SaintsInDome2006

I agree with you on the grand jury & the grand jury system. They did their job, knocked down one count, 23-14 on the other two. Nothing wrong there.

We’ve already done this twice. Durham took two ‘Russia Hoax’ cases to trial, in both situations the juries acquitted very quickly. In one of the cases the DOJ star witness was completely adverse to the prosecution’s case. Stuff like that isn’t even supposed to get that far.

Trump Fired a U.S. Attorney Who Insisted on Following a Court Order The top federal prosecutor in Sacramento was fired hours after she reminded a Border Patrol chief to abide by court-ordered restrictions on immigration raids. - Tge court order was to require reasonable suspicion before a traffic stop. Basic 4th Amendment stuff.

WAPO: DOJ’s star witness McCabe (really their whole case) wasn’t interviewed by the FBI/DOJ & didn’t appear before the grand jury.

Judge who reviewed James Comey's indictment was confused by prosecutor's handling of case, transcript shows >> But two versions of the indictment were published on the case docket: one with the dropped third count, and one without. The transcript reveals why this occurred. "So this has never happened before. I've been handed two documents that are in the Mr. Comey case that are inconsistent with one another," Vaala said to Halligan. "There seems to be a discrepancy. They're both signed by the (grand jury) foreperson." And she noted that one document did not clearly indicate what the grand jury had decided. "The one that says it's a failure to concur in an indictment, it doesn't say with respect to one count," Vaala said. "It looks like they failed to concur across all three counts, so I'm a little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that are inconsistent." Halligan initially responded that she hadn't seen that version of the indictment. "So I only reviewed the one with the two counts that our office redrafted when we found out about the two — two counts that were true billed, and I signed that one. I did not see the other one. I don't know where that came from," Halligan told the judge. Vaala responded, "You didn't see it?" And Halligan again told her, "I did not see that one." Vaala seemed surprised: "So your office didn't prepare the indictment that they —" Halligan then replied, "No, no, no — I — no, I prepared three counts. I only signed the one — the two-count (indictment). I don't know which one with three counts you have in your hands." "Okay. It has your signature on it," Vaala told Halligan, who responded, "Okay. Well."<<

>>“They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing their problems,” he said. “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists…”

So, Musk, Bannon, Thiel & Epstein walk into a bar… {checks notes}… hold on, they went to the island.

Congress’ newest member is not being sworn in because… ah well, you know.

Dude you said their countries were going to hell. Maybe - & just hear me out here - they hated the speech.

You don’t say.

Everyone, quick, save the emergency stop button tapes.

He’s a madman, cranium full of jello.

Andrew MCarthy no less.

Andrew McCarthy on the Comey charges: dismiss them.

Not kidding, it might be for Comey. IIRC McCabe, Strzok & Page all got money in civil lawsuits after Trump1. If Comey gets to the other side of this he might make bank as well.

It’s not a defense, it’s just a source of amusement.

Amigo, it already happened. Cheers.

My friend, they never charged him with anything but: 1. A gun charge (lying on a form about his drug use while buying a gun), & 2. Tax evasion (which he did a plea deal on).

Yes! Yes!! Next Bolton (also appointed by Trump!)!

Weiss, Durham, Huber, Barr, now Wray & Siebert. Golly all these bad guys…. appointed by _______.

And what happened. Weiss never charged HB on ‘the other stuff.’

No I do, the gun charge was part of the 1st plea deal. It would’ve been deferred but he also was required to do monitoring. So they ended up doing a trial for the gun charge, and we don’t know what the judge would’ve done on the sentence. The 2nd charge on taxes he pleaded guilty to anyway. - What didn’t happen, & which triggered the collapse of the plea deal, was HB getting charged on something else. Weiss never did charge him on that stuff.

It is sort of ridiculous. The plea deal included exactly what Biden was found guilty on. (& he did a plea deal on the tax charges anyway). That’s the point of plea deals, to save everyone the cost & time & trouble & risk of litigating. But if they had done a plea deal Biden would be paying back the American people & would’ve been reporting in for probation. But this way the People (us) get no accountability from the lawbreaker.

Actually I think Cruz’s question to Comey was if he wanted to change his statement and he said no. *That is the testimony they’re charging him on not the original statement. Also apparently Cruz’s original statement had to do with the ‘anonymous’ nature of the original report, & anonymous sourcing is a very specific thing with its own guidelines at FBI, so the way Cruz asked it was about whether Comey had authorized the way the reporter had couched the sourcing, which he couldn’t have possibly had any control over. It sounds like Cruz botched the question itself. The grand jury refused to indict on one of the three charges as well, & my guess is that third charge may be needed for the other two charges.

Totally neutral question here, just asking for info - what is the actual leak that is being referred to here? Was it the October surprise NYT story where they said Hillary was still under investigation or something else? TIA.