Quote:

---

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.

---

Annnd, so what if that happens? After all Congress can prevent that by taking up nominations or not. So when they don't act on nominations, that is their intent as well, no? So which time does Congress' intent matter and when does it not?

Same kind of Catch-22 we see in election laws all of the time, in my mind.

Makes more sense that the body failing to provide their advice and consent then waives that right.

The default result of the Legislature failing to perform their duties should not be that the Executive no longer has the right to appoint.

By logic and justice, Comey should lose. Though as you and others point out, the initial rulings may not reflect what is right.

Edited to attempt to clear up middle sentence.

aggiehawg said:

---

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 do love it when you explain this stuff to me like I was five. Cause I might as well be when it comes to this legal mumbo jumbo!

Old_Ag_91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

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 do love it when you explain this stuff to me like I was five. Cause I might as well be when it comes to this legal mumbo jumbo!

---

Cases under the Classified Information Procedures Act have to sort through what is admissible and not admissible at trial all in the pretrial proceedings because of the nature of the information. Need filter teams to review everything in a normal case and that takes time. Months and months of time.

Here, Comey was using Fitzgerald as his counsel so there is also the complication of attorney client privilege assertions that a filter team needs to go through. (Although I would argue that the privilege does not exist because Fitzgerald was knowingly participating in a crime.)

If Trump wanted to speed this up, he could declassify all the materials involved in the case, no?

I thought he declassed them on his way out in 2021 then Biden zipped them back up, or maybe there was just suggestion of that.

But could they not just remove that complication and move along?

flown-the-coop said:

---

If Trump wanted to speed this up, he could declassify all the materials involved in the case, no?

I thought he declassed them on his way out in 2021 then Biden zipped them back up, or maybe there was just suggestion of that.

But could they not just remove that complication and move along?

---

Doesn't work that way.

Why? Not being difficult, but why is this not an option?

Quote:

---

Annnd, so what if that happens?

---

In that situation, under the statute the Court would name the US Attorney.

OLC opinion:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.578930/gov.uscourts.njd.578930.61.1.pdf

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Annnd, so what if that happens?

---

In that situation, under the statute the Court would name the US Attorney.

OLC opinion:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.578930/gov.uscourts.njd.578930.61.1.pdf

---

But Bondi can always appoint her as a Special Counsel to prosecute Comey, no? Federal district court would have no say in that.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Annnd, so what if that happens?

---

In that situation, under the statute the Court would name the US Attorney.

OLC opinion:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.578930/gov.uscourts.njd.578930.61.1.pdf

---

Then what if trump fires that attorney?

I don't see why not, but don't know the details on that statute

I know I'm not a lawyer but this feels like someone who is trying every avenue to not have his actions called into question. It seems the law is only applicable to those of us of lower class or not of a particular "in crowd"… it smells like when Hillary had her personal email server and they destroyed it and got away Scott free. I mean I get a tail light out and before I can even get it fixed I'm paying for my "crime".

As a reminder:

Comey leaked memos to at least three attorneys: David Kelley, Patrick Fitzgerald, and Daniel Richman. Comey has claimed all three as his personal attorneys. Two of them—Kelley and Fitzgerald—are inappropriately representing Comey in his criminal case.

Why do I say… https://t.co/e1uQErU3Pu

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) October 20, 2025

Quote:

---

Comey leaked memos to at least three attorneys: David Kelley, Patrick Fitzgerald, and Daniel Richman. Comey has claimed all three as his personal attorneys. Two of themKelley and Fitzgeraldare inappropriately representing Comey in his criminal case.

Why do I say inappropriately? As recipients of illegal classified leaks from Comey, they are both witnesses to his behavior as well as co-conspirators, making them obvious prosecution witnesses.

Every attorney to who Comey leaked has to be disqualified from representing him because of the blatant conflict of interest at issue.

---

Here's an idea, indict the hell out of Fitzgerald and Kelley and offer Richman immunity to testify against all three.

ETA: More HERE Folks, this is Ethics 101 in law school. Lawyers can't have these types of blatant conflict of interests.

What's the hold up on the motion to disqualify him? (Rhetorical question). It's been a month since he made an appearance!

So why hasn't DOJ filed to disqualify them yet? Seems should be one of the first things they did.

IDK but kind of why I was leaning towards maybe an indictment of them is in the works? Remember Comey's attorneys pushing hard for more discovery to perhaps find out what their criminal exposure is?

