Judge dismisses James Comey and Letitia James cases, finding prosecutor's appointment invalid
- By JSRG
- American Politics
- 36 Replies
Maybe you can help the prosecution find the lie, because they seem to be struggling on that point:
The Situation: Where’s the Lie?
The government’s response to James Comey’s vindictive prosecution raises one very big and important question.
www.lawfaremedia.org
Here the specific text of the question Comey answered in his testimony matters a lot—for a number of reasons. Grassley asked Comey: “have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation” (emphasis added).
It is thus not adequate for proof that Comey made a false statement for the government to show that Richman interfaced with reporters on Comey’s behalf. That fact has never been a secret (Richman did much of this work in the open and on a named basis), and Comey has never denied it. In fact, it was Comey who dramatically announced Richman’s role in Senate testimony that the brief later quotes (see pages 10-11).
Rather, to prove that Comey lied, the government has to show (a) that Richman was “at the FBI” at the time; (b) that Comey “authorized” the press contact; (c) that he authorized Richman to do the contact anonymously; and (d) that the contact concerned the Trump or Clinton investigation.
The article then goes on to do what seems to me to be a very good job explaining how none of the things the prosecution tries to point to in their filing as evidence actually show the aforementioned things required to make Comey's statement false. So, where's the lie?
That said, once again, even if the government had the strongest evidence possible that Comey lied, that wouldn't have any effect on the question of whether Halligan's appointment was lawful.
Upvote
0
