Trump Retribution Phase | COMEY INDICTED

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 899
  • Views: 28K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

Why in the world would Kash be doing this now???

Yahoo link

A congressional Democrat called out FBI Director Kash Patel for allegedly perjuring himself when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday about accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

During his testimony, Patel repeatedly danced around issues like whether he had told Attorney General Pam Bondi that President Donald Trump’s name appeared in the Epstein files, and whether Epstein did, in fact, traffic underage victims.

On Thursday, Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) accused Patel of committing a felony by lying under oath during his testimony. She began by talking about what she called “the real crime wave” plaguing Washington, D.C.

“I think it’s very demonstrable, and the data shows, that the largest crime wave that we’ve had over the last nine months began on Jan. 20.”

She continued:

And the epicenter of that crime wave — one might call it a white collar or in this case, an “orange collar” crime wave — is the White House. Because we have seen a slew of illegal firings that have resulted in millions of Americans being without vital programs; the withholdings of millions of dollars of funds; the violations of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, due process rights; illegal arrests, illegal deportations; hundreds of lawsuits; grift that resulted in billions of dollars of crypto schemes lining the pockets of the president and his family; government contracts to his friends; and an epic cover-up of the largest known sex trafficking scandal in American history with the director of the FBI lying under oath in this chamber just yesterday.

And I just want to say this: That it is a felony under the U.S. Code to lie under oath in front of Congress. So if you want to talk about crime in DC, then look no further than your own damn hearings.
 
Fox News legal analyst Andrew McCarthytold anchor Maria Bartiromo on Friday:

“… This indictment … seems to be premised on something that’s not true, which is that McCabe said that Comey authorized him to leak to the Wall Street Journal. If you look closely at what McCabe said, what McCabe said was that he directed a leak to the Wall Street Journaland told Comey about it after the fact. So it’s true that Comey never authorized it in the sense of OKing it before it happened. So I don’t see how they can make that case.…”

www.mediaite.com

Fox Legal Analyst Tells Maria Bartiromo ‘I Don’t Think There Is a Case’ Against Comey

Andrew McCarthy told anchor Maria Bartiromo on Friday that he does not think there is a solid case against former FBI Director James Comey in the recent indictment against him.
www.mediaite.com www.mediaite.com
 
nycfan said:
Fox News legal analyst Andrew McCarthytold anchor Maria Bartiromo on Friday:

“… This indictment … seems to be premised on something that’s not true, which is that McCabe said that Comey authorized him to leak to the Wall Street Journal. If you look closely at what McCabe said, what McCabe said was that he directed a leak to the Wall Street Journaland told Comey about it after the fact. So it’s true that Comey never authorized it in the sense of OKing it before it happened. So I don’t see how they can make that case.…”

www.mediaite.com

Fox Legal Analyst Tells Maria Bartiromo ‘I Don’t Think There Is a Case’ Against Comey

Andrew McCarthy told anchor Maria Bartiromo on Friday that he does not think there is a solid case against former FBI Director James Comey in the recent indictment against him.
www.mediaite.com www.mediaite.com
Click to expand...
Somebody won't be invited back.
 
There is no solid case against Comey, and that’s why there’s not been an indictment until trump got his sycophant in place the other day.

If there is a case to be brought and it’s legit, and Comey is indeed guilty of anything, so be it. He finally gets his comeuppance from the Hillary BS he dropped just before the 2016 election which surely had something to do with Trump winning the first go around. Fuck him.
 
Centerpiece said:
There is no solid case against Comey, and that’s why there’s not been an indictment until trump got his sycophant in place the other day.

If there is a case to be brought and it’s legit, and Comey is indeed guilty of anything, so be it. He finally gets his comeuppance from the Hillary BS he dropped just before the 2016 election which surely had something to do with Trump winning the first go around. Fuck him.
Click to expand...
It is very important that he not get his comeuppance in any way, shape or form.
 
Centerpiece said:
There is no solid case against him. No worries. But fuck him for the Hillary email BS.
Click to expand...
Fuck him for the Hillary email BS, absolutely. I don't give a shit about him.

But Trump must be defeated, from the outset, on this campaign of retribution. It is far, far, far more important to the country that the attempted reign of terror be stopped in its tracks than Comey getting his just desserts.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm skeptical that telling someone to leak, or being told to leak, is something one would would 'forget' doing or have anything but good recollection of. Seems like a pretty big deal.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. They have to prove intent. You don't get to say, "gee Comey is lying because he said something mistaken." It isn't even actually clear that there was any inconsistency in the testimonies.
 
superrific said:
Fuck him for the Hillary email BS, absolutely. I don't give a shit about him.

But Trump must be defeated, from the outset, on this campaign of retribution. It is far, far, far more important to the country that the attempted reign of terror be stopped in its tracks than Comey getting his just desserts.
Click to expand...
Agree. Comey won’t be found guilty of anything legitimately. But that doesn’t mean they won’t try. Perhaps it’s just the optics they’re after anyway. But it would be much better if he were found not guilty to stop trump and his bs retribution act.
 
superrific said:
It doesn't matter. They have to prove intent. You don't get to say, "gee Comey is lying because he said something mistaken." It isn't even actually clear that there was any inconsistency in the testimonies.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about likelihood of conviction. Conviction seems very unlikely given that it's he said-he said.

I'm talking about trying to figure out the truth and punishing those responsible if possible.
 
rodoheel said:
The motive wasn't what was missing - what was missing, in the mind of Mueller, was clear evidence that the Trump campaign was intentionally cooperating with the Russian election-influencing efforts 9as opposed to simply being unwitting dupes in the efforts of the Russians). Basically it was clear they were either traitors or idiots, but it wasn't clear which one.
Click to expand...
I'll go with both. AND STOP CREATING DISTRACTIONS. RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES.
 
Last edited:
IMG_9897.jpeg

(That is not what Cruz was asking about in the Senate testimony — I wonder if this is the count that the grand jury refused to bring indictment on? But if not, then this is NOT about the McCabe leak??]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top