James Comey Charged.

[schism666]

You have the raciest of stripes in your underwear.

i appreciate you checking out my ass but i don't swing that way, pedo supporter. and way too old for you.

derp.

 

[HisArpy]

i appreciate you checking out my ass but i don't swing that way, pedo supporter. and way too old for you.

derp.

I only had to follow the squadron of flies buzzing your backside to see what you show to the entire world without an ounce of shame.

 

[schism666]

I only had to follow the squadron of flies buzzing your backside to see what you show to the entire world without an ounce of shame.

how upset were you when you realized i was not a tweenager?

 

[Bn2f]

dudly, you and the rest of the liberal Left are engaging in "We've got him now!!!" once again. You're lying to yourselves in your efforts to make things seem like they're going your way.

They're not.

You know why?

Because if the Grand Jury evidence is released, the only thing the Defense can do with it is make a motion to dismiss (which they've already done). Any argument as to the accuracy of the evidence is a matter for the jury to decide - ie; it has to go to trial. Thus, the ONLY thing the defense can do is somehow show the Grand Jury came to the verdict they agreed to was because of some sort of improper conduct BY THE GRAND JURY MEMBERS THEMSELVES, not the prosecutor or the witnesses or the evidence.

The defense complaining that this case is politically motivated isn't going to overcome a GJ indictment without something to show the GJ ITSELF was politically motivated to indict.

Good luck with that.

Have a great day coping and seething.

My friends, I too am no lawyer, but I also have zero reason to trust the jurisprudence opinion of a member who once installed the gutters at a law firm.
But… I am willing to grant him the belief that this trial will go forward and, if that’s the case, all indications are that it will not go well for the prosecution.
I know this is a long clip, but there’s more than a few relevant and strikingly coincidental takes that I think a few of you may piece together and enjoy. In other words, this case and trial is going to be Bananas!

 

[Bn2f]

This trial is going to be a sham.
In part about a wannabe dictator.
A celebrity now more famous for an underage relationship than anything else.
A trial about a New York intellectual commie (according to magats).
About the head of the FBI.
About the FBI head being a threat to the security of the country.
It’s all really about being a diversion to Epstein.
Comey is a lifelong republican. Trump says he’s a rotten, conniving rat.
There’s a beauty pageant entry.
In the end, it’s going to show trump to be a liar again.

 

[HisArpy]

how upset were you when you realized i was not a tweenager?

Probably a lot less than you were when you realized the same.

 

[eric_erosfan]

Probably a lot less than you were when you realized the same.

Old man version of "I know you are but what am I?"

 

[schism666]

Old man version of "I know you are but what am I?"

he's an incoherent twat.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

The case against Comey just collapsed when the prosecutor admitted to the judge that she’d lied when she said the grand jury had indicted him.

 

[RobDownSouth]

So a grand jury considered all the "evidence" presented against James Comey and delivered a "no bill", rendering which in normal circumstances means the government has no case and prosecution may not continue. Hell, even US attorney for DC Drunken Jeanne Pirro knew this.

But something odd happened.....the prosecutor took the foreman of the grand jury aside and asked what specifically the grand jury did not like about the indictment.....and the grand jury foreman cited several defects in the indictment. The prosecutor then changed the verbiage on the spot.....AFTER the no bil had been cast..... and said "do you think the grand jury would have voted to indict based on THIS?" and the grand jury foreman said "I believe so".

"Are you willing to sign a document saying so?" "Sure!" So the prosecutor used this signature....by a SINGLE grand juror, to tell the judge that the grand jury had voted a "true bill" and prosecution may continue.

The judge in the case today, upon learning about these legal shenanigans, ordered a written explanation of this grotesque breech of legal ethics, deadline is 5 pm TODAY.

If the judge throws out the indictment as faulty, Comey CANNOT be tried ever again on these charges as the statute of limitations has elapsed.

