Do you think they have much on Comey?

Damocles said:
Right, he was testifying under oath. Lying to congress in that circumstance, and about the subject they were investigating, is a crime. I don't think I really needed to explain it to that detail because folks here pay more attention to things than that. Trying to pretend that he's somehow not subject to that stricture is absurd.

The reality is lying to congress while under oath and during an investigation is a crime, you and I both know that is what we are talking about here so your attempt to dance away is just childish nonsense, blather really.
Click to expand...
Except in order to make it a crime, you have to prove several things.
At this point, the prosecution isn't even willing to tell us which statement was a lie. It will be interesting since the statute of limitations expires tomorrow and they can't suddenly decide a different statement is a lie. They will have to stick with whatever statement they told the grand jury.
 
QP! said:
I want us to be clear, as we can all read the indictment ( I did) as it is very short.

This indictment is about the Ted Cruz claim. That either Comey or McCabe "have to be lying as both cannot be telling the truth".

That is an absolute error by Cruz and in fact both ARE telling the truth in their accounts and what Comey said to Congress was 100% true and accurate.
Click to expand...
If that is what this indictment is about, yes. There is some discussion it is about a different incident involving Hillary Clinton.
 
The right-wing noise does not explain why real prosecutors refused the case. They saw no way to win, and it was Trump using the legal system to punish people, he does not like. Experienced prosecutors did not want to risk their law licenses to please Trump. So he gave a completely unqualified, zero trial experienced lawyer, who looks like she stepped out of central casting, to present the case. Comey will be humiliated and have to pay lawyers a lot of money. So Trump will get some degree of revenge. But there is no case.
Then Trump will cut and paste this to the next on his enemies list.
 
Jarod said:
4) was there a formal way to “authorize a leak”. Did Comey do that?
Click to expand...
It was definitely against policy for Comey to have Richman leak the memo. The reason they are not pressing charges for that is against policy is not against the law. It could, and did, get Comey fired, but not sent to prison.
 
zymurgy said:
accused of two things actually. lying and obstruction of justice
Click to expand...
The supposed obstruction of justice is dependent on the lying to Congress. So the lying to Congress needs to be proven for anything to go ahead.

And the statute of limitation has been reached, so that means there is no second chance. Normally, if an indictment is found to be defective, they can just get a new one. Right now, a new one would be beyond that statute of limitations.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
But, just like in the Old South, when you have a corrupt prosecutor (Bragg) who boasts he's out to get someone, and then has the help of a judge that will play fast and loose with the rules, the two can sway a jury--particularly one that doesn't like the defendant--to convict someone on bullshit charges or bend the law into a pretzel to get a conviction.
Click to expand...
It's a prosecutor's job to get convictions. It's a political position. It's how life works! Now we have the clowns in the trump thug adminstration actually saying the quiet part out loud - with trump is REALLY IS ALL ABOUT RETRIBUTION, NOT JUSTICE.
T. A. Gardner said:
Comey clearly lied to Congress.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The Evidence will prove it.
T. A. Gardner said:
There's plenty of evidence of that.
Click to expand...
Really? Let's see it!
T. A. Gardner said:
He did so to run cover for the disaster Russiagate became. If he should be pointing a finger at anyone, it's the Hildabeast. After all, she was the one that set this up to happen. For her, that isn't new. She was fired from work on Watergate as a young lawyer for proposing dirty tricks be used to get Nixon.
Click to expand...
The trump justice department is a Republican hit squad, plain and simple - they give pedophiles, sex traffickers, and rioters a pass as long as they say the "correct" things and say nice things about trump.

This is the reality.
 
Jarod said:
If that is what this indictment is about, yes. There is some discussion it is about a different incident involving Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

No.

Magats are only saying that now, as they have been shown, by myself and others, what an utter failure this indictment related to the Cruz summary is and so without reading the indictment they are NOW HOPING it is about some other perceived misstatement.

BUt you can read the very short indictment below and see it is about the Cruz misstatement, which means Trumps DOJ is indicted him on an already debunked claim.


Read the Trump administration’s full indictment of former FBI Director Comey​



Do not let magats just spin conspiracy theories that what is in the indictment is not actually the indictment.
 
Last edited:
Nordberg said:
The right-wing noise does not explain why real prosecutors refused the case. They saw no way to win, and it was Trump using the legal system to punish people, he does not like. Experienced prosecutors did not want to risk their law licenses to please Trump. So he gave a completely unqualified, zero trial experienced lawyer, who looks like she stepped out of central casting, to present the case. Comey will be humiliated and have to pay lawyers a lot of money. So Trump will get some degree of revenge. But there is no case.
Then Trump will cut and paste this to the next on his enemies list.
Click to expand...
THREAD WINNER. THE DOJ IS NOW A TRUMP CULT HIT SQUAD. FACTS NOR EVIDENCE ARE NECESSARY - ALL IS NEEDED IS TO BULLY DEMOCRATS OR PEOPLE WHO WERE DEEMED "DISLOYAL" TO TRUMP.

We are officially Belarus.
 
QP! said:
No.

Magats are only saying that now, as they have been shown, by myself and others, what an utter failure this indictment related to the Cruz summary is and so without reading the indictment they are NOW HOPING it is about some other perceived misstatement.

BUt you can read the very short indictment below and see it is about the Cruz misstatement, which means Trumps DOJ is indicted him on an already debunked claim.


Read the Trump administration’s full indictment of former FBI Director Comey​



Do not let magats just spin conspiracy theories that what is in the indictment is not actually the indictment.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right.
 
If @T. A. Gardner believed "Comey clearly lied to Congress", then he would have to know what the lie statement was and be able to quote it.

T.A. can you quote it here for us, since no one else has.

