ITEAggies459 said:

---

Gonna be hard to convict him in that district, but hopefully he goes broke trying to defend himself…

---

You think Comey is paying foe a defense? He's not.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I think at some point Comey flips. They are all guilty as sin, first one to flip gets the best deal, particularly since Comey is at the center of most all of it.

With folks like Pritzker championing for removal of immunity for federal law enforcement officer, even more reason for Trump DOJ to ruin these guys before 2028 gets here.

Comey should be housed at Gitmo whilst awaiting trial. For his own safety of course. Give him a pink jumpsuit, a tutu, makeup and Taylor swift tapes and he'll be at his on Ritz @ Gitz.

---

That's cute. This lawless junta is an embarrassment. Comey is not cutting deal.

THE ORDER THOUGH pic.twitter.com/jvBXzjmkDh

— President Dr RollerGator MVIP PhD (@drrollergator) October 14, 2025

As expected:

James Comey formally notifies the court of his intent to try to disqualify Trump’s lawyer Lindsey Halligan as unlawfully appointed.

The motion cites rulings DQ-ing two other Trump top prosecutors: Sigal Chattah and Alina Habba. pic.twitter.com/YcZebMHhXJ

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) October 14, 2025

Im Gipper said:

---

As expected:

James Comey formally notifies the court of his intent to try to disqualify Trump’s lawyer Lindsey Halligan as unlawfully appointed.

The motion cites rulings DQ-ing two other Trump top prosecutors: Sigal Chattah and Alina Habba. pic.twitter.com/YcZebMHhXJ

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) October 14, 2025

---

Since the grand jury already indicted, seems sort of moot whether the USA was lawfully appointed.

There should be no technical dismissals of this high crime. A jury of his peers deemed him deserving of the indictment. That is all that SHOULD matter.

People should be more and more outraged when justice is denied because some other court makes a political decision.

Trump should declare Comey and clear and present danger to the US and drone strike his ass. Obama showed it was perfectly acceptable to drone a US citizen.

Quote:

---

Since the grand jury already indicted, seems sort of moot whether the USA was lawfully appointed.

---

If she was unlawfully appointed, everything she did goes away.

blacksox said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I think at some point Comey flips. They are all guilty as sin, first one to flip gets the best deal, particularly since Comey is at the center of most all of it.

With folks like Pritzker championing for removal of immunity for federal law enforcement officer, even more reason for Trump DOJ to ruin these guys before 2028 gets here.

Comey should be housed at Gitmo whilst awaiting trial. For his own safety of course. Give him a pink jumpsuit, a tutu, makeup and Taylor swift tapes and he'll be at his on Ritz @ Gitz.

---

That's cute. This lawless junta is an embarrassment. Comey is not cutting deal.

---

Its not cute at all. The lawless junta describes the Dems and what they did in 2020 and tried again in 2024. You may want to look at what a junta is.

Comey is going to prison. Along with a lot of other Dems. Your team started this, Trump will finish it.

I for one would start to be careful about challenging the Trump admin. We are playing for keeps. Keeps of the future of this Country to be a "government of the people, by the people, for the people". Not some globalist cabal made up of coastal elitists and foreign bad actors.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Since the grand jury already indicted, seems sort of moot whether the USA was lawfully appointed.

---

If she was unlawfully appointed, everything she did goes away.

---

No I get it. I am saying that its wrong. Badly decided precedent. As are most technical dismissals. Particularly as we have complicated justice to introduce millions of technical faults. Its a wonder anyone gets convicted.

Much as you could find some sort of procedure crime on most people, you can also almost always find some technicality for dismissal, with the judge serving as umpire... a politically appointed and politically motivated umpire.

But something tells me Team Trump already anticipated this motion and is prepared to defend the appointment. So Comey's pot of warm water will remain on the stove.

They've got two other similar cases they're dealing with on this particular issue. If they don't know how to defend it by now…

flown-the-coop said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Since the grand jury already indicted, seems sort of moot whether the USA was lawfully appointed.

---

If she was unlawfully appointed, everything she did goes away.

---

No I get it. I am saying that its wrong. Badly decided precedent. As are most technical dismissals. Particularly as we have complicated justice to introduce millions of technical faults. Its a wonder anyone gets convicted.

Much as you could find some sort of procedure crime on most people, you can also almost always find some technicality for dismissal, with the judge serving as umpire... a politically appointed and politically motivated umpire.

But something tells me Team Trump already anticipated this motion and is prepared to defend the appointment. So Comey's pot of warm water will remain on the stove.

---

Half of the Bill of Rights have to do with protecting the rights of the accused. It's called an adversarial system for a reason; getting a conviction is not supposed to be easy.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Half of the Bill of Rights have to do with protecting the rights of the accused. It's called an adversarial system for a reason; getting a conviction is not supposed to be easy.

