FAFO 🔥 🔥 🔥
New AG settling into the role nicely. He keeps putting up W's like this and we'll have to start calling him Blanche McCracken.
Just to remind anyone who forgot, search for 86 46 merchandise, you can still buy it. hats, shirts, bumper stickers, more.
That's different.
FAFO 🔥 🔥 🔥
New AG settling into the role nicely. He keeps putting up W's like this and we'll have to start calling him Blanche McCracken.
LOL. There's almost zero chance this ends up a W. 50/50 it doesn't even go to trial, and 99/100 if it does, Comey walks. Probably be one of those rare cases where the jury issues the defendant an apology.
FAFO 🔥 🔥 🔥
New AG settling into the role nicely. He keeps putting up W's like this and we'll have to start calling him Blanche McCracken.
LOL. There's almost zero chance this ends up a W. 50/50 it doesn't even go to trial, and 99/100 if it does, Comey walks. Probably be one of those rare cases where the jury issues the defendant an apology.
You don't seem to get it. The humiliation and inconvenience is the point. Conviction is secondary.
You don't seem to get it. The humiliation and inconvenience is the point. Conviction is secondary.
At least you're honest about it.
Plead guilty @unclemark and beg forgiveness. It's the only chance you have.
https://twitter.com/i/status/2049226032788423144
Plead guilty @unclemark and beg forgiveness. It's the only chance you have.
5-to-1 Todd Blanche is full of shit. Show us the "other cases" he's talking about.
You don't seem to get it. The humiliation and inconvenience is the point. Conviction is secondary.
Conviction will not even be secondary. Conviction will not happen.
As a preface, obviously, IANAL....but
Comey has two charges, 1 for making the threat and 2 for transmitting it.
1) Comey states in his post that he stumbled across the shells in that configuration. Now every MAGA in the room is going to scream that this is a lie and that he made it himself. OK, how do you prove that? Outside of finding some witness to testify that they saw him making it or you can get multiple sources testifying that Comey admitted to being the one to create it, proving that is nigh impossible.
2) To "86" something is a slang term and has multiple definitions. Murdering someone is one of the definitions, but it is not the original definition and the non-violent versions are still commonly used. In order to even get a conviction, you have to PROVE that Comey intended it to mean the violent version. Again, outside of corroborating witnesses who can testify that Comey has made other statements that specifically promote violence towards Trump, there is no way you are going to prove that.
3) Even if you want to go the route that Comey was making a call for violence against Trump that he intended for someone else to take action on (ie. trying to say that Comey inspired one of the assassination attempts), you then have to prove that A) one of the assassins specifically read that post and B) made his assassination attempt in a timely manner, ie. started to take action immediately upon reading the post (Again, IANAL, but that is the standard that applies to the "inciting a riot" charge whereas you can charge the instigator based upon others actions. If the assassin doesn't do anything for months after the post, then you can successfully argue that other influences could have swayed his actions and the instigator is not liable considering he is not personally telling this person to commit the murder).
Out of curiosity for the real lawyers out there: Is there a point where Comey can counter-sue the DOJ for defamation? I mean, this lawsuit will get punted hard and fast. It's not 99/100, it's 99,999 out of 100,000. I would think Comey can find a friendly DC judge who would agree with him that he would be entitled to potential damages for two frivolous lawsuits.
You don't seem to get it. The humiliation and inconvenience is the point. Conviction is secondary.
Conviction will not even be secondary. Conviction will not happen.
As a preface, obviously, IANAL....but
Comey has two charges, 1 for making the threat and 2 for transmitting it.
1) Comey states in his post that he stumbled across the shells in that configuration. Now every MAGA in the room is going to scream that this is a lie and that he made it himself. OK, how do you prove that? Outside of finding some witness to testify that they saw him making it or you can get multiple sources testifying that Comey admitted to being the one to create it, proving that is nigh impossible.
2) To "86" something is a slang term and has multiple definitions. Murdering someone is one of the definitions, but it is not the original definition and the non-violent versions are still commonly used. In order to even get a conviction, you have to PROVE that Comey intended it to mean the violent version. Again, outside of corroborating witnesses who can testify that Comey has made other statements that specifically promote violence towards Trump, there is no way you are going to prove that.
3) Even if you want to go the route that Comey was making a call for violence against Trump that he intended for someone else to take action on (ie. trying to say that Comey inspired one of the assassination attempts), you then have to prove that A) one of the assassins specifically read that post and B) made his assassination attempt in a timely manner, ie. started to take action immediately upon reading the post (Again, IANAL, but that is the standard that applies to the "inciting a riot" charge whereas you can charge the instigator based upon others actions. If the assassin doesn't do anything for months after the post, then you can successfully argue that other influences could have swayed his actions and the instigator is not liable considering he is not personally telling this person to commit the murder).
Out of curiosity for the real lawyers out there: Is there a point where Comey can counter-sue the DOJ for defamation? I mean, this lawsuit will get punted hard and fast. It's not 99/100, it's 99,999 out of 100,000. I would think Comey can find a friendly DC judge who would agree with him that he would be entitled to potential damages for two frivolous lawsuits.
Malicious prosecution under the 4th Amendment is the redress, not defamation. But damages would be limited to actual damages, there's no punitive there. And it's almost impossible to win a case like that, especially against the feds. The cards are all stacked in the government's favor in that kind of claim.
Malicious prosecution under the 4th Amendment is the redress, not defamation. But damages would be limited to actual damages, there's no punitive there. And it's almost impossible to win a case like that, especially against the feds. The cards are all stacked in the government's favor in that kind of claim.
The feds aren't batting 0.900 like they used to.
(In fairness, it's probably still like 89%, it's just that it's only the high-profile ones on Donny's revenge tour that keep getting thrown out. The smaller ones just don't get the press).
Plead guilty @unclemark and beg forgiveness. It's the only chance you have.
So if I'm not indicted, then Blanche is lying, right?
I'm going to take Trump down on this one. (Not a threat.)
FAFO 🔥 🔥 🔥
New AG settling into the role nicely. He keeps putting up W's like this and we'll have to start calling him Blanche McCracken.
LOL. There's almost zero chance this ends up a W. 50/50 it doesn't even go to trial, and 99/100 if it does, Comey walks. Probably be one of those rare cases where the jury issues the defendant an apology.
You don't seem to get it. The humiliation and inconvenience is the point. Conviction is secondary.
The only humiliation will be of the pathetic nut suckers at the DOJ
When I originally read the pleading, I thought this would be an easy case for the judge to just dismiss, maybe even sua sponte. Guess that's rare to nonexistent, though, in criminal proceedings:FAFO 🔥 🔥 🔥
New AG settling into the role nicely. He keeps putting up W's like this and we'll have to start calling him Blanche McCracken.
LOL. There's almost zero chance this ends up a W. 50/50 it doesn't even go to trial, and 99/100 if it does, Comey walks. Probably be one of those rare cases where the jury issues the defendant an apology.