K2-HMFIC said:

---

She won't be disbarred but this will give Bondi an excuse to fire her.

---

The real person that should be fired is Bondi for putting someone with zero criminal law experience in charge of a grand jury proceeding. Halligan can go back to policing woke stuff at the Smithsonian.

HTownAg98 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

She won't be disbarred but this will give Bondi an excuse to fire her.

---

The real person that should be fired is Bondi for putting someone with zero criminal law experience in charge of a grand jury proceeding. Halligan can go back to policing woke stuff at the Smithsonian.

---

Installed by Biden DEI hire Shogan no doubt that removed context and historical accuracy from our museums.

If Bondi fires her, that allows the court to try and install their own lapdog. So that is... better?

HTownAg98 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

She won't be disbarred but this will give Bondi an excuse to fire her.

---

The real person that should be fired is Bondi for putting someone with zero criminal law experience in charge of a grand jury proceeding. Halligan can go back to policing woke stuff at the Smithsonian.

---

Bondi was forced to by Trump…don't you remember his accidental truth social posts a few months ago?

Bondi is part of the same swamp that produced Comey....she is in for the FoxNews appearances and that is about it

HTownAg98 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

She won't be disbarred but this will give Bondi an excuse to fire her.

---

The real person that should be fired is Bondi for putting someone with zero criminal law experience in charge of a grand jury proceeding. Halligan can go back to policing woke stuff at the Smithsonian.

---

Yeah, you can blame Bondi if you want but there was not a competent attorney within 1,000 miles that was willing to accept that job under the conditions put on the job by POTUS (namely to indict Comey, Letitia James, etc).

How dare the ultimate head of the DOJ demand they prosecute actual crimes.

Just completely un-American. Right?



Right??

unmade bed said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

She won't be disbarred but this will give Bondi an excuse to fire her.

---

The real person that should be fired is Bondi for putting someone with zero criminal law experience in charge of a grand jury proceeding. Halligan can go back to policing woke stuff at the Smithsonian.

---

Yeah, you can blame Bondi if you want but there was not a competent attorney within 1,000 miles that was willing to accept that job under the conditions put on the job by POTUS (namely to indict Comey, Letitia James, etc).

---

Bondi could have done it herself. Or Todd Blanche or John Sauer.

Or one of the current prosecutors that transferred to EDVA. There are many willing to do so and that could have done fine.

Why they chose someone so unqualified may never be known.

flown-the-coop said:

---

How dare the ultimate head of the DOJ demand they prosecute actual crimes.

Just completely un-American. Right?


Right??

---

DOJ is supposed to only prosecute cases they think they have a likelihood of winning. It's in their own manual.

Im Gipper said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

She won't be disbarred but this will give Bondi an excuse to fire her.

---

The real person that should be fired is Bondi for putting someone with zero criminal law experience in charge of a grand jury proceeding. Halligan can go back to policing woke stuff at the Smithsonian.

---

Yeah, you can blame Bondi if you want but there was not a competent attorney within 1,000 miles that was willing to accept that job under the conditions put on the job by POTUS (namely to indict Comey, Letitia James, etc).

---

Bondi could have done it herself. Or Todd Blanche or John Sauer.

Or one of the current prosecutors that transferred to EDVA. There are many willing to do so and that could have done fine.

Why they chose someone so unqualified may never be known.

---

My working theory on this somewhat mirrors yours. I think Bondi looked at this early on and decided the juice wasn't worth the squeeze, and decided not to pursue it. I think possibly Ed Martin and/or Todd Blanche started leaning on her to pursue it, and when she said no, they went to Trump to put pressure on her. Then Trump sends his "DM that wasn't a DM" basically telling Bondi to prosecute it, and she stuck it with someone that if the whole thing blew up, it wouldn't cause lasting damage to them.

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

How dare the ultimate head of the DOJ demand they prosecute actual crimes.

Just completely un-American. Right?


Right??

---

DOJ is supposed to only prosecute cases they think they have a likelihood of winning. It's in their own manual.

---

So Comey is innocent?

To put a finer point on this, it would be better to offer an explanation of why this is not a winnable case.

Technicality or he didn't break the law or its just difficult to prove he didn't break the law.

Opining on why you THINK the DOJ should not have prosecuted doesn't really do much other than tell us what CNN legal analysts have said.

So, two systems of justice. Got it.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

So, two systems of justice. Got it.

---

Some of long been fine with this concept as they sit within the current system and enjoy it.

But I think its better to refer to one as justice and one as injustice. Dems believe in the latter system of injustice.

flown-the-coop said:

---

How dare the ultimate head of the DOJ demand they prosecute actual crimes.

Just completely un-American. Right?





Right??

---

Are you being serious?

ETFan said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Yep. She'll be disbarred for this.

---

That's ridiculous. This is just incompetence, not malice.

