Let me guess straight from the top ten dnc playbook, there is going to be some attorney client privilege claimed here.

JFABNRGR said:

---

Let me guess straight from the top ten dnc playbook, there is going to be some attorney client privilege claimed here.

---

Desperate people file stupid crap.

But president Trump was not afforded the same. Again showing the biased of the activist judiciary.

LAWFARE: Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff rejected the DOJ’s proposal that disgraced former FBI Director James Comey review classified documents only in the presence of his lawyers. The Biden judge ruled that despite being stripped of his security clearance the government was required… pic.twitter.com/toikWu4u6c

— @amuse (@amuse) October 15, 2025

HTownAg98 said:

---

Lol no.

---

Correct. Drone strikes do not require trial. Ask Obama.

JFABNRGR said:

---

Let me guess straight from the top ten dnc playbook, there is going to be some attorney client privilege claimed here.

---

Hmm. Is Comey's lawyer, Pat Fitzgerald, actually one of Comey's co-conspirators? He was involved back when Comey was writing those memos containing classified material? Is that why Fitzgerald is pushing so hard for quick discovery?

Short eleven minute video from Gouveia.

JFABNRGR said:

---

Let me guess straight from the top ten dnc playbook, there is going to be some attorney client privilege claimed here.

---

Just like Hillary did with her Chief of Staff or whoever that broad was.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

Let me guess straight from the top ten dnc playbook, there is going to be some attorney client privilege claimed here.

---

Just like Hillary did with her Chief of Staff or whoever that broad was.

---

And the FBI allowed her to sit in on Hillary's "interview" too. And she was a witness to boot! Cheryl Mills was her name, IIRC.

The judge presiding over the Comey criminal case just approved Comey's request to file a large motion to dismiss based on selective and vindictive prosecution.

Comey also has added some new heavy hitters to his defense team:

Rebekah Donaleski, a former unit chief at SDNY.… pic.twitter.com/BQoIw80fx4

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) October 17, 2025

will25u said:

---

The judge presiding over the Comey criminal case just approved Comey's request to file a large motion to dismiss based on selective and vindictive prosecution.

Comey also has added some new heavy hitters to his defense team:

Rebekah Donaleski, a former unit chief at SDNY.… pic.twitter.com/BQoIw80fx4

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) October 17, 2025

---

Gotta love the people who went after Trump complaining about selective/vindictive prosecution.

Mollie @MZHemingway has a great article from a few years ago detailing just what a dirty schemer Dreeben is:https://t.co/G09zq1S4R6

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) October 19, 2025

Dreeben? Large part of the Mueller in-court team?

LOL! He sucked at oral arguments!

NEW: Last night, acting US Attorney Lindsey Halligan filed another motion asking the judge for a "filter team" to handle potentially privileged material in the case against James Comey. This appears to represent the basis for seeking to disqualify Patrick Fitzgerald, one of… pic.twitter.com/cwqszEmiec

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) October 20, 2025

While these memos are not directly part of the indictment, the internal investigation into Comey and the IG's findings certainly represent Comey's pattern of leaking classified information--the IG determined later that portions of some of the memos contained sensitive information… pic.twitter.com/A075Ho6SlC

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) October 20, 2025

Not that great of a schemer. Trump is POTUS

aggiehawg said:

---

Dreeben? Large part of the Mueller in-court team?

LOL! He sucked at oral arguments!

---

He also sucked at "getting Trump"

captkirk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Dreeben? Large part of the Mueller in-court team?

LOL! He sucked at oral arguments!

---

He also sucked at "getting Trump"

---

IIRC, Dreeben was primarily an appellate attorney, not a trial attorney. So he was not very good in a trial court.

JUST IN: Comey moves to dismiss the indictment against him for vindictive/selective prosecution, arguing that the prosecution stems directly form Trump's overt personal animus toward him and calls to put him in prison. https://t.co/NcRzFfUnFs pic.twitter.com/1UeLEK2Vja

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) October 20, 2025

Sources tell me the prosecutors—Elizabeth Yusi and Kristin Bird—were fired, escorted from the building, and stripped of security clearances for leaking info on sensitive investigative matters to MSNBC and Fusion Ken in particular https://t.co/SgoPSBN5fv

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) October 17, 2025

JUST IN: Incremental win for Comey as judge rejects prosecutors' bid to speed up filter team protocol in Comey case, suggests prosecution could've moved sooner to prepare/speed case. Doc: https://t.co/w6qvtkA6hT Earlier: https://t.co/qJ8rmnuQ82

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) October 20, 2025

James Comey's 2nd motion to dismiss his criminal case, questions the legitimacy of the appointment of acting US Attorney Lindsey Halligan

===> https://t.co/n2jNNsptoT

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) October 21, 2025

James Comey is above the law. Just ask him.

I hope Comey spends his entire pension trying to defend himself…

I think we all know how this will go:

JUST IN: Judge Cameron Currie, a Clinton appointee, will decide whether Lindsey Halligan is disqualified as interim U.S. attorney, following a motion brought by James Comey. https://t.co/V5G24T0BcM pic.twitter.com/yFLCSlgyaP

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) October 21, 2025

Circuit courts, then maybe SCOTUS will have final say

So if I follow, Trump nominated but her nomination did not proceed. So when her 120 days were about up or up, trump nominates or appoints another, and the courts are saying no it is their decision to appoint after 120 days.

