- 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: The DOJ Not Bringing Their Best for the Comey Trial
Posted on 10/8/25 at 8:47 pm to dnm3305
Posted on 10/8/25 at 8:47 pm to dnm3305
quote:
Do you understand what’s going on yet?
Let this sink in. Washington is filled with swamp creatures. There is no “draining the swamp”.
No one will ever be actually prosecuted. No one will ever be held accountable.
There are too many piece of shite SlowFlowPro fig gots in that area of the country that hate America.
There will never be justice for these pieces of shite.
Preach brother. Truth but no one cares to hear it.
0
Posted on 10/8/25 at 8:48 pm to Demonbengal
quote:
If it’s revenge you crave
Nope.
We want this shyte stopped, … the deliberate abuse of justice on a systemic level must be addressed.
Failure to address the crimes of those that were directly responsible will only insure it happens again. We want this shyte stopped.
This post was edited on 10/8/25 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 10/8/25 at 8:53 pm to IvoryBillMatt
I immediately thought of a very sensible explanation, it makes logical sense to me anyway. Seems much more plausible to me, unless you are in possession of more in-depth knowledge and info on these particular attorneys than what the article offers:
Trump named as the lead prosecutor an attorney who he must trust rather deeply (former personal atty) to supervise the undertaking, and keep it honest and diligent. And the other two US attys mentioned, who were brought in from another district? Those are probably going to be your “skill players” doing most of the actual prosecutorial strategizing and in-court work.
Trump named as the lead prosecutor an attorney who he must trust rather deeply (former personal atty) to supervise the undertaking, and keep it honest and diligent. And the other two US attys mentioned, who were brought in from another district? Those are probably going to be your “skill players” doing most of the actual prosecutorial strategizing and in-court work.
This post was edited on 10/8/25 at 8:57 pm
Posted on 10/8/25 at 8:57 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The DOJ seasoned prosecutors said "No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
Have you heard that phrase before?
Of course, I have heard it. Previously, though I heard it about federal districts which are liberal (SDNY, EDVA...). The fact that DOJ didn't bother to bring in experienced counsel from ANY district is puzzling.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:05 pm to davyjones
quote:
Those are probably going to be your “skill players” doing most of the actual prosecutorial strategizing and in-court work.
That's what I thought they would do, but they picked two relatively inexperienced lawyers from the Eastern District of North Carolina. I did some research. Between the two of them, the only prosecution I could find was of a drug case. Fitzgerald and his team are going to eat this team alive.
It's going to be an AWFUL start if actual prosecutions of James/Schiff/Clapper/Clinton/Bolton, etc. are actually coming.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:14 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
I did some research. Between the two of them, the only prosecution I could find was of a drug case.
Where did you find this research? That just sounds off. Or odd, at a minimum. 5 or 6 years as an AUSA produces some pretty serious knowledge and experience in that venue. That ain’t fly by the seat of your pants state court prosecution. You gotta be on your damn game up in there. And for most of them that’s usually on top of earlier state prosecution experience as well. I think you’re underestimating the experience and knowledge involved with these folks.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:18 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:You think the Eastern District of Virginia is reputed to be a bastion of conservatism? Erik Siebert headed it. Comey's SIL was one of their peeps. Comey's case is being heard in Alexandria VA.
Previously, though I heard it about federal districts which are liberal
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:18 pm to boosiebadazz
My sources tell me you are a sperm burping gutter slut.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:21 pm to Jbird
quote:
a sperm burping gutter slut.
Which is why I was just asked to join the Comey prosecution team
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:23 pm to davyjones
quote:
I think you’re underestimating the experience and knowledge involved with these folks.
Could be. My research was limited to Google (don't have Lexis anymore).
Compared to Comey's lawyers, though, wouldn't you want at least one of them older than 40...or have ever prosecuted a case in EDVA?
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:27 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You think the Eastern District of Virginia is reputed to be a bastion of conservatism? Erik Siebert headed it. Comey's SIL was one of their peeps. Comey's case is being heard in Alexandria VA.
I specifically cited the EDVA as being liberal. The whole point is that DOJ could have brought in heavy hitters from anywhere. Why go to EDNC for two young lawyers?
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:30 pm to davyjones
quote:
Or odd, at a minimum. 5 or 6 years as an AUSA produces some pretty serious knowledge and experience in that venue. That ain’t fly by the seat of your pants state court prosecution. You gotta be on your damn game up in there
You do realize the AUSAs they brought in where from EDNC? Deep bench there?
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:31 pm to IvoryBillMatt
I think my question is did they rush the prosecution because the SOL was about to run out and they just wanted to get the case filed before that so it would give them more time to add charges. I'm not very knowledgeable about how that works. So I guess I'm just wondering if they knew they had more but just needed to get something filed. It seems pretty clear cut to me. Either he lied or he didnt. I do know they were running out of time to file.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:39 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
wouldn't you want at least one of them older than 40.
Not necessarily. Prosecution, particularly at the federal level, could be described as a younger man’s game these days, with a deeper appreciation and understanding of modern technology and such not just being an advantage, but more likely a necessity for high percentage success.
And of course not to be minimized is the inherent advantage(s) the government “usually” has anyway. Resources. Personnel. And as I’ve seen mentioned before around here, and accurately so, is the well-known concept that rarely does the federal government even bother to bring a case against someone unless they’re already fully convinced they have a winning case. I differentiate that from the state equivalent, which is very, very often far from the case. In other words, the government usually has the facts on their side as well.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:42 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
You do realize the AUSAs they brought in where from EDNC? Deep bench there?
You don’t at all think that that’s likely for some specific reason? Some specific reason (1) not shared with us and (2) intended to be a net advantage for the prosecution? Seems awful intentional and purposeful. And surely not for the purpose of hampering their own efforts.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:46 pm to davyjones
quote:
Not necessarily. Prosecution, particularly at the federal level, could be described as a younger man’s game these days, with a deeper appreciation and understanding of modern technology and such not just being an advantage, but more likely a necessity for high percentage success.
And of course not to be minimized is the inherent advantage(s) the government “usually” has anyway. Resources. Personnel. And as I’ve seen mentioned before around here, and accurately so, is the well-known concept that rarely does the federal government even bother to bring a case against someone unless they’re already fully convinced they have a winning case. I differentiate that from the state equivalent, which is very, very often far from the case. In other words, the government usually has the facts on their side as well.
All good points. I just used the "over 40" metric as one way of assessing this. Other than their ages and that one of them graduated from Campbell College School of Law and the other had been noted in a drug case, I couldn't find much.
On paper, it just seems an epic mismatch of criminal law experience between the two sides.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:49 pm to boosiebadazz
Lol sure you were champ.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:53 pm to Jbird
quote:
Lol sure you were champ.
Would you believe it if I dressed it up in a little haiku and numerology?
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:54 pm to IvoryBillMatt
it's a "very thin" indictment because this is NOT what they will be charging him for. This was just to throw something on him before his SOL expired.
For the 18th time now.
For the 18th time now.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 9:57 pm to davyjones
quote:
You don’t at all think that that’s likely for some specific reason? Some specific reason (1) not shared with us and (2) intended to be a net advantage for the prosecution? Seems awful intentional and purposeful. And surely not for the purpose of hampering their own efforts.
I'm HOPING it's for some specific reason. It's just hard to imagine what it is. You would think you would want at least one member of the prosecution team to have prosecuted a case in EDVA before. Also, it would be nice to have someone with experience in Congressional testimony.
Why not appoint Ed Martin as a special prosecuter for this case?
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News