I'm just a simple retired trial attorney. Getting into attorneys covering up for their client's crimes, in advance, is out of my bailiwick.

But I will give Comey this, it has worked for him using his lawyers in this manner since the W. Bush administration. So it has worked out for him thus far. But if his attorneys are indicted? Game over.

More firings coming?

More than 100 former top Justice Dept officials, including dozens of former prosecutors, file court brief opposing James Comey's prosecution:

"not the judgment of an impartial prosecutor, but rather an expression of retributive animus by the President"https://t.co/xZDbaYZd9r pic.twitter.com/6VQx1DryP7

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) October 27, 2025

NEW: New court filings in the James Comey perjury case confirm that "Person 3" in the indictment is Comey leak cutout Daniel Richman. "Person 1" is Hillary Clinton. The case was never about Andrew McCabe. NBC and rest of MSM got it wrong. And Fox analyst McCarthy parroted them.

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) October 28, 2025

Fox legal analyst Andrew McCarthy falsely assumed in his knee-jerk analysis dismissing James Comey perjury indictment as "deeply flawed" that the case centered on Andrew McCabe. But new court filings confirm it centers on Daniel Richman, who is "Person 3."https://t.co/N00dyz7z0F

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) October 27, 2025

"Former" would seem to indicate that theyre already gone…

For those of us not familiar enough with the legal system, what does it mean that the indictment is about Richman and not McCabe?

100 former Justice Department officials?

They can get dumped on the ash heap of history right next to the 50 former Intelligence Officials who pink sweared that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation

Its clear as day comey both shared classified info and lied to congress. Why does he get special treatment?

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Its clear as day comey both shared classified info and lied to congress. Why does he get special treatment?

---

probably because the security state bureaucracy is who is really in charge. It's why there's a uniparty. It's why a senile empty suit can be pushed and propped up as a figurehead front for four years.

AnScAggie said:

---

For those of us not familiar enough with the legal system, what does it mean that the indictment is about Richman and not McCabe?

---

Well, it means that the indictment cannot be based on his testimony from September 30, 2020. He was not questioned about Richman at that hearing, and all the questions Cruz asked were in reference to McCabe, so those questions cannot be the basis for an indictment that he lied on that day regarding Richman.

NEW: Bipartisan group of current & former members of Congress draft brief for court, arguing prosecutor was unlawfully appointed in the James Comey criminal case

"The law does not permit the executive branch to stack successive interim appointments...."

List of members ===> pic.twitter.com/1Fx5nHKOk2

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) October 28, 2025

Oh, look. A bunch of people who believe Comey's crimes should be covered up.

jacketman03 said:

---

AnScAggie said:

---

For those of us not familiar enough with the legal system, what does it mean that the indictment is about Richman and not McCabe?

---

Well, it means that the indictment cannot be based on his testimony from September 30, 2020. He was not questioned about Richman at that hearing, and all the questions Cruz asked were in reference to McCabe, so those questions cannot be the basis for an indictment that he lied on that day regarding Richman.

---

I don't believe this is entirely accurate. Comey told Cruz he stood by his 2017 testimony, which included a denial that he authorized "anybody" to leak to the press.

captkirk said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

AnScAggie said:

---

For those of us not familiar enough with the legal system, what does it mean that the indictment is about Richman and not McCabe?

---

Well, it means that the indictment cannot be based on his testimony from September 30, 2020. He was not questioned about Richman at that hearing, and all the questions Cruz asked were in reference to McCabe, so those questions cannot be the basis for an indictment that he lied on that day regarding Richman.

---

I don't believe this is accurate

---

Here's the testimony that is at the heart of the indictment. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/oversight-of-the-crossfire-hurricane-investigation-day-3

The indictment states that he authorized Person 3 to be an anonymous source in investigations re Person 1. Person 1 is Hillary Clinton, and Person 3 is Dan Richman. In the testimony, Cruz repeatedly asked about McCabe, and never asked about Richman. In fact, Richman was never mentioned by anybody in the entire hearing. So, if Person 3 is, in fact, Dan Richman, then I'm not sure how the testimony on September 30, 2020 could prove that, as that testimony was all about McCabe, not Richman.

Good thread below continues..

United States v. Comey

As expected, defense has filed in opposition to using a filter team for Arctic Haze evidence seized years ago from Daniel Richman, who was counsel to Comey at the time and is now Person 3 from the indictment.

