Trump = Winning

[Primemuscle]

Yes, he was investigated and testified in 2020.

Now he's being indicted for lying and therefore obstruction during it.

Why is that harassment?

Should they let it slide?

The November indictment was voided. He may be indicted again if the proscution refiles and if the statute of limitations has not expired.

[Grape Ape]

The November indictment was voided. He may be indicted again if the proscution refiles and if the statute of limitations has not expired.

It was overturned based on the appointment of the specific prosecutor, not on the basis of its own merit.  We know this.

But that's not what I asked you - do you think they should not bring charges against Comey, and that they're just harassing him? 

If the Grand Jury felt there was enough evidence to bring two charges against him, before the judge ruled the prosecuting attorney was not appointed legally, why would you feel it's harassment?.

[illuminati]

It was overturned based on the appointment of the specific prosecutor, not on the basis of its own merit.  We know this.

But that's not what I asked you - do you think they should not bring charges against Comey, and that they're just harassing him? 

If the Grand Jury felt there was enough evidence to bring two charges against him, before the judge ruled the prosecuting attorney was not appointed legally, why would you feel it's harassment?.

Wasting your time asking him anything - he's just not mentally capable of giving a straigh
Honest answer ,  he'll word salad the reply / Feign ignorance/ stupidity or just ignore.

Helpless case - The TDS has destroyed any semblance of normal functioning brain cells.

[Grape Ape]

Wasting your time asking him anything - he's just not mentally capable of giving a straigh
Honest answer ,  he'll word salad the reply / Feign ignorance/ stupidity or just ignore.

Helpless case - The TDS has destroyed any semblance of normal functioning brain cells.

I try to ask because I think at the root of this stuff, we do want the same things.

I would think that anyone would be fundamentally against an attempted removal of a duly elected sitting American President, regardless of who it was.

But because it's Trump, everything seems to get thrown out the window.

[illuminati]

I try to ask because I think at the root of this stuff, we do want the same things.

I would think that anyone would be fundamentally against an attempted removal of a duly elected sitting American President, regardless of who it was.

But because it's Trump, everything seems to get thrown out the window.

Seriously - Have you or any other poster had an open honest
Straight conversation with any of the deranged Lefty TDS lot,
without them playing stupid ?

I say impossible as they cannot even say out clearly what it is
they so desperately want.
They come out with - well if I have to tell you - or thats not
worth answering - etc etc .

Hell Coach has offered to debate them live on air & not 1 will
yet again they're full of all kinds of pathetic excuses.

very strange / odd folk they truly are.

[LurkerNoMore]

He was convicted, and the amount levied against him was thrown out because it was so excessive it was deemed unconstitutional.   So that right there should be a red flag.

If it was someone else besides Trump who did the exact same thing, do you believe this case would have been tried?

I think if it were anyone but Trumpy they would have gone to jail.

[Grape Ape]

Seriously - Have you or any other poster had an open honest
Straight conversation with any of the deranged Lefty TDS lot,
without them playing stupid ?

I say impossible as they cannot even say out clearly what it is
they so desperately want.
They come out with - well if I have to tell you - or thats not
worth answering - etc etc .

Hell Coach has offered to debate them live on air & not 1 will
yet again they're full of all kinds of pathetic excuses.

very strange / odd folk they truly are.

Yes, I have.

And with some of the folks in this thread, but they've turned a bit in the last few years.

[Grape Ape]

I think if it were anyone but Trumpy they would have gone to jail.

You don't go to jail in a civil case.

But they would have never been tried.

Basing this on the fact that it's a common practice in real estate, and nobody has really been busted for the same thing in NY since.

I mean, the f'n banks who gave him the loan said they did their due diligence, and would have done the same thing again.  Who was the victim?

[illuminati]

Yes, I have.

And with some of the folks in this thread, but they've turned a bit in the last few years.

I should've stated- Recently had such a conversation- Turned a bit !! That's the under statement
Of the year.

Try having such a conversation now.

The TDS has totally ruined what few working brain cells they had.

[Grape Ape]

I should've stated- Recently had such a conversation- Turned a bit !! That's the under statement
Of the year.

Try having such a conversation now.

The TDS has totally ruined what few working brain cells they had.

That is true.  It's real.

There's still one or two who can hold a conversation though.

But I will tell you I am sincere in my concern over misinformation and how big tech and social media manipulate folks.

While I don't expect those here under the spell to cause any real damage, that doesn't mean it won't happen with the younger folks.

[illuminati]

That is true.  It's real.

There's still one or two who can hold a conversation though.

Hmmmm is there ?  I'm not seeing any that do.

[Primemuscle]

It was overturned based on the appointment of the specific prosecutor, not on the basis of its own merit.  We know this.

But that's not what I asked you - do you think they should not bring charges against Comey, and that they're just harassing him? 

If the Grand Jury felt there was enough evidence to bring two charges against him, before the judge ruled the prosecuting attorney was not appointed legally, why would you feel it's harassment?.

