unmade bed said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Do you think Comey was truthful about his role in all of this? Do you think what he did (leaking to shape the narrative in the press) is legal?

---

Hopefully there will be a trial, and I'll let you know after that.

---

We don't need a trial to know what he testified to Congress and we have his notes. Trial is only for the legal conviction and punishment. He's guilty.

captkirk said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Dirty_Mike&the_boys 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.

---

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.

---

For what it's worth, if Cruz was trying to "set him up" to commit a crime, then it could totally backfire considering what he is charged with requires "knowingly and willfully" making a false statement. If it was just making a false statement, tricking Comey into making a false statement would be brilliant, but if your questions are not straightforward, it sure does make it difficult to provide the statement (even if false) was made willfully and knowingly.

---

There was no trickery if one understands plain english. ANYONE is pretty clear

---

Question: would it be possible for a private citizen to authorize an FBI agent to leak to the press? Because the way I read the exhibits, it looks like the only times Comey asked Richman to talk to the press was after he (Comey) was fired

unmade bed said:

---

I thought you were the one saying it was a "very clever set-up" by Cruz?

---

He didn't trick him. He asked him a question in a manner where Comey had a clear choice to be honest or not.

Comey chose not to be honest. A bad memory doesn't alleviate culpability.

I also believe Congress extends the courtesy to let them supplement or clarify their testimony after the fact.

Comeys arrogance again does him in here. If I was in his position and testified before Congress, there would be a lot more "I will need to check my records but at this moment I do not recall authorizing the leaking of information."

Why did he not say it? Because he would look ill prepared and the Rs would have a field day with his non answer. Instead, he chose to be dishonest.

unmade bed said:

---

I thought you were the one saying it was a "very clever set-up" by Cruz?

---

As I said before, if you had either read the transcript or watched the video you, perhaps you wouldn't be making stupid comments


Then again you have a history of purposeful obtuseness and making stupid posts so I could be wrong

There's someone else that Comey leaked to before Comey was fired. I saw this on the Mueller thread. Richman and Fitzgerald were not the only Comey besties, there was a third. And he had somewhat popular blog, not ironically titled, Lawfare.

That guy posted a lot about Russia, Russia, Russia very early in 2017. His name is Benjamin Wittes

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Do you think Comey was truthful about his role in all of this? Do you think what he did (leaking to shape the narrative in the press) is legal?

---

Hopefully there will be a trial, and I'll let you know after that.

---

We don't need a trial to know what he testified to Congress and we have his notes. Trial is only for the legal conviction and punishment. He's guilty.

---

Waiting on the answer!

will25u said:

---

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

---

They have probably waived it now. Fitzpatrick was arguing at the Court today, and not a peep from DoJ.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

"The Government is directed to submit, no later than Wednesday, November 5, 2025, at 5:00 pm, for in camera review, a complete Transcript and/or recording of all statements made by the indictment signer to the grand jury on September 25, 2025, to include statements made prior to and after the testimony of the witness and during the presentation of the three-count and subsequent two-count indictments. IT IS SO ORDERED."

---

WTH? Grand jury proceedings are secret and there are very limited specific exceptions to that secrecy Nor does the judge even say those records would be filed under seal..Again, WTH?

---

Probably to ascertain the extent of Halligan's role in the grand jury proceedings. If she handled it all herself, and the judge rules she was improperly appointed, that's going to be a big problem. If someone else was involved as well, that could save the indictment.

Quote:

---

Waiting on the answer!

---

Keep waiting. These same people regurgitate every phony story the democrats create about Trump as gospel and they never return to issue a mea culpa. They just move onto the next lie.

Im Gipper said:

---

will25u said:

---

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

---

They have probably waived it now. Fitzgerald was arguing at the Court today, and not a peep from DoJ.

---

Perhaps they are keeping in their back pocket. It would be fantastic for DOJ to stand and say "I call _______ (attorney of record) as a witness." Then invoke the Rule and usher all other witnesses (including the non-called attorney-witness) from the courtroom.

You can't be an attorney and fact witness in the same case. It confuses the trier of fact.

Queso1 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

will25u said:

---

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

---

They have probably waived it now. Fitzgerald was arguing at the Court today, and not a peep from DoJ.

---

Perhaps they are keeping in their back pocket. It would be fantastic for DOJ to stand and say "I call _______ (attorney of record) as a witness." Then invoke the Rule and usher all other witnesses (including the non-called attorney-witness) from the courtroom.

You can't be an attorney and fact witness in the same case. It confuses the trier of fact.