---

Ok

---

You can be disbarred for incompetence

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

How dare the ultimate head of the DOJ demand they prosecute actual crimes.

Just completely un-American. Right?


Right??

---

DOJ is supposed to only prosecute cases they think they have a likelihood of winning. It's in their own manual.

---

So Comey is innocent?

To put a finer point on this, it would be better to offer an explanation of why this is not a winnable case.

Technicality or he didn't break the law or its just difficult to prove he didn't break the law.

Opining on why you THINK the DOJ should not have prosecuted doesn't really do much other than tell us what CNN legal analysts have said.

---

1. "Guilt" requires more than a belief, it requires evidence that satisfies a legal standard. In the legal context, guilt has a strict meaning: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Right now, the things we know about are: an indictment, some congressional testimony, and a legal dispute over the meaning of that testimony.

2. The central question isn't whether someone "thinks" he is innocent or guilty , it's whether the government can prove that he knowingly made a false statement.

False-statement cases are notoriously hard to win because prosecutors must show: the statement was objectively false, the witness knew it was false at the time, and the question asked was unambiguously.

Comey's answers involved interpretation, delegation, and definitions of "leak" and "authorization" that are legally contested. When the meaning of the question itself is disputed, proving a knowing lie gets exceptionally difficult.

That is not a "technicality." That is the charge itself.

3. The grand-jury problems matter because they go to the legitimacy of the indictment, not some procedural footnote.
A grand jury is required to review the evidence and vote on the final version of the indictment. In this case, the public record already shows:

- improper evidence was provided to the grand jury,
- the full grand jury didn't see the final indictment,
- only the foreperson and one other juror reviewed it,
- a judge has called the government's handling "profoundly flawed."

If the indictment wasn't properly voted on, it's not a "technicality."

4. The only honest position right now is uncertainty.

You don't need to claim he's innocent. You don't need to defend his conduct.

The reasonable position is:

- the facts are contested,
- the legal standards are high,
- the indictment is under serious procedural scrutiny,
- and no court has tested the evidence.

That is the opposite of "obviously guilty."

unmade bed said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

How dare the ultimate head of the DOJ demand they prosecute actual crimes.

Just completely un-American. Right?


Right??

---

DOJ is supposed to only prosecute cases they think they have a likelihood of winning. It's in their own manual.

---

So Comey is innocent?

To put a finer point on this, it would be better to offer an explanation of why this is not a winnable case.

Technicality or he didn't break the law or its just difficult to prove he didn't break the law.

Opining on why you THINK the DOJ should not have prosecuted doesn't really do much other than tell us what CNN legal analysts have said.

---

1. "Guilt" requires breaking the law. Period, the end.

---

You can just stop there. In this instance, did he lie to Congress. If yes, he is guilty.

Pretty clear he did. The rest is just legal nonsense the average American no longer has any tolerance for.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

You can be disbarred for incompetence

---

Not if thy political party affiliation is Democrat.

“When the U.S. Attorney's comments are read fairly, fully, and in context – as the Code of Conduct requires – the conclusion is unavoidable: there was no misstatement of law, no misleading of the grand jury, and no impropriety whatsoever. The magistrate judge's contrary finding…

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) November 19, 2025

Halligan clearly demonstrates that there is no misapplication of the law.

Comey knows the evidence is overwhelming and damning - so he is playing legal games to try to avoid accountability.

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) November 19, 2025

IBT Halligan is incompetent and should be disbarred because she ended a sentence with preposition and capitalized "black" when it was not referring to a person.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

You can be disbarred for incompetence

---

Not if thy political party affiliation is Democrat.

---

The Dems are 100% incompetent at representing Americans as they've been elected to do. Plus it helps tremendously there's not a single Democrat that has any shame or belief in what they're elected to do.

The number one thing they're exceptional at is dividing, conquering, and acquiring power, whether most of their voters realize it or not. It's the exact reason nearly every Democrat will side with muslims, and vice versa, to acquire power and achieve their goals, American citizens be damned.

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

How dare the ultimate head of the DOJ demand they prosecute actual crimes.

Just completely un-American. Right?


Right??

---

DOJ is supposed to only prosecute cases they think they have a likelihood of winning. It's in their own manual.

---

So Comey is innocent?

To put a finer point on this, it would be better to offer an explanation of why this is not a winnable case.

Technicality or he didn't break the law or it's just difficult to prove he didn't break the law.

Opining on why you THINK the DOJ should not have prosecuted doesn't really do much other than tell us what CNN legal analysts have said.

---

That's more or less my position, and unmade bed's post made it more eloquently.

Attorneys, does this change your opinion at all, or do you still this doesn't end well for prosecution?

Bluto said:

---

Attorneys, does this change your opinion at all, or do you still this doesn't end well for prosecution?

---

I don't think it moves the needle either way personally.

