Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
6 minutes ago, scottsins said:


This somewhat, but most notably, if Ted Lange is asking specifically about Comey’s criminal trial, that testimony is not likely admissible anyway.

That’s exactly what I was curious about.  

Posted
5 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

That’s exactly what I was curious about.  

Yeah, Trump wouldn't have relevant evidence concerning lying to or obstructing Congress.

On the motion to dismiss for selective/vindictive prosecution, he would, but broadly speaking, live testimony isn't taken on motions to dismiss, and depositions are uncommon in criminal cases at any stage.

Someone once mentioned that selective/vindictive prosecution can be submitted to a jury, though.

Posted
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Fun and unusual fact.  As of now, Lindsey Halligan is the only attorney from USAO ED Va that has appeared in Comey's case.

And that matters because...

Posted

Dumb question Twice but how much freedom did she have with the info when presenting this case to the grand jury? As in, is there any fact checking going on?

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Dumb question Twice but how much freedom did she have with the info when presenting this case to the grand jury? As in, is there any fact checking going on?

None for fact checking, complete freedom on her part.  Of course, after the fact, a defendant can challenge the indictment for lack of probable cause and examine the transcripts for lies and mischaracterizations.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
None.  Of course, after the fact, a defendant can challenge the indictment for lack of probable cause and examine the transcripts for lies and mischaracterizations.

Thanks. I’m just a little curious how they got an indictment when no one seems to know if he even said anything untrue.
Posted
Just now, Red Five said:


Thanks. I’m just a little curious how they got an indictment when no one seems to know if he even said anything untrue.

James Comey = Ham Sandwich

Posted
5 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

And that matters because...

It is highly unusual for a US Attorney to be the sole lawyer representing the government in a criminal case.

Usually, there are three or four or more Assistant US Attorneys, sometimes even a couple more from Main Justice special units like national security or public corruption or what-have-you.

It's a sign that no one else was willing to be associated with the case.

Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is highly unusual for a US Attorney to be the sole lawyer representing the government in a criminal case.

Usually, there are three or four or more Assistant US Attorneys, sometimes even a couple more from Main Justice special units like national security or public corruption or what-have-you.

It's a sign that no one else was willing to be associated with the case.

It's almost like the Deputy Attorney General interviewing Ghislaine Maxwell with only her lawyer in the room and then she get's a trip to Club Fed in beautiful Bryan.  

We blew past normal years ago.  We've gone plaid.  

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Red Five said:


Thanks. I’m just a little curious how they got an indictment when no one seems to know if he even said anything untrue.

Probable cause is a very low standard, but there needs to be something signaling that the crime occurred.

The problem here is more one for proof at trial.  To prove this type of perjury, there needs to be something very unequivocal and contemporaneous that flat contradicts what the perjurer said.  Otherwise, it's a he-said she-said that is extremely unlikely to meet the reasonable doubt standard.

And even the known background information doesn't contradict what Comey said.

Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probable cause is a very low standard, but there needs to be something signaling that the crime occurred.

The problem here is more one for proof at trial.  To prove this type of perjury, there needs to be something very unequivocal and contemporaneous that flat contradicts what the perjurer said.  Otherwise, it's a he-said she-said that is extremely unlikely to meet the reasonable doubt standard.

And even the known background information doesn't contradict what Comey said.

McCabe was on one of the Sunday shows today, and he claims that nobody interviewed him.

Posted
Probable cause is a very low standard, but there needs to be something signaling that the crime occurred.
The problem here is more one for proof at trial.  To prove this type of perjury, there needs to be something very unequivocal and contemporaneous that flat contradicts what the perjurer said.  Otherwise, it's a he-said she-said that is extremely unlikely to meet the reasonable doubt standard.
And even the known background information doesn't contradict what Comey said.

Also, the indictment came about 48 hours after the president demanded it, for personal revenge reasons (his own words). This can’t go to trial right? It’s absurd on every level.
Posted
2 minutes ago, Red Five said:


Also, the indictment came about 48 hours after the president demanded it, for personal revenge reasons (his own words). This can’t go to trial right? It’s absurd on every level.

Remember when we thought January 6th was the end of Trump's political career?  

  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...