- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Y’all want a little preview of Comey’s motion to dismiss?
Posted on 5/13/26 at 1:46 am to davyjones
Posted on 5/13/26 at 1:46 am to davyjones
quote:
Don’t know. Per precedence, let’s just go ahead and charge him and get that sucker on into the judicial process. When it’s gotten in there pretty thick, perhaps we can see the strength of the case at that point and also for shits n giggles how much he’s had to shuck out on attorney fees.
Yeah let’s waste tax payer dollars to prosecute someone the president doesn’t like over something so fricking retarded Hollywood couldn’t make it up, that’s what America was and is all about!
3
Posted on 5/13/26 at 2:19 am to hubertcumberdale
Looks like my post went right smooth over your head. 2 hints: (1) it wasn’t literal; (2) look to a past similar instance(s), let’s say even perhaps a previous Presidency, to understand the premise of my post.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 6:56 am to Speckhunter2012
quote:
8647 ain't shite dude.
Had it been 8644, the uproar would have been deafening!
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:00 am to hubertcumberdale
quote:
Yeah let’s waste tax payer dollars to prosecute someone the president doesn’t like
NOW that's a problem?
This is a 100% lawfare bullshite charge but Comey earned every bit of it.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:02 am to boosiebadazz
The hiding behind the first amendment while stoking violence is an art form for the left.
He wasnt steering the car when it killed people, he just told them how to drive.
I have no reason, at least from the last seventy years, to believe anything of consequence will come for those who LITERALLY tried to overthrow our government. Hell man, they still are.
He wasnt steering the car when it killed people, he just told them how to drive.
I have no reason, at least from the last seventy years, to believe anything of consequence will come for those who LITERALLY tried to overthrow our government. Hell man, they still are.
This post was edited on 5/13/26 at 7:03 am
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:03 am to themunch
The motion I posted touches on that. You should read it. It’s only 10 pages.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:10 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Fourth Circuit held that statements on a public forum that a specific person should
be “drug [sic] out into the street and shot” and that he “is an enemy … of all humanity
and he must be killed” “did not communicate an intent to take any action whatsoever”
and thus “fell short of being true threats.” Id; see also Miselis, 972 F.3d at 539-41
(holding that the First Amendment protects “abstract advocacy” and striking down
statutory prohibitions against “encouraging,” “promoting,” or “urging” others to
engage in violence).
splain statutory prohibitions
I understand this but dont agree
This post was edited on 5/13/26 at 7:25 am
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:13 am to themunch
quote:
"Abstract advocacy" refers to the protected speech of promoting ideas, doctrines, or political views, including the violent overthrow of government, without inciting immediate, lawless action. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) standard, this abstract teaching is protected,
No wonder these folks just keep spouting shite. This needs to be challenged.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:14 am to boosiebadazz
The biggest issue for Comey is that the DOJ has had to set up a taint team for some the evidence collected, ie they have communications between him and his lawyer.
He can argue that it is protected 1st amendment communications, but if there is anything that comes in showing either him or his lawyer discussing the concern that his could be viewed as a threat, he is toast.
Don’t forget that the 1st amendment concern runs hand in hand with “could it be reasonably perceived” as a threat, not proving explicit intent. If there is any concerns in his exchanges with his lawyer and how this is good publicity for his book, he is probably toast.
He can argue that it is protected 1st amendment communications, but if there is anything that comes in showing either him or his lawyer discussing the concern that his could be viewed as a threat, he is toast.
Don’t forget that the 1st amendment concern runs hand in hand with “could it be reasonably perceived” as a threat, not proving explicit intent. If there is any concerns in his exchanges with his lawyer and how this is good publicity for his book, he is probably toast.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:19 am to laxtonto
quote:
taint team
Aka STDtiger and AlterEd, but I digress
I’d be surprised if Comey discussed an Instagram post with his lawyer before he made it. Maybe so, but that seems out of the ordinary.
quote:
Don’t forget that the 1st amendment concern runs hand in hand with “could it be reasonably perceived” as a threat, not proving explicit intent
Kinda. Counterman held the standard is the speaker “consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence”
Substantial risk is going to be tough to prove given that he was not the first, nor the last, to post it.
This post was edited on 5/13/26 at 7:20 am
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:20 am to boosiebadazz
So, by saying it wasn't a "true" threat they acknowledge that it was, in fact, a threat, but his attorneys are hanging their hats on it wasn't really a threat, because, "C'mon, let's be serious. Nobody believes it was "true" threat. He was just being smarmy?"
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:21 am to VoxDawg
quote:
It's precious that you act like arranging seashells on a beach is the most heinous thing this man has ever done in his time in DC
Your cope-based straw men are getting pretty crazy these days
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:22 am to laxtonto
I sure hope they have more than this as a charge against Comey. This charge is small potatoes compared with the subversion of the government that was performed by the Biden administration and the democratic party.
Water gate wasnt shite compared to the lengths they have gone.
Water gate wasnt shite compared to the lengths they have gone.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:28 am to hubertcumberdale
That POS in his own words said that when he saw it "he figured that it was some sort of political message".
If I saw that I would have no clue of it's meaning.
So he connected 47 to Trump.
And as a career FBI man he surely knows the 86 meaning.
Lock him Up!
If I saw that I would have no clue of it's meaning.
So he connected 47 to Trump.
And as a career FBI man he surely knows the 86 meaning.
Lock him Up!
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:28 am to SlowFlowPro
I haven’t run it down on PACER, but the motion I posted in the OP seems to be the defendant’s opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss his indictment for posts he made on BlueSky.
He’s arguing for dismissal with prejudice while the government is presumably moving for dismissal without prejudice.
His posts are way more incendiary than the seashells and the government is moving to dismiss.
I’ll bet you this case makes it into Comey’s vindictive prosecution motion.
He’s arguing for dismissal with prejudice while the government is presumably moving for dismissal without prejudice.
His posts are way more incendiary than the seashells and the government is moving to dismiss.
I’ll bet you this case makes it into Comey’s vindictive prosecution motion.
This post was edited on 5/13/26 at 7:30 am
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:30 am to laxtonto
quote:
Don’t forget that the 1st amendment concern runs hand in hand with “could it be reasonably perceived” as a threat,
A reasonable person doesn't look at an instagram post about seashells and think "Hey, the former FBI director is calling for a hit on POTUS. On Instagram. Because that's how to get it done in DC."
Now, "get rid of Trump" (which is all that means) from a burner email to a hitman? Sure. But that's not what this was.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:38 am to themunch
quote:
I sure hope they have more than this as a charge against Comey.
The fact that this indictment was so succinct (to the point of possibly being deficient) and the trial is occurring at warp speed indicates this is all they have here.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:45 am to laxtonto
quote:
if there is anything that comes in showing either him or his lawyer discussing the concern that his could be viewed as a threat, he is toast.
Probably the worst legal take in this whole thread.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:48 am to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
Probably the worst legal take in this whole thread.
We've got at least one lawyer who was convinced Comey issued an illegal threat concerning POTUS.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 7:55 am to laxtonto
quote:
The biggest issue for Comey is that the DOJ has had to set up a taint team for some the evidence collected, ie they have communications between him and his lawyer.
Are you confusing this with the Daniel Richman matter?
This post was edited on 5/13/26 at 7:56 am
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News