Comey Indicted

[mat]

On 9/30/2025 at 4:33 PM, mat said:

I’ll take back my distraction statement when he’s actually convicted.

I’m no political expert, but I saw this one coming.

[Reagan]

25 minutes ago, mat said:

I’m no political expert, but I saw this one coming.

A radical judge dismissed this.  They WILL be reindicted!  It was dismissed without prejudice:  "Dismissed without prejudice means that a court case has been temporarily dismissed, allowing the party who filed the case to refile it later. This type of dismissal does not prevent the party from bringing the same claim back to court in the future."

@Boyz N Da Hood

[thetragichippy]

31 minutes ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

Dismissed 

They were procedural issues not merit issues....and apparently the Judge knew that because he dismissed "without prejudice", meaning they can and will be indicted again. 

[thetragichippy]

17 minutes ago, Reagan said:

A radical judge dismissed this. 

I'm not sure this meets "radical Judge" - a radical Judge could have dismissed "WITH Prejudice" and it would be over

[baddog]

Sure are some sorry excuses for human beings siding with a pos like Comey. Comey is about as dirty as they come, but libs lap it up.

[thetragichippy]

Just now, baddog said:

Sure are some sorry excuses for human beings siding with a pos like Comey. Comey is about as dirty as they come, but libs lap it up.

They're not siding with Comey, they're siding against the administration.  Think about it, very seldom do any from the left agree with anything this Administration has done. 

[baddog]

6 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

They're not siding with Comey, they're siding against the administration.  Think about it, very seldom do any from the left agree with anything this Administration has done. 

True enough, but the fact that they are willing to overlook anything criminal the left does tells me they aren’t on the side of justice. Celebrating the dismissal shows no integrity.

[Boyz N Da Hood]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

They were procedural issues not merit issues....and apparently the Judge knew that because he dismissed "without prejudice", meaning they can and will be indicted again. 

Yeah I understand  the reasoning... let's see what happens.. "lock her up, lock her up" how many years later  and nothing? SSDD

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

"lock her up, lock her up"

Trump said during his first term that he didn't think it would do America any good to go after Hillary, so he didn't.  Some quotes below - You're not the only one who seems to have trouble remembering things in context. 

"I don't want to hurt the Clintons, I really don't. She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways, and I am not looking to hurt them at all".

"I think we have to get the focus of the country into looking forward".

"I feel that I want to focus on jobs, I want to focus on health care, I want to focus on the border and immigration and doing a really great immigration bill... And I want to focus on — all of these other things that we've been talking about".

[DCT]

4 hours ago, Reagan said:

A radical judge dismissed this.  They WILL be reindicted!  It was dismissed without prejudice:  "Dismissed without prejudice means that a court case has been temporarily dismissed, allowing the party who filed the case to refile it later. This type of dismissal does not prevent the party from bringing the same claim back to court in the future."

@Boyz N Da Hood

Won’t happen.  Bigger things need to be addressed.  

[Boyz N Da Hood]

3 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

Trump said during his first term that he didn't think it would do America any good to go after Hillary, so he didn't.  Some quotes below - You're not the only one who seems to have trouble remembering things in context. 

"I don't want to hurt the Clintons, I really don't. She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways, and I am not looking to hurt them at all".

"I think we have to get the focus of the country into looking forward".

"I feel that I want to focus on jobs, I want to focus on health care, I want to focus on the border and immigration and doing a really great immigration bill... And I want to focus on — all of these other things that we've been talking about".

In other words "nothing to see here" just had a bunch of folks chanting for no reason 😂🤣💀

[baddog]

The mentality of a liberal reminds me of Jonestown. Jim Jones….once the darling of California liberals. His followers led to slaughter. Google it.

[LumRaiderFan]

53 minutes ago, baddog said:

The mentality of a liberal reminds me of Jonestown. Jim Jones….once the darling of California liberals. His followers led to slaughter. Google it.

They definitely like their Kool-Aid. 

