Hullabaloonatic said:

---

lol I love that Comey is hated by Republicans when he basically handed the 2016 election to Trump with the way he handled Hilary's investigation.

---

Yeah, forget about all the leaking of classified information, spying, phone taps, false intel reports, falsifying FISA warrants, lying to Congress, etc. Trump really owes Comey one.

captkirk said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

lol I love that Comey is hated by Republicans when he basically handed the 2016 election to Trump with the way he handled Hilary's investigation.

---

Yeah, forget about all the leaking of classified information, spying, phone taps, false intel reports, falsifying FISA warrants, lying to Congress, etc. Trump really owes Comey one.

---

Both can be true. He was hated by the left and the right for different reasons at different times.

Oops. When I opined below that Halligan would become acting US Attorney pursuant to Vacancies Reform Act if Bondi appointed her as first assistant, I overlooked that Trump has nominated her to full-time US Attorney position. That nomination (plus service as first assistant for… https://t.co/OjPLRgJ4K6 pic.twitter.com/11oYLeEu90

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) November 25, 2025

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

sandwich man, leticia james, james comey

in the arena of political persecutions, trump is batting zero for zero

---

Standing up for three very overt criminals isn't really a good look.

---

What about standing up for a very convicted criminal?

---

The guy New York had to invent crimes to convict?

---

Got it. So the guy who actually went to trial and was found guilty by a jury of peers is the innocent one but the guy who had his indictment thrown out is the actual baddie.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

sandwich man, leticia james, james comey

in the arena of political persecutions, trump is batting zero for zero

---

Standing up for three very overt criminals isn't really a good look.

---

What about standing up for a very convicted criminal?

---

The guy New York had to invent crimes to convict?

---

Got it. So the guy who actually went to trial and was found guilty by a jury of peers is the innocent one but the guy who had his indictment thrown out is the actual baddie.

---

Liberals spend an inordinate amount of their time pretending not to understand basic, mundane facts and principles. If they spent that time more wisely - say learning job skills, reading, improving themselves, etc., perhaps they wouldn't spend the rest of their time looking for handouts, free stuff and special treatment.

He's a criminal for what he did to Trump and the nation.

Then maybe they should have indicted him well before the SoL ran out so they could have put together a stronger case.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Then maybe they should have indicted him well before the SoL ran out so they could have put together a stronger case.

---

Do you want Comey to be convicted?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

sandwich man, leticia james, james comey

in the arena of political persecutions, trump is batting zero for zero

---

Standing up for three very overt criminals isn't really a good look.

---

What about standing up for a very convicted criminal?

---

The guy New York had to invent crimes to convict?

---

Got it. So the guy who actually went to trial and was found guilty by a jury of peers is the innocent one but the guy who had his indictment thrown out is the actual baddie.

---

Yes. There was nothing legal about the way Trump was prosecuted nor how the trial was handled by the judge.

But you know that.

---

Why?

Geminiv said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

sandwich man, leticia james, james comey

in the arena of political persecutions, trump is batting zero for zero

---

Standing up for three very overt criminals isn't really a good look.

---

What about standing up for a very convicted criminal?

---

The guy New York had to invent crimes to convict?

---

Got it. So the guy who actually went to trial and was found guilty by a jury of peers is the innocent one but the guy who had his indictment thrown out is the actual baddie.

---

Yes. There was nothing legal about the way Trump was prosecuted nor how the trial was handled by the judge.

But you know that.

---

Why?

---

LOL. You don't know anything about that fake trial? Making up charges? Ignoring SOLs? Blatantly illegal jury instructions? There is are very few real trial attorneys who defend that sham of a trial.

Funny you don't even know that. Even the judge ran away from what he did there.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Then maybe they should have indicted him well before the SoL ran out so they could have put together a stronger case.

---

Well, when this administration took office, they didn't have a long time to do that BECAUSE of the SoL...

And they had a LOT of other priorities that were higher.




Would you have preferred this case been brought forward six months ago...in April/May? About 2-3 months after the inauguration?

Siebert had been investigating the Comey case before deciding not to bring charges. How long, no one really knows because the declination memo hasn't been made public. Then Trump threatened Bondi to bring charges, and all hell broke loose.

jt2hunt said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Then maybe they should have indicted him well before the SoL ran out so they could have put together a stronger case.

---

Do you want Comey to be convicted?