---

We don't allow trial by ambush on the part of the government in criminal trials.

It's not trial by ambush. Every attorney knows they are prohibited from being a fact witness and an advocate.

Quote:

---

Perhaps they are keeping in their back pocket. It would be fantastic for DOJ to stand and say "I call _______ (attorney of record) as a witness." Then invoke the Rule and usher all other witnesses (including the non-called attorney-witness) from the courtroom.

You can't be an attorney and fact witness in the same case. It confuses the trier of fact.

---

The Judge would say "he was not on your witness list, and you waived any argument on disqualification." And even if the Court did allow the lawyer to be called, the attorney of record would clearly be a person whose presence is essential to presenting Comey's defense.

In short, "keeping it in their back pocket" gets them nothing.

jacketman03 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Dirty_Mike&the_boys 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.

---

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.

---

For what it's worth, if Cruz was trying to "set him up" to commit a crime, then it could totally backfire considering what he is charged with requires "knowingly and willfully" making a false statement. If it was just making a false statement, tricking Comey into making a false statement would be brilliant, but if your questions are not straightforward, it sure does make it difficult to provide the statement (even if false) was made willfully and knowingly.

---

There was no trickery if one understands plain english. ANYONE is pretty clear

---

Question: would it be possible for a private citizen to authorize an FBI agent to leak to the press? Because the way I read the exhibits, it looks like the only times Comey asked Richman to talk to the press was after he (Comey) was fired

---

Can private citizens commit perjury? That's what he's charged with.

captkirk said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Dirty_Mike&the_boys 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.

---

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.

---

For what it's worth, if Cruz was trying to "set him up" to commit a crime, then it could totally backfire considering what he is charged with requires "knowingly and willfully" making a false statement. If it was just making a false statement, tricking Comey into making a false statement would be brilliant, but if your questions are not straightforward, it sure does make it difficult to provide the statement (even if false) was made willfully and knowingly.

---

There was no trickery if one understands plain english. ANYONE is pretty clear

---

Question: would it be possible for a private citizen to authorize an FBI agent to leak to the press? Because the way I read the exhibits, it looks like the only times Comey asked Richman to talk to the press was after he (Comey) was fired

---

Can private citizens commit perjury? That's what he's charged with.

---

He's being charged with lying about whether he authorized any FBI agents to leak to the press. If all the leaking he authorized was after he was fired, he didn't "authorize" anything.

Queso1 said:

---

It's not trial by ambush. Every attorney knows they are prohibited from being a fact witness and an advocate.

---

Calling a witness that the prosecution did not include on any witness lists is definitionally trial by ambush.

jacketman03 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Dirty_Mike&the_boys 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.

---

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.

---

For what it's worth, if Cruz was trying to "set him up" to commit a crime, then it could totally backfire considering what he is charged with requires "knowingly and willfully" making a false statement. If it was just making a false statement, tricking Comey into making a false statement would be brilliant, but if your questions are not straightforward, it sure does make it difficult to provide the statement (even if false) was made willfully and knowingly.

---

There was no trickery if one understands plain english. ANYONE is pretty clear

---

Question: would it be possible for a private citizen to authorize an FBI agent to leak to the press? Because the way I read the exhibits, it looks like the only times Comey asked Richman to talk to the press was after he (Comey) was fired

---

Can private citizens commit perjury? That's what he's charged with.

---

He's being charged with lying about whether he authorized any FBI agents to leak to the press. If all the leaking he authorized was after he was fired, he didn't "authorize" anything.

---

We'll see in court

jacketman03 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Dirty_Mike&the_boys 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.

---

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.

---

For what it's worth, if Cruz was trying to "set him up" to commit a crime, then it could totally backfire considering what he is charged with requires "knowingly and willfully" making a false statement. If it was just making a false statement, tricking Comey into making a false statement would be brilliant, but if your questions are not straightforward, it sure does make it difficult to provide the statement (even if false) was made willfully and knowingly.

---

There was no trickery if one understands plain english. ANYONE is pretty clear

---

Question: would it be possible for a private citizen to authorize an FBI agent to leak to the press? Because the way I read the exhibits, it looks like the only times Comey asked Richman to talk to the press was after he (Comey) was fired

---

Can private citizens commit perjury? That's what he's charged with.

---

He's being charged with lying about whether he authorized any FBI agents to leak to the press. If all the leaking he authorized was after he was fired, he didn't "authorize" anything.

---

so you believe that the Department of Justice-

who have to UNDER THE LAW only charge defendants with crimes they would be able to prove in a court of law...

doesn't realize that Comey had already been fired and therefore was not able to "authorize' something?!

tell me you never went to law school without telling me.

