• herseycokguzelolacak@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    29 minutes ago

    It could not have happened to a better person. Comey is a pro-surveillance fascist who is now getting a taste of his own medicine.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I’m still more than a little annoyed at Comey for handing Taco a “win” back in 2016, but this is some bullshit here.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I really dislike this meme that everything is a distraction from Epstein. Distractions are something you’re supposed to ignore. This is a president engaging in politically-motivated prosecutions of his political rivals. Calling it a distraction is dangerous and unhelpful.

      • BremboTheFourth@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I’d take it a step further and say the Epstein files themselves are the distraction from all the brazen corrupt power grabbing Republicans are pulling right now. What would the release of the full, unredacted files even accomplish at this point? Sane people will feel even more justified in their hate of the admin, and the cultists will write it off as fake news. There is zero chance Congress impeaches and convicts, even if it comes out Trump was spending his time on the island literally sacrificing children to Satan.

  • robocall@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    9 hours ago

    “But the sources believe that at least one element of the indictment — if it goes forward — will accuse him of lying to Congress during his testimony on September 30, 2020 about whether he authorized a leak of information,” Dilanian tweeted.

    I wonder if there’s evidence Kash Patel lied to congress and if he’ll be charged too

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    11 hours ago

    “The full extent of the charges being prepared against Comey is unclear, but the sources believe that at least one element of the indictment — if it goes forward – will accuse him of lying to Congress during his testimony on September 30, 2020 about whether he authorized a leak of information,” Dilanian tweeted.

    The reporter noted that the five-year statute of limitations on that charge would lapse next Tuesday.

    lol

    What a disgusting joke this administration has made everything.

    • Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Don’t know about the US, but in most european places the statute of limitations limits when something can start being prosecuted - i.e., if you were indicted a minute before the statute is up, and the process takes years to complete, it doesn’t prevent the process from continuing.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I know these particular charges are probably bullshit, but I don’t think there should be a statute of limitations for lying to Congress.

      • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Five years seems to be plenty of time to fact-check someone’s testimony. Anything longer than that, and most people simply won’t recall their own words well enough to hold them accountable for them anymore.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          31 minutes ago

          Congress has cameras. If you’re lying to Congress about factual things, your memory of the event shouldn’t matter.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          By that logic, there shouldn’t be a statute of limitations beyond 5 years on rape. Is that what you’re saying? (I’m being very over inflammatory)

          • jonne@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            32 minutes ago

            I mean, that’s literally a change some states made in response to the Weinstein scandal. If it’s reasonable to assume the truth isn’t going to come out before the statute runs out, I’m definitely in favour of making it longer. It should probably still exist, but 5 years seems very short for serious crimes, especially considering how slow the justice system works.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The problem is that the DOJ isn’t as independent as people would like it to be, so you basically need a change in administration to hold someone to account, which could take longer than 5 years.

          • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            You can still run investigations in the meantime, though. Republicans are notorious for that. Even when they have no real power to do anything about it, they will investigate all the craziest shit that they can imagine…just to make it look like they’re doing something. Then when they have more control again, they have the option to pull the trigger or not.

            • jonne@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              Democrats should definitely take something from that playbook, but there’s been many cases of someone lying in front of Congress and not facing consequences. It happened in the leadup of both Iraq wars, and I don’t think people should just be allowed to get away with stuff like that just because the clock ran out.

              Obviously part of the problem is that Democrats don’t seem to be interested in prosecuting stuff like that in the name of bipartisanship, but that’s how they got where they got now.

              • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                The biggest problem with all this stuff, is trying to prove that the person in question actually “lied” versus “I genuinely believed what I said at the time” versus “Oops, I was obviously mistaken”.

                It’s impossible to know what’s going on in someone else’s mind, so unless you have some kind of date-stamped confession, that clearly contradicts their testimony…you’re never going to get a conviction.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        They’re bullshit enough that the previous AG refused to prosecute and got fired for it.

    • bagsy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      He’s really doing a good job of QA testing of USA v1. We’ll know what to patch in v2.

  • WanderWisley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Oh boy I’m positive that this will fix the economy and cause the price of groceries, gas, and housing to drop. So much winning!

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    I thought Grand Jury proceedings were supposed to be secret? Why are they leaking this now?

    I bet they are afraid that the Grand Jury will refuse to indict, and they are trying to build up outrage among the MAGAs when that happens

    • spongebue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Grand juries are only needed on certain levels of charges, like a felony. Lower-level infractions do not need a grand jury indictment.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Orange Jesus needs to conduct some good ol’ struggle sessions in which people deemed insufficiently “maga” (nonsense baby-talk word meaning: properly sucking up to this demented old geezer) need to really sit and reflect - with lots of Party apparatchiks castigating them - on just why they are not sufficiently “maga”.

        I mean, hell, Taco has already appropriated many of the shittiest of ideas from craptacular regimes like USSR…he’s got his own Lysenkoists like RFK junior…

  • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    “Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe’s statements are irreconcilably contradictory,” Cruz wrote. “Mr. McCabe says that he told Mr. Comey of the leak and that Mr. Comey approved — effectively authorizing the leak after the fact."

    This statement itself is “irreconcilably contradictory”. Did he “authorize” the leak before or after it occurred? Cruz seems to be implying that he found out after, but approved. Which means he didn’t know before hand, and therefore couldn’t have actually authorized it.

    • Stabbitha@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      “effectively authorizing the leak after the fact” They mean he made no effort to punish the leak.

      • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        That’s a whole different set of words, that don’t mean the same thing as what he’s being accused of, though.

        They’re claiming that he authorized the leak…which means he either did or he didn’t…and it would have had to have happened before the leak occurred in order for it to be true. So, “after the fact” is not how that would have to have happened.

        If all they were concerned with was why he didn’t punish the guy, then that is a completely different accusation than him authorizing it.

    • favoredponcho@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      No, he doesn’t deserve to be brought in on trumped up charges because he had bad judgement as the FBI director.

      If what he did as FBI director was illegal in some way, sure, charge him. But, we know this is just some bullshit political game the president is playing to silence his critics and it has very bad implications for the country.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        11 hours ago

        If bad judgement as FBI director gets prison time, Kash Patel has an interesting future.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 hours ago

        We don’t deserve the injustice, but Comey helped bring it upon us and is reaping what he sowed.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      There was a really interesting part of that story where supposedly Rudy Giuliani who was all buddy buddy with the SDNY FBI office somehow “leaked” that they were going to announce the Clinton email case would be reopened when in fact they weren’t because they knew there was no reason to, and Comey decided he couldn’t be upstaged by SDNY so he did it first.

      True? Dunno. Plausible? yeah.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Bet a Grand Jury won’t let this through. Fuck Trump and his cronies. Anyone who gets selected for an indictment panel should automatically shoot it down if it’s coming from these clowns.