The latest filing from the DoJ confirms the incompetence, but also shows this was not done maliciously or in an attempt to deny Comey his rights. I do not think it should be enough to dismiss the indictment on these grounds (which is one of about 4 motions to dismiss filed).

But I am not the judge here, so what I think should happen isn't going to matter! LOL


My best guess remains is that the indictment gets dismissed.

Comey is a Democrat seditionist so he will get away with this. Book it.

People like Comey walk between the raindrops aided by corrupt judges and other corrupt POSs, very rarely get their much deserved comeuppance. He's likely guilty of a hell of a lot more than lying to Congress but will never pay a price for that.

LOL at Trump's blonde fetish backfiring on him. No one could have predicted that Trump's preference for looks over competence would end badly. /s

That "legal nonsense" is pretty important and you would dang sure want it all to apply if it was you or a family member accused of something.

We've now reached the "blame the judge/pound the table" stage for one's own incompetence.
https://nypost.com/2025/11/19/us-news/james-comey-indictment-wasnt-seen-by-full-grand-jury-trumps-handpicked-prosecutor-linsday-halligan-admits/

txwxman said:

---

LOL at Trump's blonde fetish backfiring on him. No one could have predicted that Trump's preference for looks over competence would end badly. /s

---

It's hilarious that an FBI director was leaking classified information to the press!

cslifer said:

---

That "legal nonsense" is pretty important and you would dang sure want it all to apply if it was you or a family member accused of something.

---

Of course! If my mother was a serial killer I would totally want her to go free because of technicalities even though she was absolutely the killer.

Makes sense.

We are not talking about a legal defense by Comey as in "he acted in self defense" or "he factually did not lie" or "he has immunity based on x, y and a as per the law, Constitution". We are talking about the serial liar and traitor skirting because someone forgot to refresh the table of contents on an appendix to an exhibit that may or may not be presented in the case sort of technicality.

Get real with the "if it was your family member" nonsense.

The law is the law, and the legal system only really works if we apply the same rules to everyone. Hating someone's politics doesn't mean that they don't have the same legal rights as your own mother. If the DOJ screwed up, they screwed up. That's all there is to it.

flown-the-coop said:

---

cslifer said:

---

That "legal nonsense" is pretty important and you would dang sure want it all to apply if it was you or a family member accused of something.

---

Of course! If my mother was a serial killer I would totally want her to go free because of technicalities even though she was absolutely the killer.

Makes sense.

We are not talking about a legal defense by Comey as in "he acted in self defense" or "he factually did not lie" or "he has immunity based on x, y and a as per the law, Constitution". We are talking about the serial liar and traitor skirting because someone forgot to refresh the table of contents on an appendix to an exhibit that may or may not be presented in the case sort of technicality.

Get real with the "if it was your family member" nonsense.

---

He's making these arguments now because now is when you make them. Every single criminal defendant would do exactly the same thing, regardless of how baseless the claim may be. He'll make the "I factually didn't lie" claim at the appropriate time.
Your dismissiveness of the process and procedure is just a hot circle of garbage. If the process doesn't matter, then we're playing Legal Calvinball, and no one wants that.

cslifer said:

---

The law is the law, and the legal system only really works if we apply the same rules to everyone. Hating someone's politics doesn't mean that they don't have the same legal rights as your own mother. If the DOJ screwed up, they screwed up. That's all there is to it.

---

That's funny.

But that also shows we do not have a justice system at all when Comey and his DNC paid for attorney can dissect every sentence structure for a technical defect but the poor single mother who left her 12yo alone for 10 minutes goes to prison because the DNC didn't want to pay for her attorney.

People should want justice. Comey walking on technicalities is NOT justice, no matter how cute the attorneys want to be.

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

cslifer said:

---

That "legal nonsense" is pretty important and you would dang sure want it all to apply if it was you or a family member accused of something.

---

Of course! If my mother was a serial killer I would totally want her to go free because of technicalities even though she was absolutely the killer.

Makes sense.

We are not talking about a legal defense by Comey as in "he acted in self defense" or "he factually did not lie" or "he has immunity based on x, y and a as per the law, Constitution". We are talking about the serial liar and traitor skirting because someone forgot to refresh the table of contents on an appendix to an exhibit that may or may not be presented in the case sort of technicality.

Get real with the "if it was your family member" nonsense.

---

He's making these arguments now because now is when you make them. Every single criminal defendant would do exactly the same thing, regardless of how baseless the claim may be. He'll make the "I factually didn't lie" claim at the appropriate time.
Your dismissiveness of the process and procedure is just a hot circle of garbage. If the process doesn't matter, then we're playing Legal Calvinball, and no one wants that.

---

You don't have to explain that to him, he understands the law more than any other lawyer in existence. Some say he is the hardest working SOB in Law, Accounting, and whatever else he decides he is an expert in for that day.