This indictment is not about McCabe, Comey
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Then why the rush to do it before the statute of limitations. The Hillary investigation was longer than the statute of limitation.
They are saying he reaffirmed it in later testimony, he said his prior testimony was true while under oath within the SoL.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Nobody is above the law
I agree
It’s still an investigation other prosecutors would not bring…only DonOld’s lackeys
That testimony is the same testimony that McCabe refuted
One small problem with that claim. Superseding indictments can't add new charges after the statute of limitations has expired. They can only narrow the charges if the indictment is dismissed. This has already been ruled on by the courts.
@FastLane, asked “That testimony is the same testimony that McCabe refuted”…
I believe that is the biggest issue here.
Original question, outside the SOL, asked immediately after and referring to the Hillary situation.
The second question, asked by Cruz, was about the McCabe situation, and Cruz asked if McCabe was lying about Comey approving a leak…. Comey replied, “I stand by my prior testimony.”
If there is not something I’m missing, how is the InJustice Department going to prove what part of his prior testimony he was discussing?
They still have Comey intended to say something false. (Mens Rea).
How do you prove Comey was intending to convey a false message.
I believe that is the biggest issue here.
Original question, outside the SOL, asked immediately after and referring to the Hillary situation.
The second question, asked by Cruz, was about the McCabe situation, and Cruz asked if McCabe was lying about Comey approving a leak…. Comey replied, “I stand by my prior testimony.”
If there is not something I’m missing, how is the InJustice Department going to prove what part of his prior testimony he was discussing?
They still have Comey intended to say something false. (Mens Rea).
How do you prove Comey was intending to convey a false message.
BartenderElite
Verified User
It's the principle. Executive overreach.
Not sure why you keep asserting this false characterization.
BartenderElite
Verified User
MAGA's won't admit what's going on w/ this one.
But they know what's going on w/ this one.
But they know what's going on w/ this one.
If that trial progresses, it will be fun to watch for the next year or so. Think about it, a trial about how Clinton should have been President, brought to you by trump.
There is a statute of limitations on his testimony, whether to trump's case or Clinton's case. Comey testified to them both at the same time.
serendipity
Verified User
Most of your posts are Dia Rea!!!