Comey Indicted

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geo
  • Start date Start date
Geo said:
Well, yes and no.

Regardless of whether he does time or not, this is going to cost him financially and reputation wise.

His cohorts like McCabe, Baker and the rest of his cronies are going to testify against him, and tel the truth under oath.

I think he should be tried for treason but, he may be on a later case.
Click to expand...
I'll remain cautiously optomistic.
 
I have been practicing law for over 26 years. Exclusively Criminal Defense. Licensed in 2 States and 2 Fed Jurisdictions. I was surprised when media released the Grand Jury vote tally - 14 vs 9 for Indictment. That's only about 60/40. And that's only a finding of "Probable Cause' which is the 2nd lowest standard of evidence in the legal system. Because the prosecutor conducts the entire hearing - no judge, no defense counsel, no cross-examination - most GJ proceedings in most Fed jurisdictions are near unanimous for indictment. At trial, the verdict must be unanimous and the evidence must satisfy Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - which is the highest standard in the legal system. In order to secure a unanimous verdict at a jury trial Beyond Reasonable Doubt, my initial reaction is that they would need 'some' additional evidence that they elected not to trot out for the Grand Jury.
 
PDC said:
I have been practicing law for over 26 years. Exclusively Criminal Defense. Licensed in 2 States and 2 Fed Jurisdictions. I was surprised when media released the Grand Jury vote tally - 14 vs 9 for Indictment. That's only about 60/40. And that's only a finding of "Probable Cause' which is the 2nd lowest standard of evidence in the legal system. Because the prosecutor conducts the entire hearing - no judge, no defense counsel, no cross-examination - most GJ proceedings in most Fed jurisdictions are near unanimous for indictment. At trial, the verdict must be unanimous and the evidence must satisfy Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - which is the highest standard in the legal system. In order to secure a unanimous verdict at a jury trial Beyond Reasonable Doubt, my initial reaction is that they would need 'some' additional evidence that they elected not to trot out for the Grand Jury.
Click to expand...
So long as it financially hurts him to defend himself and his legacy and name are smeared good and proper I'll take that as win.

Of course, I want jail time but something is better than nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDC
PDC said:
I have been practicing law for over 26 years. Exclusively Criminal Defense. Licensed in 2 States and 2 Fed Jurisdictions. I was surprised when media released the Grand Jury vote tally - 14 vs 9 for Indictment. That's only about 60/40. And that's only a finding of "Probable Cause' which is the 2nd lowest standard of evidence in the legal system. Because the prosecutor conducts the entire hearing - no judge, no defense counsel, no cross-examination - most GJ proceedings in most Fed jurisdictions are near unanimous for indictment. At trial, the verdict must be unanimous and the evidence must satisfy Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - which is the highest standard in the legal system. In order to secure a unanimous verdict at a jury trial Beyond Reasonable Doubt, my initial reaction is that they would need 'some' additional evidence that they elected not to trot out for the Grand Jury.
Click to expand...
He and his cronies obviously ran a information hit piece on DT. Obabmar orchestrated it and Comey and his minions followed through.

There has to be some other way to prosecute like RICO or something right?
 
I'm not sure what the hang up was. It sounded as though he affirmatively denied allowing anyone to share info with the press when asked directly while under oath - and it sounds like a subordinate came forward and said that Comey had literally directed that person to share info with the press. A knowing misstatement while under oath is what it is - regardless of the relative importance of the information sought. There has to be more to this one.
 
PDC said:
I'm not sure what the hang up was. It sounded as though he affirmatively denied allowing anyone to share info with the press when asked directly while under oath - and it sounds like a subordinate came forward and said that Comey had literally directed that person to share info with the press. A knowing misstatement while under oath is what it is - regardless of the relative importance of the information sought. There has to be more to this one.
Click to expand...
I heard it was McCabe that said, during investigation, that Comey directed him to do it.

John Solomon from the Hill has been talking about it.

So, McCabe will be on the stand ratting out his boss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDC
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/matt-taibbi-jim-comey-think-national-security-implications/

Screenshot 2025-09-27 090339.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Sandwiches are for eating ONLY
Replies
8
Views
296
Geo
G
japetus
US military strikes vessel carrying drugs from Venezuela
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Monkey Man
Monkey Man
psychodave
PA Democrat confesses to intent to murder. Shoots person point blank in the head.
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
3K
Dan Gleesak
Dan Gleesak
The Blazing Saddle
Eyepatch “RINO” McCain wants to kill Tucker Carlson
Replies
15
Views
552
harddriver
H
G
FCC Releases Raw 60 Minutes Kamala Interview
Replies
2
Views
154
311boogieman
311boogieman
Back
Top