LMCane said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Dirty_Mike&the_boys 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.

---

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.

---

For what it's worth, if Cruz was trying to "set him up" to commit a crime, then it could totally backfire considering what he is charged with requires "knowingly and willfully" making a false statement. If it was just making a false statement, tricking Comey into making a false statement would be brilliant, but if your questions are not straightforward, it sure does make it difficult to provide the statement (even if false) was made willfully and knowingly.

---

There was no trickery if one understands plain english. ANYONE is pretty clear

---

Question: would it be possible for a private citizen to authorize an FBI agent to leak to the press? Because the way I read the exhibits, it looks like the only times Comey asked Richman to talk to the press was after he (Comey) was fired

---

Can private citizens commit perjury? That's what he's charged with.

---

He's being charged with lying about whether he authorized any FBI agents to leak to the press. If all the leaking he authorized was after he was fired, he didn't "authorize" anything.

---

so you believe that the Department of Justice-

who have to UNDER THE LAW only charge defendants with crimes they would be able to prove in a court of law...

doesn't realize that Comey had already been fired and therefore was not able to "authorize' something?!

tell me you never went to law school without telling me.

---

I'm saying that the exhibits they included in their brief in opposition includes a lot of evidence of him authorizing Richman to leak to the press AFTER he was fired as FBI Director, and pretty light on evidence of him doing that while he was FBI Director

edit: also, the standard for an indictment is "probable cause that a crime was committed and that defendant did it", not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", as you implied here.

The documents filed that you are talking about are not evidence that he committed the charged crime.

They are evidence to rebut the vindictive prosecution claim; ie Comey was not just "exercising his right." He was attempting to undermine the President.

NEW: New warning signs abound for the "highly unusual" criminal case against James Comey, as a magistrate judge scolded prosecutors and ordered them to turn over a massive trove of records by tomorrow afternoon.https://t.co/i6Xr0nQXxP pic.twitter.com/GhM4uGgKXH

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 5, 2025

Every case DOJ brings gets assigned to a Biden or Obama judge.

Everyone knows they will protect their own and toss the cases, or make it impossible for the DOJ to actually prosecute them so the DOJ is forced to drop it.

"Highly unusual."

Yeah, it's remarkably unusual that the head of the FBI gets caught perpetrating a coup against the duly elected President. Comey should face capital punishment for what he did.

SOLOMON: When you see that there was a 6 month delay in this document and the Attorney General present something new that is old, she's so far behind the facts. I'm really worried that Trump doesn't have the team that can bring accountability at the DOJ. pic.twitter.com/C3cXKebTlF

— Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) November 5, 2025

I don't understand how Trump can consistently have the most incompetent legal counsel on the planet, time and time again. She's already tanked this case with idiocy and negligence. It's probably why they're not trying very hard to get her disqualified.

What are you talking about? Halligan?

They are trying very hard to get her ruled to be not legally Interim US Attorney.

Magistrate ruling appealed. Argument is that the order went beyond the issue referred to the magistrate.

ALERT: Justice Dept appeals judge's order in James Comey criminal case

"The government appeals the magistrate judge’s.. oral order directing the government to produce grand jury materials to the defendant by 5:00 pm on November 6, 2025"

Here: https://t.co/N2sVC4pJT0 https://t.co/IKCmxUJxZY

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) November 6, 2025

That was quick.

Judge says the order was within the magistrate's purview, but needs to analysis on whether Comey has shown a need for the GC transcript

Judge Nachmanoff REJECTS govt's claim that magistrate judge Fitzpatrick lacked the authority to order grand jury minutes turned over to Comey but REMANDS to Fitzpatrick to make certain requisite findings first. https://t.co/k3Ym6TGKds pic.twitter.com/TR7epNzveS

— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) November 7, 2025

🚨 BREAKING: The DOJ is now sending out grand jury SUBPOENAS in Florida regarding the investigation into disgraced former CIA Director John Brennan, following the criminal referral from DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

Here we go. pic.twitter.com/vcckyboXgY

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 6, 2025

Ruling the evidence--inclg texts+emails b/t Comey, Richman and a NYT reporter--inadmissible could doom the case. Throwing out the evidence could invalidate the indictment, since some of the texts obtained by the original warrants were used to convince a grand jury to indict Comey

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 10, 2025

I don't see an order; not sure if this is the ruling or a guess based on a hearing.