One is not following the law, the other would seem inconsistent with the POTUS authority to nominate judges.

Seems to me the Senates "blue card" veto process is inconsistent with the appointments clause? Or is it consistent with their powers to determine their own rules? And in turn consistent with their advice and consent?

If this goes against Trump, I think Thune does (and should) change the rules. Same time end the filibuster. The Dems are doing it anyways along with Supreme Court packing.

Quote:

---

So if I follow, Trump nominated but her nomination did not proceed. So when her 120 days were about up or up, trump nominates or appoints another, and the courts are saying no it is their decision to appoint after 120 days.

---

Not what happened.

She was nominated in September. The 120 day limit deals with Erik Siebert

Blue slips are not the issue with her as relates to Comey

There is no way Comey is tried in January. Not for what is turning out to be a CIPA case. CIPA cases are very heavy on pre-trial proceedings. Not with Comey's counsel flinging poo against the wall to see what sticks.

I think it's dismissed on the appointment issue. Then appeals, then only questions are how long that takes and who is president Jan 20 2029.

I see. Read Comeys motion. It is even weaker than I thought.

They are trying to say you only get one interim appointment per (well it's undefined) and that the 120 day clock accumulates across any interim nominee. So if interim A is appointed and they are hit by a bus at day 119, POTUS can only appoint another interim for 1 day, then times up and the courts chooses until the Senate confirms.

That's weak. And here the interim was re-upped by the court and served another nearly 120 days before resigning. Team Comey is saying the 120 day interim cannot be used again to fill a vacancy?

And there principle argument is that it COULD be abused to circumvent the appointments clause, with nothing but innuendo and hurt feelings to support that is what was done here? Again, very weak.

Why not just ask Comey who he thinks is best for the role and let him appoint another interim? Cause that is essentially what they want.

Common sense tells you Team Trump is in the right here. And NONE of it has to do with the merits of the case. Anyone supporting Comeys motion is unamerican. Plain and simple.

Edit to add: Gipper I am cool with you pointing out anything I may have not captured correctly, but I am trying to boil down to non lawyer simplicity. Lawyers have a tendency to die on the placement of a comma to dismiss a case. Thats not justice to normal people.

I don't really give a flying **** what guy are cool with. You were wrong about an essential fact of the case and I pointed that out.

No one here is an expert on this area of the law. No clue how it'd turns out. Will be fun to watch!

Im Gipper said:

---

I don't really give a flying **** what guy are cool with. You were wrong about an essential fact of the case and I pointed that out.

No one here is an expert on this area of the law. No clue how it'd turns out. Will be fun to watch!

---

Such a pleasant response.

I do appreciate you recognizing the limit of your expertise on the subject. It's quite unusual.

Im Gipper said:

---

I think it's dismissed on the appointment issue. Then appeals, then only questions are how long that takes and who is president Jan 20 2029.

---

IANAL...But...

I don't think it is constitutionally valid for the Article I part of the government to tell the Article II part of the government that if they don't meet certain criteria, then the Article III part of the government gets to appoint Article II employees...

flown-the-coop said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

I don't really give a flying **** what guy are cool with. You were wrong about an essential fact of the case and I pointed that out.

No one here is an expert on this area of the law. No clue how it'd turns out. Will be fun to watch!

---

Such a pleasant response.

I do appreciate you recognizing the limit of your expertise on the subject. It's quite unusual.

---

Dear, that's a bit harsh. Grey area, bad federal judiciary that includes SCOTUS on occasion.

Ag with kids said:

---

IANAL...But...

I don't think it is constitutionally valid for the Article I part of the government to tell the Article II part of the government that if they don't meet certain criteria, then the Article III part of the government gets to appoint Article II employees...

---

For interior officers, it's specifically contemplated:

Quote:

---

but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

---

The questions here deal with when they are multiple appointments to a position. How does that affect the 120 days? There's a food summary from Turley:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Comey is reportedly planning three threshold challenges to block his prosecution: vindicative prosecution, selective prosecution, and an unlawful appointment. I wanted to briefly address these claims, including the one that has the most credibility.https://t.co/vQZRtPggyL

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) October 9, 2025

I'm not an attorney but I think I've seen selective, vindictive prosecutions proceed.

To me, its a weak argument for a due process violation. If you did the crime, you should expect punishment.

That someone else got away with it or the prosecutors don't like you should be of no import IMO.

I agree with that take.

Can the AG as in Bondi not take over the prosecution? So why cannot Pam just defile the charges if the judge thinks homechick was not properly appointed?

I am sure there is some legal technicality. If there is, should there be?

To your point, process crimes should be cut and dry. Either he lied or he didn't. And was he accused of lying and indicted by a grand jury before the SoL ran out? If so, then it proceeds.

We need to get back to what our judicial system is based on and not tossing important cases on BS technicalities.