Tariff’s
SCOTUS likely will narrw Trump’s use o IEEPA, but that will not end all Trump tariffs.
Trump will with near certainty lose the birth right citizenship case. While Trump has a strong legal and constitutional argument that Citizenship is not automatic for the children fo illegal immigrants born in the US, there is no law or constitutional delegation of the power to decide that to the president.
If the 14th amendment is not a clear absolute grant of citizenship, the power to further define it rests with congress not the president.
Those are the two big losses Trump can expect.
There was never Comey Indictment. Trumps DOJ lied to the grand jury AND the judge.
BBBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TRUMPPP!!!! Brought to us by the police state fascist who gloats every time he remembers that Obama’s Attorney Generals and FBI Directors repeatedly perjured themselves on Obama’s orders to Judge Boasberg’s FISA courts. George X’s definition of what is a lie is a complete opposite of what that word means to normal Americans.
The overwhelming singular failure of the American republic rights and freedoms experiment has been voters allowing the continued existence of the vile and violent, seditious DNC and their equally vile members like GeorgeX.
Incoherent sicko here!
Scroll over to protect and retain sanity.
Poor Old Rosie. Being a woman means that you already have a good chance of being mentally screwed up, and being a Lesbian only increases the odds. Lesbians don’t get to go home to a person who is more centered and mentally stable, i.e. a male. Nope, Lesbians have to go home and be around another crazy woman. No wonder Rosie lives in lala land. I wonder if the Insanity Defense applies to defamation actions???
Floyd says:
“Being a woman means that you already have a good chance of being mentally screwed up”
So you are not only an admitted racist, you are now an admitted misogynist.
Sounds like you prefer the company of men.
Is there something that you are not telling us about your preference for men ????????????????????
Ano
admitted racist,
____________________
Where did he say that?
Sounds like Floyd has lived long enough to know what he’s talking about. I bet he’s got three ex- wives, all bipolar!
Two ex-wives, and a lot of other crazy women I have known. The Ancient Greeks were right. Women are irrational.
And just imagine, America allows them to vote.
Of course, the Founders didn’t
With good, nay, irrefutable reason.
Then, as I am exiting the above comment, this old comment of mine pops up out of nowhere. As then, I am currently in agony, from a fall, and a twisted knee, last Satiddy Night.
Like Richard Harris, in A Man Called Horse, I am having pain-induced visions. My Spirit traveled to some weird dimension, where a Medicine Man, sitting inside a wickiup, imparted the following Shamanic Knowledge to me:
The Girls In Boise
(Given as Wisdom to Floyd)
The Girls in Boise
Are very noisy,
Or so I’ve been led to believe.
They fart sonic booms,
And their moans from bedrooms,
Are much louder than you can conceive!
As for multiple “O’s”-
You don’t want to hear those –
Think hundreds of Banshees in tutti!
The sonic vibrations,
Can crumble foundations,
Sooo, prepare before doing your “Duty”!!!
[Note: I returned to this Astral Plane, and like Coleridge, with Xanadu, I immediately began writing down this Wisdom Poem, and fortunately, there was no “Person on business from Porlock” to derail my Memory. I had to look up the word “tutti”, and discovered that it was a musical term meaning “in unison”, or, “with all voices or instruments together.” This is how I know that this was a True Vision, and not just a Dream, because I never knew what “tutti” meant, until now. No shame in that. . . 🙂 ]
Also, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_poetry:
Reminds me Floyd:
There once was a girl from Nantuckett…🤣
Speaking of limericks, have you ever heard of Gershon Legman? I need to tell Limerick Girl about him the next time she shows up.
She carried her wine in a bucket.
So have you stopped beating your wife?
Dear Prof Turley,
Not sure any defamation suit against Rosie is going to be ‘golden’. That would be akin to suing the BBC for $5 billion. .. good money after bad.