---

It is also not supposed to be impossible, nor political.

Disagreement on Trump working around a corrupt process should not invalidate the decision by a jury of Comey's peers to indict.

There is a difference between a technical issue vs a issue of misconduct in the prosecutors office.

Sorry, but Comey is going to prison.

blacksox said:

---

That's cute. This lawless junta is an embarrassment. Comey is not cutting deal.

---

Pritzker and Brandon Johnson? They are embarrassing, for sure. Hopefully, they become victims of the criminals they're enabling.

Im Gipper said:

---

As expected:

James Comey formally notifies the court of his intent to try to disqualify Trump’s lawyer Lindsey Halligan as unlawfully appointed.

The motion cites rulings DQ-ing two other Trump top prosecutors: Sigal Chattah and Alina Habba. pic.twitter.com/YcZebMHhXJ

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) October 14, 2025

---

Fine. Replace her if necessary.

Problem is, if this case is dismissed, the statute of limitations expired on these charges.

Further, if Comeys argument is correct, then the new appointment would be by the court, not Trump!

Im Gipper said:

---

Problem is, if this case is dismissed, the statute of limitations expired on these charges.

Further, if Comeys argument is correct, then the new appointment would be by the court, not Trump!

---

I read something today that if a case is dismissed and the statute of limitations has run, the government has six months to refile. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3288

HTownAg98 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Problem is, if this case is dismissed, the statute of limitations expired on these charges.

Further, if Comeys argument is correct, then the new appointment would be by the court, not Trump!

---

I read something today that if a case is dismissed and the statute of limitations has run, the government has six months to refile. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3288

---

This would seem to allow a re-indictment within 6 months after a dismissal due to unlawful appointment (assuming a validly appointed US Attorney gets an indictment within 6 months of a dismissal), although I'd bet that Comey's attorneys would argue that the unlawful appointment (as they argue it) should bar prosecution after dismissal due to the irregular way the previous US Attorney was removed.

If I were in their shoes, I'd argue that Trump fired the previous US Attorney because he wouldn't take the case to the grand jury 11 days prior to the SOL running out, then appointing the new one with 8 days to go. It's a novel argument, but Trump's truth social postings could make it a viable one, maybe.

Trump's postings are also going to be a problem in a vindictive prosecution case. Plus, as Gipper stated above, if Comey's argument is correct, then the District judges appoint the next attorney.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Judge says it's fine, but primarily because DOJ's request is overbroad. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26186186-comeyord101325pdf/

---

Luckily the judge's ruling is not overbroad....

jacketman03 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Problem is, if this case is dismissed, the statute of limitations expired on these charges.

Further, if Comeys argument is correct, then the new appointment would be by the court, not Trump!

---

I read something today that if a case is dismissed and the statute of limitations has run, the government has six months to refile. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3288

---

This would seem to allow a re-indictment within 6 months after a dismissal due to unlawful appointment (assuming a validly appointed US Attorney gets an indictment within 6 months of a dismissal), although I'd bet that Comey's attorneys would argue that the unlawful appointment (as they argue it) should bar prosecution after dismissal due to the irregular way the previous US Attorney was removed.

If I were in their shoes, I'd argue that Trump fired the previous US Attorney because he wouldn't take the case to the grand jury 11 days prior to the SOL running out, then appointing the new one with 8 days to go. It's a novel argument, but Trump's truth social postings could make it a viable one, maybe.

---

It's quite interesting how many "novel" approaches the left has taken in the past 10 years, all because they don't like Trump.

It's also quite sad how willing they are to bend the law just because they don't like him.

This one, while it would be a novel argument, that doesn't necessarily mean a bad or wrong one. Personally, I think the "can the government get a new indictment" question could go either way, especially since there doesn't appear to be any 4th Circuit case law right on point, but there are some analogous cases from the 2nd, 3rd, and 11th that seem to lean more towards letting the government get a new indictment, so I think that's the way the judge would likely go on that issue.

jacketman03 said:

---

This one, while it would be a novel argument, that doesn't necessarily mean a bad or wrong one. Personally, I think the "can the government get a new indictment" question could go either way, especially since there doesn't appear to be any 4th Circuit case law right on point, but there are some analogous cases from the 2nd, 3rd, and 11th that seem to lean more towards letting the government get a new indictment, so I think that's the way the judge would likely go on that issue.

---

Fair enough....

Please return the money I sent for tickets that were not provided.

Ksjcdj said:

---

Please return the money I sent for tickets that were not provided.

---

Story time.

