Do you think they have much on Comey?

For those who will not read the above, this line by Cruz, from above, if indeed ends up being the basis for this Prosecution is proven to be inaccurate.

"...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?”..." Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz is absolutely wrong in his conclusion as both things can be true and by the testimony given both were true. McCabe used his discretion based on things within his power to release the information, and then informed Comey after the fact, once it was done and Comey replied 'ok' since that was within McCabe's duties and powers to do.

So being 'ok' with what was done after the fact is NOT authorizing it being done in advance, as Cruz wrongly asserted.
 
Tobytone said:
You're fumbling through the internet like a toddler with a smartphone, desperately hunting for evidence that’s apparently too complex for your Google skills. No one’s handing you a link because, clearly, you’d just stare at it like it’s quantum physics.

I'll help you out a little. Try searching for McCabe's testimony that contradicts Comey's; one of them is lying. Hmm, which one? I suspect the very liberal NJ grand jury was treated to evidence that answers that question. Also, the fun part of these cases is all the other things that surface when the light is turned on. This is only step one of many, stock up on your meds.

And that adorable attempt to split hairs over Comey’s “formal process” of leaking? Precious. You’re actually pondering if passing secrets to a buddy counts as a leak, like it’s some philosophical riddle. The 'formal process of authorizing a leak', please do tell us what that is, I can't wait. It depends on what the definition of is is, right?
Click to expand...
What you suspect and reality seem to be far removed from each other.
If McCabe's testimony is the basis for the lie that is being charged, then the logical choice would be to have McCabe testify to the grand jury. That never happened. When the GJ had only 14 of 26 people vote for 2 of the 3 indictments, it would point to the evidence for conviction being rather weak since they couldn't even get everyone on the GJ to vote for indictment on 3 counts. A GJ doesn't see a defense and doesn't have a standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It will be fun to see what surfaces with these cases because the defendants will have the ability and the legal recourse to demand evidence that shows this is a vindictive prosecution. All correspondence with the White House will be subject to subpeona.
 
Jarod said:
Considering prosecutors resigned rather than producing this case, does anyone believe they have good evidence?

What do you think are the chances of a conviction? We haven’t seen the evidence yet, but we will… any thoughts?

I’m wondering if the Defense will use Trumps stated desire to get his preceded “enemies” will be used as a part of Comey’s defense.
Click to expand...
Every thinking person knows he lied to Congress. Only the most partisan of leftists and never trumpers believe he is an honorable and honest man who broke no laws.

Whether he will be convicted or not remains to be seen. Given that deep staters always get away with their crimes, I don't hold out hope that he will actually spend time in jail.

But, if he is bankrupted with massive legal fees that will be a win for me.

Maybe you can start a go fund me for him?
 
It's wild how so many on the MAGA side not only go along w/ this stuff, but immediately shift to enthusiastically supporting whatever authoritarian thing this admin decides to do.

That kind of willing populace is how democracies fall.
 
Teflon Don said:
Every thinking person knows he lied to Congress. Only the most partisan of leftists and never trumpers believe he is an honorable and honest man who broke no laws.

Whether he will be convicted or not remains to be seen. Given that deep staters always get away with their crimes, I don't hold out hope that he will actually spend time in jail.

But, if he is bankrupted with massive legal fees that will be a win for me.

Maybe you can start a go fund me for him?
Click to expand...
I do not look at this as if he lied to Congress or not, I look at this as Is there admissible evidence to justify bring a case.

People commit crimes all the time that they get away with because there is not enough evidence to convict them, and Prosecutors who are ethically do not clog up the Justice System when that is the case.
 
BartenderElite said:
It's wild how so many on the MAGA side not only go along w/ this stuff, but immediately shift to enthusiastically supporting whatever authoritarian thing this admin decides to do.

That kind of willing populace is how democracies fall.
Click to expand...
When Trump does something clearly wrong, they enthusiastically support it by claiming (and some even believing) that its okay because "the Left" does it.

Sometimes they can even find a left leaning crazy person who did what is being discussed, and somehow if that happened, its okay for the POTUS to do it.
 
Trump's lawyer presented indictments with misspellings and mistakes. Halligan did it herself because experienced prosecutors did not want to be involved in a bad case. They feared for their law licenses. Experienced prosecutors do not see a case. Trumpys are absolutely certain it is an easy case. When it falls apart, the right will learn nothing. They will go 100 percent certain when the next Trump asshole idea comes out. This is getting old.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-who-reviewed-comey-indictment-confused-by-prosecutors-handling-of-case/ar-AA1Noljs
 
Teflon Don said:
Every thinking person knows he lied to Congress. Only the most partisan of leftists and never trumpers believe he is an honorable and honest man who broke no laws.

Whether he will be convicted or not remains to be seen. Given that deep staters always get away with their crimes, I don't hold out hope that he will actually spend time in jail.

But, if he is bankrupted with massive legal fees that will be a win for me.

Maybe you can start a go fund me for him?
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Comey will either be convicted or bankrupted…or perhaps both.

Either is fine with me.

His 14 million estimated net worth will be reduced considerably.
 
QP! said:
"...@Damocles can you say what Trump is doing in these demanded prosecutions is wrong without saying you need to see what they find or have?..."
Click to expand...
everyone knows these people have been lying for ten years straight.

I will answer for damo.

he knows these prosecutions are correct, but he's a fence sitting moderator to a fault, god bless him.
 
Jarod said:
I do not look at this as if he lied to Congress or not, I look at this as Is there admissible evidence to justify bring a case.

People commit crimes all the time that they get away with because there is not enough evidence to convict them, and Prosecutors who are ethically do not clog up the Justice System when that is the case.
Click to expand...
You didn't mind prosecutors clogging up the justice system with bogus cases against Trump. In fact you cheered it on. Spare me your faux indignation
 
Jarod said:
When Trump does something clearly wrong, they enthusiastically support it by claiming (and some even believing) that its okay because "the Left" does it.

Sometimes they can even find a left leaning crazy person who did what is being discussed, and somehow if that happened, its okay for the POTUS to do it.
Click to expand...

They sound almost deranged about it sometimes. "Look what they did to Trump! He has every right to do what he's doing!"

They're along for the ride no matter what he does. It's genuinely scary.
 
QP! said:
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.



🔍 Breakdown of Their Conflicting Accounts:​


​


  • 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.




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

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:



🔍 The Question by Ted Cruz​


  • Cruz reminded Comey that in May 2017, under questioning by Senator Chuck Grassley, Comey had testified under oath:


  • 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:

  • And he also asked:
Click to expand...
AI lies.

these are not the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top