Not sure what has been ‘adjudicated’ in the E. Jean Carrol case, but it’s a matter of public record Trump is a famous ‘pu**y grabber’. .. and proud of it!
*note. off the record, his old legal fixer once said Trump would sleep with a female rattlesnake if he held her head. .. and I believe it!
We do know Trump has been referenced 1,630 times, so far, in the recent Epstein file disclosures. A record. Like nothing you’ve ever seen before!
For example, it was disclosed Putin may have photos of ‘Trump blowing Bubba’. .. which is a clear and present national security threat, any way you cut it!
In fact, the disclosures, so far, are so disturbing Trump has directed the AG to personally investigate this Democrat lunatics’ Hoax.
Which begs the question; If all the Democrats and all the Republicans (aka congress) and, now, Trump want all the Epstein files released .. . what’s the hold up?
Ostensibly, the ‘files have been sitting’ on AG Bondi’s desk since March?
*”What has become us”?
Something much more interesting, Leading fundraising group for Democrats solicited Epstein years after he pleaded guilty in Florida
“The revelation follows other documents that point to Democrats continuing to interact with Epstein post-conviction, raising uncomfortable questions for the party keen to pin the disgraced financier on Trump.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/leading-dems-fundraisers-solicited-jeffrey-epstein-years-after-he
I’m not surprised. .. for the most part, the Democrats are essentially worthless hypocrites.
*still, nothing the Democrats could possibly do would be anywhere near as interesting as ‘Trump blowing Bubba’!?
Of course it could. But far more importantly – evidence matters more than the hyperbolic rfhetoric of a massive pedo facing very serious criminal prosecution.
Do you think if Epstain had demaning evidence against Trump he whould have been investigated and prosected by Trump’s DOJ ?
Do you think that if the biden DOJ had damning evidence against Trump from Epstain files they would not have released it ?
Contra the aphorism – when everyone on the planet is looking for damning evidence and does not find it.
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Trump is the most deeply investigated person in history.
And you have come up with nothing beyond insults from people who hatred him.
That is not evidence.
Something much more interesting, BBC Newsnight also doctored Trump speech
“Spliced footage of the speech, which aired in an episode in 2022, made it appear that Mr Trump was encouraging his supporters to riot.
The edit was similar to a version aired in a Panorama documentary broadcast last year.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/13/bbc-doctored-trump-speech-second-time-newsnight/
Dg
*”What has become of You,
dgsnowden – Trump has alrfeady secured multimilliondollar settlements in half a dozen defamation cases.
He hascollected 50% more money that he will ha ve to pay EJC – if her verdict is upheld.
Trump can easily pay litigation fees from what he has collected in settlements.
If Trump sues ODonnell – she will lose, the only question is how much.
There is not going to be a $5B verdict against the BBC.
Thjere will be a multimillion dollar settlement – though the amount does not matter.
What matters is that a small settlement now means if there is a NEXT TIME – there WILL be a $5B verdict.
The point of all of this is no to win big verdicts it is to scare a reckless media into sticking to truthful reporting.
We have a decade of left wing nut journalists who think truth does not matter in journalism.
Trump is seeking to get the owners of media companies to educate them – Truth matters a great deal if you wish to keep your job.
Trump is succeeding at that and actually making money in the process.
“it’s a matter of public record Trump is a famous ‘pu**y grabber’. .. and proud of it!”
All that is public records is some remarks – not acts.
“*note. off the record, his old legal fixer once said Trump would sleep with a female rattlesnake if he held her head. .. and I believe it!”
And off the record hearsay by some unknown person witgh no foundation for knowlege is meaningful how ?
“We do know Trump has been referenced 1,630 times, so far, in the recent Epstein file disclosures.”
No – we know that YOU claim that.
How many left wing nut claims have proven true ?
Can you cite a single epstien public disclosure that constitutes actual EVIDENCE of bad conduct ?