I posted that I needed tickets to FL. They sent a DM that they had 4 tickets. I asked if I could pay for 1 and they would send 1. After that I would pay for the other 3. Sent the money he couldn't break tickets up at that point. Wanted more $. Sent multiple numbers (wife, daughter) when I asked for proof of tickets (should have asked earlier) he said his wife wouldn't let him send a screenshot. Now he said he will send refund next week if I give him time.

My fault for falling for it. There was activity on the account to I trusted the profile. If other people look for activity like I did they will see this. I will delete if I get a refund.

Ksjcdj said:

---

I posted that I needed tickets to FL. They sent a DM that they had 4 tickets. I asked if I could pay for 1 and they would send 1. After that I would pay for the other 3. Sent the money he couldn't break tickets up at that point. Wanted more $. Sent multiple numbers (wife, daughter) when I asked for proof of tickets (should have asked earlier) he said his wife wouldn't let him send a screenshot. Now he said he will send refund next week if I give him time.

My fault for falling for it. There was activity on the account to I trusted the profile. If other people look for activity like I did they will see this. I will delete if I get a refund.

---

That's not good.

Ksjcdj said:

---

I posted that I needed tickets to FL. They sent a DM that they had 4 tickets. I asked if I could pay for 1 and they would send 1. After that I would pay for the other 3. Sent the money he couldn't break tickets up at that point. Wanted more $. Sent multiple numbers (wife, daughter) when I asked for proof of tickets (should have asked earlier) he said his wife wouldn't let him send a screenshot. Now he said he will send refund next week if I give him time.

My fault for falling for it. There was activity on the account to I trusted the profile. If other people look for activity like I did they will see this. I will delete if I get a refund.

---

Wrong forum?

akm91 said:

---

Ksjcdj said:

---

I posted that I needed tickets to FL. They sent a DM that they had 4 tickets. I asked if I could pay for 1 and they would send 1. After that I would pay for the other 3. Sent the money he couldn't break tickets up at that point. Wanted more $. Sent multiple numbers (wife, daughter) when I asked for proof of tickets (should have asked earlier) he said his wife wouldn't let him send a screenshot. Now he said he will send refund next week if I give him time.

My fault for falling for it. There was activity on the account to I trusted the profile. If other people look for activity like I did they will see this. I will delete if I get a refund.

---

Wrong forum?

---

that poster is replying to every single post from the account that scammed them across all forums.

I don't mind it, call the bad guys out. The ticket exchange is just unquestionably laden with fraud and scammers. There are more bad guys than good on that forum. The scammers will post on random threads to get you to think they are legit, but it's all part of the scam. Same thing happened to me with some poster named KikiAggies859, but I could tell something was off and didn't bite.

oh no said:

---

akm91 said:

---

Ksjcdj said:

---

I posted that I needed tickets to FL. They sent a DM that they had 4 tickets. I asked if I could pay for 1 and they would send 1. After that I would pay for the other 3. Sent the money he couldn't break tickets up at that point. Wanted more $. Sent multiple numbers (wife, daughter) when I asked for proof of tickets (should have asked earlier) he said his wife wouldn't let him send a screenshot. Now he said he will send refund next week if I give him time.

My fault for falling for it. There was activity on the account to I trusted the profile. If other people look for activity like I did they will see this. I will delete if I get a refund.

---

Wrong forum?

---

that poster is replying to every single post from the account that scammed them across all forums.

---

So this person who got scammed that sent a significant amount of money to an anonymous sock account recently created only has the TA forum for a means of contacting the alleged scammer? That sounds more like self inflicted wound that is now cluttering up and derailing threads at the expense of everyone. What's the outcome? He gets another sock banned for his own lapse of judgment? Not even sure there's a criminal element to it.

If the Courts are corrupt, does the gameplan switch to military tribunals for more serious charges?

Lol no.

boulderaggie said:

---

If the Courts are corrupt, does the gameplan switch to military tribunals for more serious charges?

---

Unless there is martial law(yeah right), no.

BTW. I used to live in Coal Creek Canyon up CO72 on the way up to Nederland. Loved it up there!

That makes sense. Thx.

Nice! That's a beautiful area. We're fixing up a place just up Left Hand Canyon on the creek. Should be ready soon.

The Plot Thickens

2019 Justice Department watchdog concluded @Comey set a “dangerous example” when he shared personal memos documenting his private meetings with President Trump about the FBI's Russia Collusion probe.

According to the Inspector General Report, several memos… pic.twitter.com/IR7u4RyTjy

— Catherine Herridge (@C__Herridge) October 15, 2025

First hint: those were not personal notes of Comey's meetings with Trump. They were work related and not his personal property.

I also find it ironic that Comey unilaterally designated his buddy Richman as some type of FBI employee so he could in theory not being releasing confidential and classified information with him. Particularly given his arguments regarding improper appointments.