---

I don't think what he did is enough to get a guilty verdict.

Quote:

---

Well, when this administration took office, they didn't have a long time to do that BECAUSE of the SoL...

And they had a LOT of other priorities that were higher.

---

They had PLENTY of time before SoL ran out.

In terms of priorities, how much time do you think it would take to investigate and indict a perjury charge?

They started looking into this months and months ago. Stop making excuses for terrible work by the DoJ. You are too good a poster for that!

Quote:

---

Would you have preferred this case been brought forward six months ago...in April/May? About 2-3 months after the inauguration?

---

Sure, why not?

There are only two possibilities here. One, is the intentional sabotage I've theorized before.

Two, Bondi completely failed here due to incompetence and ignorance.

Just another example of the government isn't getting fixed until we collapse.

Continued fraud & abuse making those in the club wealthy.

JFABNRGR said:

---

Just another example of the government isn't getting fixed until we collapse.

Continued fraud & abuse making those in the club wealthy.

---

Which is what the left wants.

Quote:

---

They had PLENTY of time before SoL ran out.

In terms of priorities, how much time do you think it would take to investigate and indict a perjury charge?

---

Why I think those became the last minute compromise. They were originally looking into more serious charges but hit the SOL wall which was why the original appointee balked, since it would be futile. He couldn't find a work around absent espionage charges and those are weaker.

So the perjury and obstruction charges were the fall back position. Does that mean Bondi didn't mishandle the case? No it does not. If anything she should have had two or more teams working on different charges in a parallel manner to present options then pick the best ones to present to the grand jury.

OTOH, Patel and Bongino had to get in there to find where the evidence had been hidden first. So they were behind the 8 ball from the get go.

Quote:

---

Why I think those became the last minute compromise. They were originally looking into more serious charges but hit the SOL wall which was why the original appointee balked, since it would be futile. He couldn't find a work around absent espionage charges and those are weaker.

So the perjury and obstruction charges were the fall back position

---

That is a definite possibility!

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Why I think those became the last minute compromise. They were originally looking into more serious charges but hit the SOL wall which was why the original appointee balked, since it would be futile. He couldn't find a work around absent espionage charges and those are weaker.

So the perjury and obstruction charges were the fall back position

---

That is a definite possibility!

---

Occam's Razor. Frustrating because most of us following in real time knew Comey was dirty. But in the law, knowing is not the same as proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Which brings us full circle back to Comey's July 2016 statement semi-exonerating Hillary about a "reasonable prosecutor." What could they prove in court. When it comes to intent. Hillary was playing the, "I am an idiot," card. Ironic she was in that position in the middle of a Presidential campaign. But it was either that or being indicted. She was smart enough to figure that out.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Well, when this administration took office, they didn't have a long time to do that BECAUSE of the SoL...

And they had a LOT of other priorities that were higher.

---

They had PLENTY of time before SoL ran out.

In terms of priorities, how much time do you think it would take to investigate and indict a perjury charge?

They started looking into this months and months ago. Stop making excuses for terrible work by the DoJ. You are too good a poster for that!

Quote:

---

Would you have preferred this case been brought forward six months ago...in April/May? About 2-3 months after the inauguration?

---

Sure, why not?

There are only two possibilities here. One, is the intentional sabotage I've theorized before.

Two, Bondi completely failed here due to incompetence and ignorance.

---

I'm just pointing out that investigations take time. It looks like even this one was hurried, though...

I don't doubt that they tanked it or that there was incompetence though...this admin has done some dumb things at times.

Quote:

---

I'm just pointing out that investigations take time. It looks like even this one was hurried, though...

---

A big part of it was that the charge of lying to congress rested on original testimony that from 2017 that was way past SOL. Halligan's team was grasping at straws and using a discussion from 2020 that was teetering on SOL. It all revolved around Comey allegedly lying to congress that he did not authorize "Person 3" to leak classified info on Hillary Clinton. That "Person 3" is supposed to be Daniel Richman.

If you read the actual indictment, it is pretty imprecise and slippery language. Comey, not surprisingly as a career prosecutor and having managed a whole lot of sensitive testimony in his role as FBI director, was able to pirouette around Ted Cruz's questioning in that 2020 congressional testimony and did not really utter anything factual. He basically said he stood by his previous testimony from 2017 that is way past SOL.