Trump was mentioned atleast a dozen times in Epsteins texts to Democrat Stacy Plaskett
That was damaging to Plaskett not Trump.
Can you put Trump on the lotita express ? On Epstein Island ?
Do you have any Epstein reference that is evidence of anything beyomnd that Trump and Epstein were aquantancesm and that they eventually had a falling out ?
“For example, it was disclosed Putin may have photos of ‘Trump blowing Bubba’. .. which is a clear and present national security threat, any way you cut it!”
ROFL – still shilling collusion delusion nonsense. ‘
I quess you are still beleive there is a pee tape ?
“Which begs the question; If all the Democrats and all the Republicans (aka congress) and, now, Trump want all the Epstein files released .. . what’s the hold up?”
The hold up is the law and the constitution. Prosecutors speak through trials.
Investigative material requarding private individuals – especiallu GJ material is difficultto impossible to make public.
Two democrat jurges have already thwarted the release of DOJ documents.
“Ostensibly, the ‘files have been sitting’ on AG Bondi’s desk since March?”
Likely so. The two court orders by democrat judges are still binding.
What has come out thus far is material subpeonad fromt he epstein estate.
That has been far more damning to democrats than Trump.
It has burried Mr. Bill even deeper. It has touched on Obama and even Biden and myriads of democrat legislators.
You can release as much epstein material as you wish – so long as you can acquire it independently of a criminal investigation.
That is why the current attempt to run this through Congress. Which my understanding is failed in the Senate.
A big concern of Trump’s is that he is somehow not getting enough tartar sauce on his McDonald’s Filet-o-fish sandwich. At the McDonald’s restaurant summit he railed at the C-suite occupants who manage the company.
Call me surprised, because there is no chance Trump stands in line at a McDonald’s and waits 5 minutes for the order of fries to get ready and then is stiffed on an insufficient amount of tartar sauce.
It seems more like he cannot manage to find a decent staffer to make the McDonald’s run and get the amount of tartar sauce the Circus Peanut wants.
Frankly, if Trump cannot manage a fast-food order supply chain I have doubts about his ability to manage much more. He has already complained about his inability to operate a toilet and is unable to cope with the amount of water in a shower. Maybe he doesn’t have to figure out solutions to these pressing problems, but he’s unable to hire decent help and that is cause for concern.
ATS
You are correct – Presidents do not wait at line at McDonalds.
It is unlikely they are allowed to wait in line – even if they wanted to.
As to comments regarding supply chain management – Trump does not manage the McDonalds supply chain.
You are free to doubt what ever you want.
But there are billions of reasons to beleive Trump is a competent manager.
I know that you left wing nuts beleive that success is purely a matter of luck, but the fact is a tiny portion of people get lucky ONCE,
and most of those subsequently blow it. No one succeeds as many times as Trump without being incredibly skilled.
The left fixates on Trump’s failures – some real, most imagined.
Almost no successful person has never failed.
it’s a matter of public record Trump is a famous ‘pu**y grabber’.
An actual matter of public record is that dgsnowden is an inveterate liar, whether the cause is to much day drinking or plain old dementia we can’t really say.
If every male in America who said something similar to what Trump said to one of their acquaintances in college, a sports locker room, a pub, etc were taken into custody this very moment – pretty much all the women in America with a boyfriend or wife would be eating alone tonight.
And meanwhile, in our litigation crazy America full of slip and fall tort lawyers, if Trump was actually doing what dgsnowden lies to claim that he is famous for, Trump would have needed a scheduling secretary to keep track of how many tiimes each week he had to show up to respond to a woman suing him for sexual assault. There would be dozens of E. Jean Carrols happy to settle their lawsuit for just a couple of million dollars, just to go away.
*maybe channeling his own fantasies to Trump and his wives is what leads dgsnowden to his erotic fantasies about Trump.
Trump wasn’t talking to an acquaintance, he was talking to a reporter.
I hope he sues the hell out of her.