Im Gipper said:

---

Ruling the evidence--inclg texts+emails b/t Comey, Richman and a NYT reporter--inadmissible could doom the case. Throwing out the evidence could invalidate the indictment, since some of the texts obtained by the original warrants were used to convince a grand jury to indict Comey

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 10, 2025

I don't see an order; not sure if this is the ruling or a guess based on a hearing.

---

Uhm? One of the specified exceptions to Rule 6 is use in a related criminal prosecution? There was a judge that signed off on the original search warrant, so where's the issue?

Damn federal judiciary sucks canal water. A raging case of E.Coli or giardiasis, or cholera? (Naw, that one was too harsh.)

What is the motion he's referring to? What was the actual ruling?

Im Gipper said:

---

What is the motion he's referring to? What was the actual ruling?

---

I think Sperry is out over his skis a bit, there is no federal judge ruling that has excluded or suppressed evidence in the ongoing criminal case against Comey. However, recent court proceedings have involved sharp judicial scrutiny of the Justice Department's handling of evidence, including warnings about potential mishandling and orders to disclose materials to Comey's defense team. These developments stem from Comey's indictment on October 1, 2025, on two counts of making false statements to Congress related to a 2019-2020 leak investigation during Trump's first term.

They only recent judicial ctions on evidence happened on November 5, 2025, Magistrate Fitzpatrick held a hearing focused on evidence from the four search warrants executed on Richman's devices in 2019-2020 (part of the "Arctic Haze" probe). While no evidence was ruled out, the judge took several steps to address defense concerns about privileged attorney-client communications and the government's rushed approach, and Fitzpatrick admonished prosecutors for a "highly unusual" "indict first, investigate second" posture, suggesting it risked violating Comey's 4th Amendment rights by potentially allowing improper access to privileged materials. He pressed lead prosecutor Tyler Lemons on whether investigators had reviewed confidential records, emphasizing that any "rummaging" through old warrants for new ammunition could be unconstitutional. However it was more legal fodder to give the impression he was going to make some sort of ruling in Comey's favor but nothing was done formally The judge did order the DOJ to produce grand jury materials, seized data, and other evidence by the end of November 6, 2025, to allow Comey's team (led by Patrick Fitzgerald) to review for privilege claims. Their claims are this ensures the defense can challenge any inadmissible items before trial, but it does not preemptively exclude evidence. Prosecutors proposed isolating potentially privileged materials (now held at FBI headquarters) for court-approved review, but the defense argued this was too opaque. No final ruling on exclusion has been made; the process is ongoing to separate privileged from non-privileged items.

Separately, on October 13 and 21, 2025, Judge Nachmanoff (overseeing the main case) rejected DOJ motions for limited discovery and expedited filter reviews, criticizing them as delaying tactics that hindered Comey's preparation. He adopted a broader protective order for evidence access but again stopped short of suppressing anything.

Comey's motions to dismiss (filed October 20, 2025) include claims of prosecutorial misconduct in evidence handling, which could lead to suppression if proven. A separate challenge to Halligan's appointment (requiring an out-of-district judge) might invalidate the indictment entirely, indirectly affecting evidence use. Prosecutors have defended their actions, arguing no bias or impropriety occurred and that Trump's public statements reflect his duty to enforce laws.

As of today, the case remains active with no suppression orders. Updates could emerge from ongoing discovery or hearings, but I think Sperry is speculating a lot.

NEW: In presenting evidence in a motion to the court as part of its perjury defense, James Comey's legal team altered two words in a transcript of his 2020 Senate testimony to make it seem as if Sen. Ted Cruz asked Comey a key question he didnt actually ask him during the hearing

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 11, 2025

LOL: James Comey's high-priced legal team just cited a movie to support the argument Trump didn't have to directly instruct Halligan to indict Comey: "A ruler need not take the form of literal instructions. See Becket (1964 film) ('Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?')"

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 11, 2025

James Comey and Dan Richman claim they weren't doing anything wrong when they leaked sensitive info to their NY Times handmaiden Michael Schmidt, yet they both used aliases in their emails and texts --with Comey posing as "Reinhold Niebuhr" and Richman posing as "Michael Garcia."

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 10, 2025

NEW: To prove "vindictive prosecution," Comey's lawyers have to do more than show Trump's posts. They must show "direct evidence" PROSECUTOR HALLIGAN acted w/ "genuine animus" & "solely to punish" Comey for exercising a protected rt. They've failed to overcome the legal barriers.

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 11, 2025

Short video of Gouveia explaining. Judge is asking which exception under the Federal Rules would allow him to disclose grand jury materials? So that's encouraging.