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
31 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

But as the defense attorney I want Trump to admit he ordered the code red!  Lol 

fddf79042ead10039441c14b838dd17a0e686033

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
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
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
17 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

MSNBC is reporting that 14 of 23 Grand Jurors voted to indict.  The story says that most prosecutors won't go forward unless ALL jurors vote to indict.

How many are needed for the indictment?

Posted
16 hours ago, Macanudo said:

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.  

Not sure what point you're trying to make about the Maxwell interview, but it wasn't just Deputy AG Blanche in the room with Maxwell and "only her lawyer". It was also, another lawyer from the AG's office, a FBI Agent and U.S. Marshall. Maxwell had three lawyers present.  Not to mention the court reporter.

Posted
14 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

MSNBC is reporting that 14 of 23 Grand Jurors voted to indict.  The story says that most prosecutors won't go forward unless ALL jurors vote to indict.

I REALLY wish we could know the thinking of those who voted to indict - are they just useful idiots that will okeydoke whatever someone of (apparent) authority says?

Posted (edited)

Confirmed.  https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-agent-relieved-duty-over-refusing-comey-perp-walk-four-people-familiar-say-2025-10-03/

Not sure I trust msnbc completely.

Saw that a couple of ED Va prosecutors were fired, one the first assistant to the US Attorney that refused to indict Comey, the other the head of the national security deivision there.  The latter on the strength of a social media post, but not by Loomer.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

They ran on ending political prosecutions. And oh yeah, "restoring" free speech. Upside down world, as usual. 

  • Like 1
Posted
On 9/29/2025 at 9:25 AM, 956 Worldwide said:

I think that even in Alexandria there is a good chance that 14 of 23 people will agree to something with the justification “Trump wants you to.” 

Maybe it was something along the lines of "Well, no jury is going to convict him so nbd.  But we can indict him and make his ass suffer for a bit for allowing the dotard to win the presidency the first time around."

Posted
On 9/29/2025 at 9:25 AM, 956 Worldwide said:

I think that even in Alexandria there is a good chance that 14 of 23 people will agree to something with the justification “Trump wants you to.” 

Possibly very true insofar as Alexandria is probably populating with Trumpist strivers.

However, I think the usual reasons a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich is that a) the standard is low and b) they generally trust the government and prosecutors to do the right thing, a variant of the presumption of regularity.

It's becoming clear that, as in the trial courts, and especially in "put upon" jurisdictions, Trumpist prosecutors are not enjoying any presumption of regularity. So grand juries don't trust the prosecutors in front of them. 

Alexandria is just far enough removed from DC itself, demographically, that the "normal rules" still apply.  Still, for petit/trial juries, I imagine the government would like to be even further away.

Posted

So, extrapolating from the above, Comey is probably going to be able to get discovery on vindictive prosecution, which means Fitzgerald will be able to delve into questions like:

  • Why did Erik Seibert resign
  • What was Lindsey Halligan told to do upon her appointment
  • Why are no other AUSAs appearing in this case
  • All communications between Main Justice and the Eastern District of Virginia concerning James Comey

So, this could be quite embarrassing for the Administration, to the extent it is capable of being embarrassed.  But, I'm not sure it will lead to dismissal of the indictment.  

Will Comey and Fitzgerald do this dance in the public interest, even though it is unlikely to result in the dismissal of charges?  Or will they just press for an early trial date and stuff Lindsey Halligan through the hoop?

Posted (edited)

A question on the above is, if Comey/Fitzgerald pursue the vindictive prosecution angle, how public will the evidence become?

An aspect of it is that a motion to dismiss the indictment on this ground requires an evidentiary hearing, meaning witnesses may be called and documents introduced.  There may also be depositions of witnesses so as to avoid the necessity of live testimony, which is usually preferred in criminal cases.  Evidentiary hearings are not the norm in motions to dismiss, which are usually decided "on the paper."

The government will resist this discovery with everything they've got, I'm sure, including a lot of lying and dissembling.  And will also try mightily to keep the fruits of the discovery from public view.    But Fitzgerald has the reputation of pursuing this kind of thing to the bitter end and is just the guy not to capitulate to the government's shenanigans.  And Halligan is one of the least likely attorneys to be able to defeat him.

The judge, Nachmanoff, is a Biden appointee and served five years as a magistrate judge and prior to that was a federal public defender.  So, salty as fuck on criminal stuff and not inclined to defer to the government at all.

There's a really good chance this turns into a complete shit show for the Trump DOJ.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
1 minute ago, Red Five said:

Just the stuff that is already public is beyond damaging. I'm not a lawyer and I'm pretty sure I could win this for Comey.

Yeah, it is, but there's still a bunch of inference and innuendo.  This risks making it all extremely explicit.

Unfortunately, this kind of dismissal is hard to obtain.  After you prove the vindictive motive, you also have to prove that the results are different, that is, that similarly situated defendants were not prosecuted, so the vindictive motive was the proximate cause of the prosecution.  And that can be really tough and nigh-on impossible.

So, it's a dilemma for Comey/Fitzgerald:  pursue a low-percentage motion that will be very embarrassing for the administration/DOJ, or just go directly to trial ASAP and pants Halligan.

 

Posted
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

or just go directly to trial ASAP and pants Halligan.

"So, let's have a trial." - Comey. I kind of get the feeling he wants that.

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

"So, let's have a trial." - Comey. I kind of get the feeling he wants that.

Well, if he's footing the bill, its a lot faster and several hundred thousand cheaper to go to trial.

But I think there's reason to believe he's not footing the bill and Fitzgerald came out of retirement for special reasons, that might include fucking with the Trump DOJ.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, if he's footing the bill, its a lot faster and several hundred thousand cheaper to go to trial.

But I think there's reason to believe he's not footing the bill and Fitzgerald came out of retirement for special reasons, that might include fucking with the Trump DOJ.

Could they not sufficiently fuck with them in a trial?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Could they not sufficiently fuck with them in a trial?

The issue in the trial is, did Comey lie to or otherwise obstruct Congress.

Anything that doesn't bear on that may be excluded.

If Comey were guilty or in danger of being found guilty (all signs here are no), then he might fight to create some "improper motivations" sideshows to distract the jury.  I'd tend to think if they do just go straight to trial, it will be a simple presentation where Comey probably doesn't even call a witness and wins by directed verdict.

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...