- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge dismisses cases against James Comey and L. James
Posted on 11/24/25 at 4:38 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
Posted on 11/24/25 at 4:38 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
More likely this was filled on purpose, meant to fail.
1
Posted on 11/24/25 at 4:47 pm to Figgy
Deep state losers who love seeing Trump (temporarily) take the L.
Pretty obvious if you're following along. Comey undeniably is guilty. So is Letitia James. No one makes a rookie mistake like that by mistake. Not when the stakes are so high.
Pretty obvious if you're following along. Comey undeniably is guilty. So is Letitia James. No one makes a rookie mistake like that by mistake. Not when the stakes are so high.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 5:04 pm to Ceazar
POLTICALLY WEAPONIZED JUDICIAL SYSTEM, PERIOD!
Posted on 11/24/25 at 5:19 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Yes you did, exactly as it now happened. I remember that well. Bravo
Posted on 11/24/25 at 5:52 pm to Warboo
quote:Pro tip: saying something is “not debatable” several pages into a debate just reads like “will you please stop debating this.”
it is not debatable.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 6:09 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Pro tip: saying something is “not debatable” several pages into a debate just reads like “will you please stop debating this.”
Pro tip: the case is solid but the prosecuting attorney may not be. The debate is not on the evidence against each. The debate is whether or not the DOJ should have handled the prosecuting attorney differently. The facts of what dick weed and heavy tish have not changed.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 6:14 pm to beaux duke
quote:Either you have no clue as to WTF "baseless" means, or you are trolling.
..these dumbshit rage bait charges will continue to fall flat because they're baseless .... based on just this thread alone
Posted on 11/24/25 at 6:16 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:So, just to be clear, your claim is Comey did no nefarious deeds?
Pro tip: saying something is “not debatable” several pages into a debate
Posted on 11/24/25 at 6:39 pm to Warboo
quote:The dismissal had nothing to do with a “weak prosecutor.” The judge threw it out because the prosecutor wasn’t lawfully appointed, so the case couldn’t move forward. And DOJ already declined to charge Comey back in 2019 after finding no criminal intent and no classified leak. Calling that a “solid case” is wishful thinking.
Pro tip: the case is solid but the prosecuting attorney may not be. The debate is not on the evidence against each. The debate is whether or not the DOJ should have handled the prosecuting attorney differently. The facts of what dick weed and heavy tish have not changed.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 6:42 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I didn’t say he’s innocent of all “nefarious deeds.” He’s a DC lifer, odds are he’s done plenty. The question here is whether Trump’s specific claims are real and provable.
So, just to be clear, your claim is Comey did no nefarious deeds?
Posted on 11/24/25 at 6:49 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Pro tip: the case is solid but the prosecuting attorney may not be
quote:
The dismissal had nothing to do with a “weak prosecutor.” The judge threw it out because the prosecutor wasn’t lawfully appointed, so the case couldn’t move forward.
I never said “weak prosecutor”. I said the prosecuting attorney may be “not solid” as in not appropriately assigned.
quote:
And DOJ already declined to charge Comey back in 2019 after finding no criminal intent and no classified leak. Calling that a “solid case” is wishful thinking.
Has nothing to do with this case as he lied to Congress. Saying that “it is not a solid case” is making your argument mute.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 7:22 pm to Warboo
quote:So we're on the same page there. The judge didn’t toss it over the attorney’s skill; it was dismissed because the prosecutor wasn’t lawfully appointed.
I never said “weak prosecutor”. I said the prosecuting attorney may be “not solid” as in not appropriately assigned.
quote:
Has nothing to do with this case as he lied to Congress. Saying that “it is not a solid case” is making your argument mute.
But that is the entire question of the case: did he, and can it be proved.
The case is not a catch-all for every grievance since 2016. It is two specific charges tied to one hearing: a false-statement count and an obstruction count. The indictment literally accuses him of denying he authorized someone at the FBI to speak to the media.
“On or about September 30, 2020, in the United States Senate, the defendant made a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement and representation in that he stated that he had not authorized, directly or indirectly, a person to provide current or former employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to speak with the media about investigations being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, when in fact he had so authorized a person to speak with the media …”
That is the entire case you keep pointing to.
And none of it has been proven because the indictment was dismissed on the prosecutor-appointment issue before any evidence could be tested. That does not prove he told the truth, but it also does not prove your claim.
Also, the word you’re looking for is moot. Though ironically, the evidence has been pretty quiet.
Also, worth noting: we’re now a few posts deep into debating something that was supposed to be “not debatable.”
Posted on 11/24/25 at 7:42 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Also, the word you’re looking for is moot. Though ironically, the evidence has been pretty quiet.
Spell checking can be a bitch sometimes especially if you are posting from a phone with very big fingers. Thanks for the heads up on the grammatical error. The evidence has been pretty quite based on a technicality rather than the merits of the case. Let the merits of the case speak for themselves in a bipartisan setting.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 7:45 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Either you have no clue as to WTF "baseless" means, or you are trolling.
Beaux duke is probably the dumbest poster here, and that is saying a lot.
Page 13 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News