And so many legal analysts point out that he is being charged for saying he stands by his testimony which is not really a falsifiable thing. His defense team said clearly that he can't be prosecuted "for responding to Senator Ted Cruz's fundamentally ambiguous questions with literally true answers."

Quote:

---

And so many legal analysts point out that he is being charged for saying he stands by his testimony which is not really a falsifiable thing. His defense team said clearly that he can't be prosecuted "for responding to Senator Ted Cruz's fundamentally ambiguous questions with literally true answers."

---

If one can charged with being dishonest to the FBI for false statements? Not under oath, not recorded and certainly not televised, Comey can be charged for reaffirming his earlier testimony under oath both times. Had he said the same thing to an FBI agent, he could be charged under 1001.

FBI Director Kash Patel warns James Comey of imminent action, saying developments are expected in the coming days.

pic.twitter.com/qg3C1kjJx3

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) November 29, 2025

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

sandwich man, leticia james, james comey

in the arena of political persecutions, trump is batting zero for zero

---

Standing up for three very overt criminals isn't really a good look.

---

What about standing up for a very convicted criminal?

---

The guy New York had to invent crimes to convict?

---

Got it. So the guy who actually went to trial and was found guilty by a jury of peers is the innocent one but the guy who had his indictment thrown out is the actual baddie.

---

Well, yeah. You left out 90% of both stories. If you omit all the important info, you can make anything up.

Geminiv said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

sandwich man, leticia james, james comey

in the arena of political persecutions, trump is batting zero for zero

---

Standing up for three very overt criminals isn't really a good look.

---

What about standing up for a very convicted criminal?

---

The guy New York had to invent crimes to convict?

---

Got it. So the guy who actually went to trial and was found guilty by a jury of peers is the innocent one but the guy who had his indictment thrown out is the actual baddie.

---

Yes. There was nothing legal about the way Trump was prosecuted nor how the trial was handled by the judge.

But you know that.

---

Why?

---

How about changing the statues of limitations after the fact. Is that super ok for you?

SCOOP: Dan Richman, a key figure in the now-dismissed case against James Comey, has filed suit over the gov't's handling of data seized from his devices.

He says his constitutional rights were violated — and seeks to block DOJ from using the materialshttps://t.co/rFdzhWe36n pic.twitter.com/1UR56xg2rD

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) December 2, 2025

Richman and Comey = useful idiots. Lol.

Prof Richman lays out the theory of his request here. (He says docs were never properly sorted in 2019-2021, illegally retained for years, & then illegally searched without a warrant in Sept 2025.)
2/2-endhttps://t.co/qAQlxo206y

— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) December 2, 2025

More @DailyCaller News Foundation https://t.co/o36JmnjYDL

— Katelynn Richardson (@katesrichardson) December 2, 2025

BREAKING: Judge orders key evidence in (dismissed) Comey case put off limits to prosecutors. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton) grants TRO requested by Comey lawyer/adviser Dan Richman re his data. Doc: https://t.co/TuDVoNh7p3

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) December 7, 2025

"Judge orders evidence of guilt regarding Dem subversion of the duly elected POTUS is private and cannot be used by law enforcement."

Meanwhile, Trump's illegally leaked tax returns were used against him after another judge ruled it was just fine to use Trump's leaked information because of the longstanding legal principle of Orange Man Bad.

flown-the-coop said:

---

"Judge orders evidence of guilt regarding Dem subversion of the duly elected POTUS is private and cannot be used by law enforcement."

Meanwhile, Trump's illegally leaked tax returns were used against him after another judge ruled it was just fine to use Trump's leaked information because of the longstanding legal principle of Orange Man Bad.

---

That's called a two-tier system of justice. One for most people, and one standard that's (D)ifferent.

We do not have a fair and impartial judiciary in this country.

techno-ag said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

"Judge orders evidence of guilt regarding Dem subversion of the duly elected POTUS is private and cannot be used by law enforcement."

Meanwhile, Trump's illegally leaked tax returns were used against him after another judge ruled it was just fine to use Trump's leaked information because of the longstanding legal principle of Orange Man Bad.

---

That's called a two-tier system of justice. One for most people, and one standard that's (D)ifferent.

We do not have a fair and impartial judiciary in this country.

---

When P posters come to tell me we don't have "signatures" for a national divorce, we need to point to the 2-tier justice. Nothing riots the crowd like a unjustice system.