Defense wants to first challenge the… https://t.co/jBjthUvV0C

— Just Human (@realjusthuman) October 28, 2025

A filter team is needed for a set of evidence that was seized per search warrant from one of Comey's attorneys as part of the Arctic Haze investigation.

You may remember we got a bunch of declassified memos on that investigation and ~half dozen others over the summer.

— Just Human (@realjusthuman) October 28, 2025

The classified information that appeared in that article related to the Renteria Memo and the Russian Reports. Durham's Classified Annex focused on this subject and was declassified this summer. pic.twitter.com/xhCH1yOLHX

— Just Human (@realjusthuman) October 28, 2025

Which all or most of it is going to be privileged, or initially claimed to be, because it's communications between Comey and his lawyer.

That lawyer, most likely, is Person 3 in the indictment in this case. pic.twitter.com/Khcr1Ol77U

— Just Human (@realjusthuman) October 28, 2025

Comey Testimony 2017:

Comey had previously told Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in 2017 that he never authorized ANYONE to serve as an anonymous source in media coverage on the FBI's investigations into Clinton or Mr. Trump.

Comey Testimony 2020:

Comey said when asked about leaks - "I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the [2017] testimony," replied Comey.

jacketman03 said:

---

AnScAggie said:

---

For those of us not familiar enough with the legal system, what does it mean that the indictment is about Richman and not McCabe?

---

Well, it means that the indictment cannot be based on his testimony from September 30, 2020. He was not questioned about Richman at that hearing, and all the questions Cruz asked were in reference to McCabe, so those questions cannot be the basis for an indictment that he lied on that day regarding Richman.

---

You better go back and watch the testimony again. Crus was very clever in how he set Comey up to perjure himself. The first time he asked "So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak? And if Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth, is that correct?" , and Comey replied "Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today." Then Cruz asked two irrelevant questions, and Comey denied both the Cruz circled back and asked Comey point blank, "As you sit here today it's your testimony that you never approved anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source to the press" Comey replied, "No sir I did not"

https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/j9ER5KSiuEmz6WREHd2AxnYBDiAqEMxLGWltyLou7U6bH1jv8R_3v0bDOgkZ5MKP__1ynpHiqaSlsWaeP_5CjPRLJ1k?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=6770.1

Cruz set him up the first time to assume he was referring to McCabe as the anonymous source, but the when he circled back he was very clear and Comey denied it.

jacketman03 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

AnScAggie said:

---

For those of us not familiar enough with the legal system, what does it mean that the indictment is about Richman and not McCabe?

---

Well, it means that the indictment cannot be based on his testimony from September 30, 2020. He was not questioned about Richman at that hearing, and all the questions Cruz asked were in reference to McCabe, so those questions cannot be the basis for an indictment that he lied on that day regarding Richman.

---

I don't believe this is accurate

---

Here's the testimony that is at the heart of the indictment. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/oversight-of-the-crossfire-hurricane-investigation-day-3

The indictment states that he authorized Person 3 to be an anonymous source in investigations re Person 1. Person 1 is Hillary Clinton, and Person 3 is Dan Richman. In the testimony, Cruz repeatedly asked about McCabe, and never asked about Richman. In fact, Richman was never mentioned by anybody in the entire hearing. So, if Person 3 is, in fact, Dan Richman, then I'm not sure how the testimony on September 30, 2020 could prove that, as that testimony was all about McCabe, not Richman.

---

You're incorrect, reread your own transcript


Here's a link to the actual video

https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/j9ER5KSiuEmz6WREHd2AxnYBDiAqEMxLGWltyLou7U6bH1jv8R_3v0bDOgkZ5MKP__1ynpHiqaSlsWaeP_5CjPRLJ1k?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=6770.1

JUST IN: Amid questions about legality of Lindsey Halligan's appointment as US Attorney for EDVA, AG Bondi seeks to shore up Comey & James prosecutions by formally adopting/endorsing them. Doc: https://t.co/aiqlsnACoD

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) November 3, 2025

I dont think this magically fixes the problem if the appointment to interim US Attorney, but it should allow her to indict if the first is thrown out. Guessing on all this!

Justice Dept has found another attorney to join US Atty Lindsey Halligan in the criminal case against Letitia James

It's Henry C. Whitaker, an attorney at Main Justice in DC, who is listed a counselor to Pam Bondi pic.twitter.com/WDrUQd7pUJ

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) November 3, 2025

There are a lot of new exhibits. You can check them out here:https://t.co/awQnVc0sMa

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) November 3, 2025

Wow nice find Will!