Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If they can convince a jury to convict him, so be it.

The fundamental premise is that they will fail on that point.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Considering your sub-@Helobious performance on this thread, I now have a reason to think he may go down. 

You got one post to latch on to, so go for it. Already did the mea culpa. 

Comey is the second worst director of the FBI. 

Posted
22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You got one post to latch on to, so go for it. Already did the mea culpa. 

Comey is the second worst director of the FBI. 

Oh, I'm sure we could come up with others.  Patel, Hoover, some that were quietly very bad.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

If I’m Comey I am calling the fired former prosecutor, and half the entire justice department staff, on the stand to put on blast everything Trump said behind the scenes to press for these charges.   You want to have a trial?  Then use every means you have to open up a can of ass of them.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 hours ago, Captainant said:

Comey getting dragged into a political investigation prosecuted by the man he put into office with a political investigation is some decent irony. I'm sure he'll beat the rap, but I kind of hope it's the biggest pain in the ass to him that it can possibly be


No shit. The irony is that Comey brought on the post-2016 nightmare because of his last minute kneecapping of Hillary Clinton and now we're all going to be forced to defend him. What fuckery.

 
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

If I’m Comey I am calling the fired former prosecutor, and half the entire justice department staff, on the stand to put on blast everything Trump said behind the scenes to press for these charges.   You want to have a trial?  Then use every means you have to open up a can of ass of them.

That’s textbook putting the system on trial. It just might work.

  • Haha 3
Posted
5 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Than for all the other. No tears shed. 

So he should be put away for "stuff", huh?  Care to entertain us with something a little more specific than that?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Burt said:

So he should be put away for "stuff", huh?  Care to entertain us with something a little more specific than that?

Oh, whatever. He’s a bad guy and should be in jail, does it matter what reason is written on the paper?

I am a serious libertarian. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 5
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Burt said:

So he should be put away for "stuff", huh?  Care to entertain us with something a little more specific than that?

Ana is pissed about the abuses of the FISA court enumerated in the Carter Page dustup.

I suspect that kind of thing is more normal for the FBI than abnormal and probably every single FBI director could be charged with unlawful and distasteful "citizen surveillance" during his/her tenure.

I'm not a giant fan of the FBI myself, as a general matter, independent of director or administration.  They're still cops and subject to pretty much all criticisms that can be leveled at cops.  I also have a more generalized beef with the federalization of crime.  But I'm not going to take that out on any specific director.

That said, Comey seemed particularly a "glory guts" director that put himself or allowed himself to be put in the middle of things he'd have better stayed out of or lowered his profile.  That doesn't merit criminal prosecution.  Still, I find it vaguely satisfying that he's getting wrung out a little.

What will be interesting to see is whether he does the "innocent man" defense and push for a quick trial, or employ the dilatory tactics common to those that can afford them.  He can probably file highly meritorious pretrial motions on things like selective prosecution, but however meritorious, those are long-shots.  He's probably best off to go to trial as fast as he possibly can.  ED Va is known as a rocket docket in the civil context, don't know about criminal.  But this is a pretty simple case, it seems.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
9 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

If I’m Comey I am calling the fired former prosecutor, and half the entire justice department staff, on the stand to put on blast everything Trump said behind the scenes to press for these charges.   You want to have a trial?  Then use every means you have to open up a can of ass of them.

spacer.png

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

If I’m Comey I am calling the fired former prosecutor, and half the entire justice department staff, on the stand to put on blast everything Trump said behind the scenes to press for these charges.   You want to have a trial?  Then use every means you have to open up a can of ass of them.

Just the Truth post by Trump is likely sufficient to show the "improper motive" aspect of a selective prosecution claim.  The hardest part of such a claim is to show that those similarly situated were not prosecuted.  "Similarly situated" is one of those legal buzz phrases that most lawyers know mean "no one is actually similarly situated" and you will lose this.  There's always some nit that keeps the situation from being similar.  And Trump tried to prosecute McCabe, but couldn't secure an indictment.

Posted
43 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Popehat on the indictment:

 

Good thing no one in Trump's cabinet lied during their confirmation hearings. Just straight truth-tellers, that bunch. I'm thinking Bondi and Patel acting all exasperated when asked about going after Trump's enemies. Flash forward to now and it's "We're going after Trump's enemies! See, he just told us to do and I'm doing it!".

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

All of the above said, after 34 years of practicing the law, I am still rather constantly amazed what federal judges will dismiss.  That's mostly in the civil context, but goes for criminal too.  

Posted
12 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

If I’m Comey I am calling the fired former prosecutor, and half the entire justice department staff, on the stand to put on blast everything Trump said behind the scenes to press for these charges.   You want to have a trial?  Then use every means you have to open up a can of ass of them.

That shouldn't and probably won't be allowed in the criminal proceeding against Comey, because such evidence doesn't make his actual guilt more or less likely.

Where it is SUPER-admissible is in the subsequent Section 1983 suit he files against multiple Trump admin types for malicious prosecution.  That claim is not ripe until the criminal case is completed -- he has to be acquitted to establish a necessary element.  But yeah, once he gets that, he's got a strong Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Earl Haffler said:

Image

The fuck is that and what is it supposed to mean?

The other thing that is bizarre here is MAGA shouldn't have anything against Comey, really.  This is pure narcissist grudge, as was the shitcanning of his daughter.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

That shouldn't and probably won't be allowed in the criminal proceeding against Comey, because such evidence doesn't make his actual guilt more or less likely.

Where it is SUPER-admissible is in the subsequent Section 1983 suit he files against multiple Trump admin types for malicious prosecution.  That claim is not ripe until the criminal case is completed -- he has to be acquitted to establish a necessary element.  But yeah, once he gets that, he's got a strong Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim.

Well until they assert qualified immunity and the Supreme Court rules that there was not a SCOTUS case making it explicitly unconstitutional to prosecute without probable cause, so it's all OK.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The other thing that is bizarre here is MAGA shouldn't have anything against Comey, really. 

He only single-handedly got Trump elected president. 

Posted
19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well until they assert qualified immunity and the Supreme Court rules that there was not a SCOTUS case making it explicitly unconstitutional to prosecute without probable cause, so it's all OK.

See, folks....even Twice is starting to get it.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, we've known about QI for 25 years now.

Yeah, but its use as a tool to excuse any and all conduct by a lawless regime is the new twist.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, Satchel said:

They’re humorless.

Vance was talking the other day about how funny Marco Rubio is. 

I guess selling your soul to the devil comes at a cost. Humor, amongst other things.

Posted
5 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Oh, whatever. He’s a bad guy and should be in jail, does it matter what reason is written on the paper?

I am a serious libertarian. 

I got Anaphylaxis reading this post.



×
×
  • Create New...