I look forward to Derpy's shallow and facile "legal theory" about how all of the above is both legal and "fair" ("fair" is Derpy's new word of the weak).

 

[DeluxAuto]

This is the current front page of Google.



All trump fuck ups.

 

[eric_erosfan]

So a grand jury considered all the "evidence" presented against James Comey and delivered a "no bill", rendering which in normal circumstances means the government has no case and prosecution may not continue. Hell, even US attorney for DC Drunken Jeanne Pirro knew this.

But something odd happened.....the prosecutor took the foreman of the grand jury aside and asked what specifically the grand jury did not like about the indictment.....and the grand jury foreman cited several defects in the indictment. The prosecutor then changed the verbiage on the spot.....AFTER the no bil had been cast..... and said "do you think the grand jury would have voted to indict based on THIS?" and the grand jury foreman said "I believe so".

"Are you willing to sign a document saying so?" "Sure!" So the prosecutor used this signature....by a SINGLE grand juror, to tell the judge that the grand jury had voted a "true bill" and prosecution may continue.

The judge in the case today, upon learning about these legal shenanigans, ordered a written explanation of this grotesque breech of legal ethics, deadline is 5 pm TODAY.

If the judge throws out the indictment as faulty, Comey CANNOT be tried ever again on these charges as the statute of limitations has elapsed.

I look forward to Derpy's shallow and facile "legal theory" about how all of the above is both legal and "fair" ("fair" is Derpy's new word of the weak).

I would not be surprised if it was literally laughed out of court.

 

[eric_erosfan]

I would not be surprised if it was literally laughed out of court.

Also everyone involved in this farce should face disbarment.

 

[schism666]

Also everyone involved in this farce should face disbarment.

deport them!

#magalogic

 

[schism666]

I look forward to Derpy's shallow and facile "legal theory" about how all of the above is both legal and "fair" ("fair" is Derpy's new word of the weak).

icanthelpbutbeanidiot has finally found actual "lawfare."

 

[Bn2f]

Probably a lot less than you were when you realized the same.

So a grand jury considered all the "evidence" presented against James Comey and delivered a "no bill", rendering which in normal circumstances means the government has no case and prosecution may not continue. Hell, even US attorney for DC Drunken Jeanne Pirro knew this.

But something odd happened.....the prosecutor took the foreman of the grand jury aside and asked what specifically the grand jury did not like about the indictment.....and the grand jury foreman cited several defects in the indictment. The prosecutor then changed the verbiage on the spot.....AFTER the no bil had been cast..... and said "do you think the grand jury would have voted to indict based on THIS?" and the grand jury foreman said "I believe so".

"Are you willing to sign a document saying so?" "Sure!" So the prosecutor used this signature....by a SINGLE grand juror, to tell the judge that the grand jury had voted a "true bill" and prosecution may continue.

The judge in the case today, upon learning about these legal shenanigans, ordered a written explanation of this grotesque breech of legal ethics, deadline is 5 pm TODAY.

If the judge throws out the indictment as faulty, Comey CANNOT be tried ever again on these charges as the statute of limitations has elapsed.

I look forward to Derpy's shallow and facile "legal theory" about how all of the above is both legal and "fair" ("fair" is Derpy's new word of the weak).

Wait! HisA and his ScoobyDoo deductions are taking it in gnads? AGAIN???



I’m here for it!

 

[RobDownSouth]

Interesting side note on today's legal shenanigans, the judge began questioning the prosecutor about the previous prosecutor's formal declination to pursue charges against Comey. Where was the previous formal decline?

The prosecutor dissembled and issued vague theories about the existence of the formal decline, but the judge asked him directly, under threat of sanction, to answer the fucking question.

The prosecutor almost broke down in tears, admitting that the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's political hack, had ordered him NOT to answer that particular question insofar as legally possible because the notice to decline DID exist and Blanche was seeking legal advice from top Heritage Foundation lawyers to claim some sort of "prosecutorial privilege" to deny the Federal courts access to the memo.