Clearly you must have a read a statement that you could clearly call a lie, to be able to say that, right? You would not just state "he clearly lied" based on what you are hearing but never seeing any statement yourself, right?

Quote it here please.
 
Jarod said:
I hope you are right.
Click to expand...
There is no "hope" here. What i am saying is factual correct.

Most indictments can be dozens or hundreds of pages long and thus 'fair enough' if people do not read it.

This indictment is two pages long and if not double spaced and the header material taking up so much room it is less than one page.

It only speaks to this 'Ted Cruz mistaken claim of both Comey and McCabe cannot be telling the truth' which is debunked
 
This is the entirety of the indictment, nothing left out.


INDICTMENT

COUNT ONE

False statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the United States Government

[18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)]

1. On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES

B. COMEY JR., did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, Fictitious, and

fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the

Government of the United Stales, by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate

Judiciaiy Committee hearing that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., had not “authorized

someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports" regarding an FBI

investigation concerning PERSON 1.

2. That statement was false, because, as JAMES B. COMEY JR. then and there knew, he in

fact had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding

an FBI investigation coneerning PERSON 1.

3. All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).

Case 1:25-cr-00272-MSN Document 1 Filed 09/25/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 1

COUNTTWO

Obstruction of a Congressional proceeding

[18U.S.C. § 1505]

4. On or about September 30,2020, in the Eastern District ofVirginia, the defendant, JAMES

B. COMEY JR. did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due and

proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which an investigation was being had before

the Senate Judiciary Committee by making false and misleading statements before that

conunittee.

5. All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505.

Pursuant to the E-Govornment Act,

The original of this pane has been filed

under seal in liio uerk’s Olfice

A TRUE BILL

oreperson

By:

LINDSEY HALLIGAN

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
 
Walt said:
The supposed obstruction of justice is dependent on the lying to Congress. So the lying to Congress needs to be proven for anything to go ahead.

And the statute of limitation has been reached, so that means there is no second chance. Normally, if an indictment is found to be defective, they can just get a new one. Right now, a new one would be beyond that statute of limitations.
Click to expand...

1.​


  • To convict, prosecutors must prove that Comey knowingly and willfully made a materially false statement to Congress.
  • That stands on its own: if the jury finds he lied, that’s one conviction.

2.

  • Obstruction does not require that the false-statement charge itself be proven.
  • Instead, prosecutors must show he corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the proceeding.
  • A false statement can be the act that constitutes obstruction, but obstruction could also exist in other forms (delaying, withholding documents, misleading testimony, etc.).

3.

  • In Comey’s case, the government is alleging that the same conduct (his testimony) both:
    • was a false statement (Count 1), and
    • was part of an effort to obstruct the Senate’s investigation (Count 2).

So: the obstruction charge doesn’t legally require that the jury find him guilty on the false-statement count.
However, practically, the obstruction case is built on the alleged lie — so if the jury doesn’t believe he lied, proving obstruction becomes very difficult.
 
In spoiler is the full debunking of this charge, and note that McCabe and Comeys actual statements that Cruz says means 'one or the other is lying' are not in dispute. Those are McCabe and Comeys actual statements and they prove Cruz just got it wrong.

Reraising. If this prosecution is based on the Congress testimony to Ted Cruz's question, which it appears to be people need to note the following.

Note that McCabe has stated he told Comey AFTER he released it and that COmey was OK with his action once informed. THAT IS NOT the same as Comey AUTHORIZING the release.

So on its face Comey and McCabe agree and their is no perjury.


.......


AI Summary:
Andrew McCabe claimed that he informed James Comey after he had authorized the leak to The Wall Street Journal — not before.





  • McCabe authorized the leak in late October 2016 (specifically Oct. 30) via his special counsel and an aide.
  • He later claimed that he told Comey afterward about the authorization.
  • McCabe has said this was standard practice and that Comey was informed after the fact, not in advance.

In McCabe’s telling, the disclosure was “cleared internally,” and he followed up with Comey after it happened to explain the context.
Click to expand...


------------------------------

AI Summary:

Here’s a summary of the key Ted Cruz question to James Comey (in a Senate hearing) that is often cited as central to the McCabe/Comey leak dispute:




  • Cruz reminded Comey that in May 2017, under questioning by Senator Chuck Grassley, Comey had testified under oath:
“Have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?”
→ Comey answered: “Never.”
“Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports ...?”
→ Comey answered: “No.” cruz.senate.gov+2Washington Examiner+2
Click to expand...

  • Cruz then confronted Comey with Andrew McCabe’s public and repeated claims that McCabe had been a source for The Wall Street Journal and that Comey had been aware of it or had authorized it. Washington Examiner+2Fox News+2
  • Cruz framed it like this:
“Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who’s telling the truth?” Fox News+3MRCTV+3cruz.senate.gov+3
Click to expand...
  • And he also asked:
“So your testimony is you’ve never authorized anyone to leak? And Mr. McCabe, if he says the contrary, is he not telling the truth?”
→ Comey declined to characterize McCabe’s testimony as false, but said he stood by his own testimony. MRCTV+3wkjc.com+3cruz.senate.gov+3
Click to expand...
 
Jarod said:
Citation?
Click to expand...
However, the withering new report from DOJ’s Office of Inspector General sharply criticizes Comey for violating FBI and Justice Department policies on handling information about sensitive law enforcement investigations. Notably, though, the document clears Comey of allegations that he leaked classified information.
Click to expand...

Comey violated policy, but not the law, in releasing the documents. Those are just the facts. We spend so much time debating the facts in this forum, we never seem to get around to debating opinions and policies.

Anyway, I am not seeing any actual quote to Congress where Comey lied. He openly said to Congress, "I asked a friend of mine[Richman] to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel." To prove that was a lie, trump would have to prove that Comey did not leak the memo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top