I have no idea whether James Comey is guilty of the previously overturned charges against him or if this was or is harassment. Unless a new indictment filed, his guilt or innocence and whether this is harassment remains unknown. Unfortunately, if he is not guilty, he most likely will still be on the hook for all the past an additional legal expense he incurred to defend himself.

Below is my post you responded to asking, why would I feel it is harassment and do I think they should not bring charges against James Comey. Nowhere in this post did I say anything about  either of these issues.

James Comey was investigated multiple times by the Justice Department and the IRS during and after Trump's first term, stemming from the Russia investigation and his handling of sensitive information.

I assume you read that prosecutor Lindsey Halligan neglected to present the full grand jury with the final, two-count indictment after they rejected one count, instead having only the foreperson and one other juror sign it, and also made prejudicial legal statements, like suggesting Comey would have to testify to prove innocence and that the government had stronger evidence for trial, undermining the grand jury's role and burden of proof.

When you consider Halligan's omissions and prejudicial statements, it begs the question; would the grand jury have indicted Comey if Halligan had not committed these obvious legal errors as a result of either her own ineptness or intentional misconduct?

[Grape Ape]

Below is my post you responded to asking, why would I feel it is harassment and do I think they should not bring charges against James Comey. Nowhere in this post did I say anything about  either of these issues.

I assume you read that prosecutor Lindsey Halligan neglected to present the full grand jury with the final, two-count indictment after they rejected one count, instead having only the foreperson and one other juror sign it, and also made prejudicial legal statements, like suggesting Comey would have to testify to prove innocence and that the government had stronger evidence for trial, undermining the grand jury's role and burden of proof.

When you consider Halligan's omissions and prejudicial statements, begs the question; would the grand jury have indicted Comey if Halligan had not committed these obvious legal errors as a result of either her own ineptness or intentional misconduct?

Lurker posted  this:

I didn't say anything about her personal life.

Isn't what she, Comey and Reid went through a true definition of weaponization of the judicial system?  Unlike what the orange buffoon cries about, they actually were not found guilty. 

Should the Administration be penalized for multiple failed attempts to get a guilty verdict?   If this isn't the definition of legal harassment, then I don't know what is.  This is sort of the same thing that Fatso tried when he called GA and told them to "find me the votes".   

I bet you are going to cry when these people file legal motions of their own over the harassment.

You quote him, actually bolded his last sentence and responded with:

Which they should definitely do... not that they will get anywhere with their lawsuits in our current political environment. Maybe they should wait a year or three when the tides have turned.

That is why I asked you why you considered it harassment.

Also, per your other additions, could you link a source?  I can't take it on your word - and I'm not saying this because I think you are being dishonest, I just like to read the entire article to get the full context.

[Primemuscle]

Lurker posted  this:

You quote him, actually bolded his last sentence and responded with:

That is why I asked you why you considered it harassment.

Also, per your other additions, could you link a source?  I can't take it on your word - and I'm not saying this because I think you are being dishonest, I just like to read the entire article to get the full context.

My statement regarding suing for harassment stands when viewed in context, which is if or when Leticia James and /or James Comey are found innocent of all charges or the cases are dismissed because there is not enough evidence to prove their guilt, they should sue for harassment. However, successfully suing the government for malicious prosecution and/or harassment is rarely successful. Which renders my statement moot because their doing this would most likely add to their legal expenses with less than satisfactory results. How much should someone pay in an attempt publicly clear their names? No matter who wins, there will always be folks who take issue with the outcome. Once the damage is done, it cannot be completely undone.

Just so you know, this is not the exact link to the source of the information about Halligan's handling of the Comey indictment I previously posted, but there is an abundance of sources all with the same or very similar information, including:

Halligan changes her story: https://foxbaltimore.com/news/nation-world/in-a-reversal-halligan-insists-comey-indictment-was-properly-approved-lindsey-indicted-lying-testimony-congress-president-donald-trump-case-statements-clerial

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/17/politics/james-comey-indictment-tainted-judge-halligan

https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/james-comey-prosecutor-lindsey-halligan-made-fundamental-misstatement-of-law-to-grand-jurors-judge-william-fitzpatrick-says

Halligan's errors through into question her work on the James case; https://nypost.com/2025/11/18/us-news/ny-ag-tish-james-says-lindsey-halligan-might-have-botched-her-grand-jury-indictment/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/judge-scolds-justice-department-for-profound-investigative-missteps-in-comey-case/ar-AA1QCNYU

[Grape Ape]

My statement regarding suing for harassment stands when viewed in context, which is if or when Leticia James and /or James Comey are found innocent of all charges or the cases are dismissed because there is not enough evidence to prove their guilt, they should sue for harassment. However, successfully suing the government for malicious prosecution and/or harassment is rarely successful. Which renders my statement moot because their doing this would most likely add to their legal expenses with less than satisfactory results. How much should someone pay in an attempt publicly clear their names? No matter who wins, there will always be folks who take issue with the outcome. Once the damage is done, it cannot be completely undone.

