Posted on 09/28/2025 8:35:14 PM PDT by lasereye
I expressed my reservations about the indictment of James Comey here. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy takes a deep dive into the facts relevant to the indictment, and concludes that it should be thrown out of court.
This is what the indictment says:
On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES B. COMEY JR., did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement…by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” regarding an FBI investigation concerning Person 1.
This is a much-investigated episode. The “someone else” is then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Person 1 is Hillary Clinton, and the “news reports” consist entirely or mainly of a story or stories in the Wall Street Journal about the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation.
The problem, McCarthy says, is that the known facts contradict the indictment:
To repeat, Comey disputed that McCabe told him, before or after the fact, that he (McCabe) had authorized the leak — he says that when they discussed the WSJ article, Comey was upset about it and McCabe acted like he’d had nothing to do with it (which is consistent with the fact that, after causing the leak, McCabe dressed down agents in New York over the leak — suggesting that they were responsible for it in order to divert attention from himself). Like [DOJ Inspector General] Horowitz, I believe it’s obvious that Comey was telling the truth about that. For present purposes, however, it makes no difference.In his testimony, Comey obviously understood Cruz to be asking whether Comey had authorized McCabe to leak to the WSJ prior to the McCabe’s doing so. But McCabe had never said Comey authorized the leak; McCabe said that he himself authorized the leak and told Comey about it afterwards, and that Comey didn’t seem to have a problem with it. McCabe probably lied about telling Comey post facto and about Comey’s not having a problem with the leak; but the point is that McCabe didn’t say Comey authorized the leak — he said he informed Comey afterwards.
A rational juror could not convict Comey of perjury on that record. Cruz garbled what is meant by the word “authorize”; McCabe didn’t claim Comey authorized the leak; ergo, there is no evidence — much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt — that Comey was lying when he told Cruz he hadn’t authorized McCabe’s leak.
Unfortunately, when this prosecution fails, the Democratic Party press will use Comey’s exoneration on this trivial point as a refutation of the Russia Collusion Hoax, which Comey helped to perpetrate, to what should be his everlasting shame.
I expect a bunch of logically irrelevant comments about what a despicable corrupt person Comey is, Republicans never fight back etc.
So, the DOJ brought the wrong charge is what he is saying. There is MUCH that Comey has to answer for, and it would be a blunder to start out losing on this one.
May you get what you expect.
So what’s your point?
Even if Comey is acquitted, it will not happen until well after Trump is gone, and in the mean time it costs Comey millions to defend himself. They need to understand that lawfare can go both ways.
To make your long story short, I think we need to wait to see what the Feds have on the case before declaring the case over .
I’m led to believe other charges could / will be added, but this initial indictment was filed as a placeholder to extend state of limitations.
To make a long story short, Comey will be acquitted, if it goes to trial. Unless a third person was aware of a conversation between McCabe and Comey and has never told a soul about it all this time. Which is extremely unlikely.
=================================================..maybw no.
We have already found that capable lawyers sometimes produce incredible results;
Suppose that this is another of Trump’s “blunders” that is instead one of his traps. Comey, wo is confident that he is the smartest guy in the world, gets so cocky that he blabs a name or an event that widens the investigation? Actually Comey is not home free because he has yet to complete many more personal interviews and interrogations
There are many opportunities to get to the truth.....and to the jail.
e
Seems as if the acts (or culpable inactions) by Comey referred to in any future charges still need to be within the timeframe specified by the applicable Statute of Limitations.
Not sure filing initial charges can serve to “toll” or pause the deadline with respect to future charges. But then again, not experienced in such things and will tend to defer to whoever is, and can explain how it might work. Such that new charges lodged in the future won’t necessarily be declared invalid.
Seems as if the acts (or culpable inactions) by Comey referred to in any future charges still need to be within the timeframe specified by the applicable Statute of Limitations.
Not sure filing initial charges can serve to “toll” or pause the deadline with respect to future charges. But then again, not experienced in such things and will tend to defer to whoever is, and can explain how it might work. Such that new charges lodged in the future won’t necessarily be declared invalid.
Nobody has any idea what the precise charges are or what the evidence is Wait and see is a good idea
Andrew McCarthy often believes his precious DOJ/FBI can do no wrong. In the past couple of years, when it comes to Trump and his administration, he has been wrong on his prognostications just as often as he has been right. He is often blinded by TDS but those such as Hindraker take his word as gospel.
Andy McCarthy ALWAYS sides with the Deep State
A third person is mentioned in the indictment but not named...yet
I think this is a stupid move that will actually boost Comey. I thought that should be obvious.
I think this is a stupid move that will actually boost Comey. I thought that should be obvious.
Another Bondi haters with their head up their a**
Take it up with the Big Guy, Nancy
I don't want to seem picky, but I don't know what it means to often believe someone can do no wrong. Either he always believes they can do no wrong or he doesn't.
Have you actually read what he's said over the years?
Andrew McCarthy: How long has Mueller known there was no Trump-Russia collusion?
Also, why is a legal analysis about siding with someone?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.