Do you think they have much on Comey?

Beyond what i cited prior this is also key. If this is based on the Congress testimony to Ted Cruz's question, which it appears to be people need to note the following.

Note that McCabe has stated he told Comey AFTER he released it and that COmey was OK with his action once informed. THAT IS NOT the same as Comey AUTHORIZING the release.

So on its face Comey and McCabe agree.





AI Summary:
Andrew McCabe claimed that he informed James Comey after he had authorized the leak to The Wall Street Journal — not before.



🔍 Breakdown of Their Conflicting Accounts:​


🗣️​


  • McCabe authorized the leak in late October 2016 (specifically Oct. 30) via his special counsel and an aide.
  • He later claimed that he told Comey afterward about the authorization.
  • McCabe has said this was standard practice and that Comey was informed after the fact, not in advance.

In McCabe’s telling, the disclosure was “cleared internally,” and he followed up with Comey after it happened to explain the context.
Click to expand...


------------------------------

AI Summary:

Here’s a summary of the key Ted Cruz question to James Comey (in a Senate hearing) that is often cited as central to the McCabe/Comey leak dispute:



🔍 The Question by Ted Cruz​


  • Cruz reminded Comey that in May 2017, under questioning by Senator Chuck Grassley, Comey had testified under oath:

    “Have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?”
    → Comey answered: “Never.”
    “Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports ...?”
    → Comey answered: “No.” cruz.senate.gov+2Washington Examiner+2
    Click to expand...
  • Cruz then confronted Comey with Andrew McCabe’s public and repeated claims that McCabe had been a source for The Wall Street Journal and that Comey had been aware of it or had authorized it. Washington Examiner+2Fox News+2
  • Cruz framed it like this:

    “Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who’s telling the truth?” Fox News+3MRCTV+3cruz.senate.gov+3
    Click to expand...
  • And he also asked:

    “So your testimony is you’ve never authorized anyone to leak? And Mr. McCabe, if he says the contrary, is he not telling the truth?”
    → Comey declined to characterize McCabe’s testimony as false, but said he stood by his own testimony. MRCTV+3wkjc.com+3cruz.senate.gov+3
    Click to expand...
 
Earl said:
BartenderElite said:
Sounds like you're still not getting the concept here.

You see everything through a partisan lens. Some things are much more about principle.


Did you forget your post? You brought up principles.
Click to expand...

You think that's any kind of retort? Just bringing up the concept of "principles?"

It was completely unrelated. Earl - this discussion ended a few posts ago. You have no answers, or equivalency. It's just weird now.
 
Earl said:
No, you did not.


Did you forget your post? You brought up principles.
Click to expand...

Yep. It sure did.

You were trying to portray the Comey issue as a "hero worship" thing from the left. When really the left, and most rational people, see it as based on principles, and really - nothing to do w/ Comey himself. It's about people who are concerned about executive overreach.

And somehow - and this is really a mystery - you saw equivalency between that, and 2 lunatics.

Like, what's the point there? Lunatics aren't principled....so there is no way people objecting to this indictment can be principled?

You won't explain, because you can't. Because there is no equivalency. Because it was an irrelevant point, and you simply cannot admit you were wrong.

I mean, my work is done here. But you'll still come back w/ the same post, as though you hear nothing.
 
Jarod said:
I just wasted 2:55 minutes, to confirm you are lying. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Where is the tape of him saying he approved a leak?

At 2:30 ish he said he had his buddy leak the content of his memos to the press.

A 2019 report by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) concluded that former FBI Director James Comey violated agency policies by leaking memos of conversations with President Trump


Where is your apology I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for.
 
FastLane said:
Where is the tape of him saying he approved a leak?

At 2:30 ish he said he had his buddy leak the content of his memos to the press.

A 2019 report by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) concluded that former FBI Director James Comey violated agency policies by leaking memos of conversations with President Trump


Where is your apology I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for.
Click to expand...
I’d have to rewatch, but it doesn’t matter anymore. This is not the situation that the indictment is about. MSNBC is reporting.
 
BartenderElite said:
That's silly.

This isn't about Comey at all. It's about executive overreach. Why did you make that post about "revenge?" If that's how you see this, and you're okay w/ that, you have no high ground or moral authority on this.
Click to expand...
It's about FBI overreach and corruption from the top down.
I bet tons of agents gave up plenty of evidence they held for years.
Comey's lackeys were behind the Mar-A-Lago raid-for-nothing.
He appointed all those goobers. They're going to regret their transgressions.
 
Damocles said:
He said that "nobody would" prosecute her.

Then, in a true effort to make sure everyone hated him, left and right alike, in an "October Surprise" he reopened an investigation when Huma's Husband had a copy of emails...
Click to expand...
He had to do it. The NY FBI was going to release the fact that they had the emails.
Jarod said:
I’d have to rewatch, but it doesn’t matter anymore. This is not the situation that the indictment is about. MSNBC is reporting.
Click to expand...
Where is your apology?
 
QP! said:
it is typically what all prosecutors, including Bragg do yes, and thus why the statement has always existed 'a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich'.

It is why we do not put much in the indictment and instead look to the trial where you have the very high bar of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which Bragg was able to nail Trump on.

But even though Prosecutors can typically secure almost 100% of indictments from Grand Juries that is not the case with this Trump DOJ who are losing on that one sided presentation in shocking fashion due to how weaponized they are and how bad the cases are., Even when presented on only one side (the DOJ side) the GJ are often saying 'no... you have nothing'.
Click to expand...
But, just like in the Old South, when you have a corrupt prosecutor (Bragg) who boasts he's out to get someone, and then has the help of a judge that will play fast and loose with the rules, the two can sway a jury--particularly one that doesn't like the defendant--to convict someone on bullshit charges or bend the law into a pretzel to get a conviction.

Comey clearly lied to Congress. There's plenty of evidence of that. He did so to run cover for the disaster Russiagate became. If he should be pointing a finger at anyone, it's the Hildabeast. After all, she was the one that set this up to happen. For her, that isn't new. She was fired from work on Watergate as a young lawyer for proposing dirty tricks be used to get Nixon.
 
BartenderElite said:
Like I said: we'll see how it goes.
Click to expand...
I heard the judge is a lefty and probably should recuse themselves.
I don't get why some people are such shitbags. I had a judge recuse himself from a case of mine because he knew who I was from his sister.
He started talking about it, and I'm like "Oh! I remember your sister now."
At 1st I was like "WTF?!", then he told me who she was and I remembered her. I went to court another time. It went well.
If he could do that, in a very low court, like "Night Court" level, why can't some people in higher courts?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top