Just so you know, this is not the exact link to the source of the information about Halligan's handling of the Comey indictment I previously posted, but there is an abundance of sources all with the same or very similar information, including:

Halligan changes her story: https://foxbaltimore.com/news/nation-world/in-a-reversal-halligan-insists-comey-indictment-was-properly-approved-lindsey-indicted-lying-testimony-congress-president-donald-trump-case-statements-clerial

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/17/politics/james-comey-indictment-tainted-judge-halligan

https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/james-comey-prosecutor-lindsey-halligan-made-fundamental-misstatement-of-law-to-grand-jurors-judge-william-fitzpatrick-says

Halligan's errors through into question her work on the James case; https://nypost.com/2025/11/18/us-news/ny-ag-tish-james-says-lindsey-halligan-might-have-botched-her-grand-jury-indictment/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/judge-scolds-justice-department-for-profound-investigative-missteps-in-comey-case/ar-AA1QCNYU

Thank you I will check these out.

But I will state this - now that we KNOW the Steele dossier was faked and "the decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility”, now that we KNOW it was paid for by the Clinton campaign (which they were fined a paltry sum, but still it proves guilt), now that we KNOW the whole Russian collusion hoax was untrue, now that we KNOW  it cost the taxpayers millions, do you think justice was served here?

Do you think Comey, Brennan, Schiff etc are all completely guilt free here?

Based on what I've seen, I don't think so.

They need to be held accountable.

[Primemuscle]

Thank you I will check these out.

But I will state this - now that we KNOW the Steele dossier was faked and "the decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility”, now that we KNOW it was paid for by the Clinton campaign (which they were fined a paltry sum, but still it proves guilt), now that we KNOW the whole Russian collusion hoax was untrue, now that we KNOW  it cost the taxpayers millions, do you think justice was served here?

Do you think Comey, Brennan, Schiff etc are all completely guilt free here?

Based on what I've seen, I don't think so.

They need to be held accountable.

Whether justice was served or not in these situations is not something I feel informed enough to comment on. I agree that it is unlikely that all of these folks were completely guilt free (in this situation).

Since you are apparently concerned about how government spends taxpayers’ money, then one would expect you to be upset further prosecution of those involved would continue to cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

[LurkerNoMore]

You don't go to jail in a civil case.

But they would have never been tried.

Basing this on the fact that it's a common practice in real estate, and nobody has really been busted for the same thing in NY since.

I mean, the f'n banks who gave him the loan said they did their due diligence, and would have done the same thing again.  Who was the victim?

I think you missed the innuendo.

[B_B_C]

The unites Stasi of America


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/11/trump-plan-vet-us-visitors-social-media-tourism
Seth Bannon, an investor from San Francisco, said: “This is insane. China is preparing to require tourists to hand over five years of social media history, all email addresses and phone numbers used in the last five years, and the freaking names and addresses of family members. No thanks won’t be visiting anytime soon!”
He followed up with a post saying: “Oh no whoops no that’s the US, not China.”




https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/10/2025-22461/agency-information-collection-activities-revision-arrival-and-departure-record-form-i-94-and

High Value Data Elements:

To comply with the January 2025 E.O. (14161), and the April 4, 2025, Memorandum Updating All Forms to Collect Baseline Biographic Data, CBP will add several “high value data fields” to the ESTA application, when feasible. This is in addition to the information already collected in the ESTA application.

The high value data fields include:

a. Telephone numbers used in the last five years;

b. Email addresses used in the last ten years;

c. IP addresses and metadata from electronically submitted photos;

d. Family member names (parents, spouse, siblings, children);

e. Family number telephone numbers used in the last five years;

f. Family member dates of birth;

g. Family member places of birth;

h. Family member residencies;

i. Biometrics—face, fingerprint, DNA, and iris;

j. Business telephone numbers used in the last five years;

k. Business email addresses used in the last ten years.

[loco]

Gas prices continue to slide below $3, hitting fresh 4-year low ahead of Christmas

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gas-prices-continue-to-slide-below-3-hitting-fresh-4-year-low-ahead-of-christmas-164411307.html

[chaos]

Gas prices continue to slide below $3, hitting fresh 4-year low ahead of Christmas

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gas-prices-continue-to-slide-below-3-hitting-fresh-4-year-low-ahead-of-christmas-164411307.html

Except in CA where your future president is fucking the economy and the people. Remember this when Newscum is running for president.

https://www.webpronews.com/valeros-billion-dollar-exit-newsoms-regulations-fuel-californias-gas-crisis/

[loco]

Gas prices continue to slide below $3, hitting fresh 4-year low ahead of Christmas

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gas-prices-continue-to-slide-below-3-hitting-fresh-4-year-low-ahead-of-christmas-164411307.html

Except in CA where your future president is fucking the economy and the people. Remember this when Newscum is running for president.

https://www.webpronews.com/valeros-billion-dollar-exit-newsoms-regulations-fuel-californias-gas-crisis/

[B_B_C]

Gulf of Mexico   Gulf of America
Gulf of Tonkin       Gulf of trump