[Reagan]

4 hours ago, baddog said:

The mentality of a liberal reminds me of Jonestown. Jim Jones….once the darling of California liberals. His followers led to slaughter. Google it.

Low information people are easily led!

[Reagan]

12 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

I'm not sure this meets "radical Judge" - a radical Judge could have dismissed "WITH Prejudice" and it would be over

 

I, and others, have referred to this judge as radical.  First, he's a Clinton appointee and second he knows, or should know, that Halligan's appointment was valid.  Therefore he made this false ruling anyway.  Now, I understand about him saying without prejudice.  Two things:  He's either a radical with a conscious OR he's afraid of being put through the ringer of possibly being impeached.  That's my opinion anyway!  

[UT alum]

22 hours ago, Reagan said:

A radical judge dismissed this.  They WILL be reindicted!  It was dismissed without prejudice:  "Dismissed without prejudice means that a court case has been temporarily dismissed, allowing the party who filed the case to refile it later. This type of dismissal does not prevent the party from bringing the same claim back to court in the future."

@Boyz N Da Hood

And the judge is radical why? Don’t you need a source for that kind of claim?

[UT alum]

9 hours ago, Reagan said:

 

I, and others, have referred to this judge as radical.  First, he's a Clinton appointee and second he knows, or should know, that Halligan's appointment was valid.  Therefore he made this false ruling anyway.  Now, I understand about him saying without prejudice.  Two things:  He's either a radical with a conscious OR he's afraid of being put through the wringer of possibly being impeached.  That's my opinion anyway!  

You a lawyer?

[thetragichippy]

10 hours ago, Reagan said:

he knows, or should know, that Halligan's appointment was valid. 

I follow a very unbiased Lawyer on X who has avoided posting his opinion about the Comey case. He is pro-Trump but his opinions are unbiased. He represented from free 1-6 victims for free, accepting donations - he was a 22 year DOJ prosecutor.  I made a comment under one of his post that it was very strange why he has not commented on the Comey case.....He reposted and said there is a reason...... 

Last night while not opinionating on the Comey case, he insinuated the appeal may not go well, and lawyers need to lawyer and come up with a plan B...... That does not give me great confidence the appeal will over turn Judges ruling. I really hope there is a Plan B. 

[UT alum]

22 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

They were procedural issues not merit issues....and apparently the Judge knew that because he dismissed "without prejudice", meaning they can and will be indicted again. 

Meaning they can, not necessarily will. Remember, Fearless Leader fired the learned attorney who said there wasn’t a case to begin with and hired a real estate attorney who didn’t know better to bring the indictment. He wants people who obey him, not people who know their job.

[thetragichippy]

23 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Meaning they can, not necessarily will. Remember, Fearless Leader fired the learned attorney who said there wasn’t a case to begin with and hired a real estate attorney who didn’t know better to bring the indictment. He wants people who obey him, not people who know their job.

Grand Jury sure thought there was enough evidence

[baddog]

I can’t believe the Comey fans. They know what he did but they still support him. Again, not after Justice. Kinda like O.J.

[UT alum]

51 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Grand Jury sure thought there was enough evidence

So you know what they were shown? You know that indictments are only as good as the prosecutor who brings it to the grand jury. This was like a PA trying to do brain surgery.

[LumRaiderFan]

40 minutes ago, baddog said:

I can’t believe the Comey fans. They know what he did but they still support him. Again, not after Justice. Kinda like O.J.

It’s all about Trump, they can’t get past it.

 

[UT alum]

48 minutes ago, baddog said:

I can’t believe the Comey fans. They know what he did but they still support him. Again, not after Justice. Kinda like O.J.

What did he do besides his job? There are no indictments or convictions against him. It’s all here say. Your Trump Worship Syndrome is clouding your vision.

[Boyz N Da Hood]

15 minutes ago, UT alum said:

What did he do besides his job? There are no indictments or convictions against him. It’s all here say. Your Trump Worship Syndrome is clouding your vision.

Seems they dont believe in "innocent til proven guilty" 🤣.. always funny watching em get egg to the face