A complete disrespect for the Federal judiciary.

 

[HisArpy]

Interesting side note on today's legal shenanigans, the judge began questioning the prosecutor about the previous prosecutor's formal declination to pursue charges against Comey. Where was the previous formal decline?

The prosecutor dissembled and issued vague theories about the existence of the formal decline, but the judge asked him directly, under threat of sanction, to answer the fucking question.

The prosecutor almost broke down in tears, admitting that the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's political hack, had ordered him NOT to answer that particular question insofar as legally possible because the notice to decline DID exist and Blanche was seeking legal advice from top Heritage Foundation lawyers to claim some sort of "prosecutorial privilege" to deny the Federal courts access to the memo.

A complete disrespect for the Federal judiciary.

It's not disrespect to obey order from your superiors. It's also not disrespect to decline to discuss the legal issues of someone who is not on trial or have a case/controversy before the inquiring judge.

You know what IS disrespect? A judge inserting himself into a case and using his own biases and personal political agenda to punish those appearing before him.

 

[HisArpy]

So a grand jury considered all the "evidence" presented against James Comey and delivered a "no bill", rendering which in normal circumstances means the government has no case and prosecution may not continue. Hell, even US attorney for DC Drunken Jeanne Pirro knew this.

But something odd happened.....the prosecutor took the foreman of the grand jury aside and asked what specifically the grand jury did not like about the indictment.....and the grand jury foreman cited several defects in the indictment. The prosecutor then changed the verbiage on the spot.....AFTER the no bil had been cast..... and said "do you think the grand jury would have voted to indict based on THIS?" and the grand jury foreman said "I believe so".

"Are you willing to sign a document saying so?" "Sure!" So the prosecutor used this signature....by a SINGLE grand juror, to tell the judge that the grand jury had voted a "true bill" and prosecution may continue.

The judge in the case today, upon learning about these legal shenanigans, ordered a written explanation of this grotesque breech of legal ethics, deadline is 5 pm TODAY.

If the judge throws out the indictment as faulty, Comey CANNOT be tried ever again on these charges as the statute of limitations has elapsed.

I look forward to Derpy's shallow and facile "legal theory" about how all of the above is both legal and "fair" ("fair" is Derpy's new word of the weak).

Exactly how did you obtain this privileged SECRET Grand Jury information?

 

[HisArpy]

The case against Comey just collapsed when the prosecutor admitted to the judge that she’d lied when she said the grand jury had indicted him.

Interesting concept.

Perhaps you could tell us where the written indictment on file came from?

 

[stxjimmy]

It's not disrespect to obey order from your superiors. It's also not disrespect to decline to discuss the legal issues of someone who is not on trial or have a case/controversy before the inquiring judge.

You know what IS disrespect? A judge inserting himself into a case and using his own biases and personal political agenda to punish those appearing before him.

The I was following orders defence!

 

[HisArpy]

The I was following orders defence!

It's not disrespectful to raise a defense. That you don't like it, doesn't make it so.

 

[stxjimmy]

It's not disrespectful to raise a defense. That you don't like it, doesn't make it so.

As a lawyer would it not be unreasonable for the board to assume you had a belief that the veracity and legitimacy of a filing are present and correct.

 

[HisArpy]

As a lawyer would it not be unreasonable for the board to assume you had a belief that the veracity and legitimacy of a filing are present and correct.

As a district attorney, to being charges I would have to have a credible belief that the evidence against the accused is sufficient that a reasonable juror would believe the accused is guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

THAT is the standard. Not the crap you're throwing around in an attempt to smear the DOJ/Deputy DA.

 

[stxjimmy]

As a district attorney, to being charges I would have to have a credible belief that the evidence against the accused is sufficient that a reasonable juror would believe the accused is guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

THAT is the standard. Not the crap you're throwing around in an attempt to smear the DOJ/Deputy DA.

Cut your losses and stop making yourself a fool, the case is shoddy and has no legitimacy