TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2025-11-19 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00029163

TRUMP'S FAILING LITIGATION THE COMEY CASE Mind To Rogan: Judge Just Threw Out James Comey’s Case — Trump’s Explosive Reaction Says It All! PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-ep-Ol9he4
Judge Just Threw Out James Comey’s Case — Trump’s Explosive Reaction Says It All! Mind To Rogan Oct 25, 2025 679 subscribers Judge Just Threw Out James Comey’s Case — Trump’s Explosive Reaction Says It All!Judge Just Threw Out James Comey’s Case — Trump’s Explosive Reaction Says It All!Judge Just Threw Out James Comey’s Case — Trump’s Explosive Reaction Says It All!Judge Just Threw Out James Comey’s Case — Trump’s Explosive Reaction Says It All! Peter Burgess COMMENTARY The supporting text and the video seem somewhat confusing ... though the underlying 'news' seems to be good ... at any rate, for the moment. Trump has disgusted me for a long time ... going back at least to the 1990s, but likely way before that! It is far from 'for sure', but I am encouraged by a big part of the Federal Judiciary standing up against the Trump attempts to trample over most all legal norms. Sadly ... a lot of Trump's damage will not be easy to reverse. Sad, also, that Trump still has support ... albeit, a lot less than a few months back! Peter Burgess Transcript 0:00 New York Attorney General Leticia James in federal court today pleading not guilty to two criminal counts against her following a very public, very persistent demands from President Donald Trump that she be prosecuted. Leticia James is a dirty cop. A crooked AG Leticia James. Leticia James from New York. This is another real Lola. Leticia James is totally controlled by Washington. Leticia Peekaboo James a peekab-boo. She's controlled. She's got serious Trump derangement syndrome. Leticia James, a real bad one. The 67-year-old 67th New York AG, now vowing to fight and not doing it alone. As we come on the air this afternoon, a new reminder of the Shakespeare Shakespearean proverb that politics can and does in fact make for strange bedfellows. Lawyers for Leticia James now telling the court they're teaming up with James Comey in an event to get both of their criminal cases thrown out. combining motions to disqualify 1:00 President Trump's handpicked US attorney in the case, arguing that her appointment was illegal. And the new duo of James and James could expand soon, or if maybe if and when the Trump Justice Department moves forward with other cases against some of the president's high-profile critics. There's no fear today. No fear. No fear. No fear. No fear, no fear, no fear. Because I believe that justice will rain down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream. All right, let's get off the sidelines, head into the arena. My panel is here. We're also joined by CNN crime and justice correspondent Caitlyn Polance. Uh Caitlyn, let's walk through Leticia James arraignment today and what happens next with her. Well Casey, she pleaded not guilty. The court hearing ended. They set a trial date. It's going to be in January, so only three months from now. But things got off so fast to start that we've already seen an argument on paper from 2:02 Leticia James' defense team. It's that argument going up against Lindseay Halligan, the US attorney, saying she doesn't have the authority to prosecute this case. The same argument that James Comey is going to be making and already is making in his own case in the same district. I'm going to read a little bit from this. Miss Halligan, Lindseay Halligan, US attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, lacked the power to present this case to the grand jury or sign this indictment and she cannot continue to supervise this prosecution. They also write this court must reject the executive brazen attempt to sidestep the constitutional and statutory limitations on the appointment of US attorneys. So essentially what they're arguing and what we're going to hear at a hearing in three weeks where James' defense team and the other James, James Comey, his defense team will be arguing this same thing. They're saying that Lindseay Halligan was appointed to this position too far into an administration to not have someone confirmed by the US Senate into that post. That it this is Donald Trump run a muck running the Justice Department as the president. And 3:01 that also she wasn't someone that was coming from inside the US attorney's office or the Justice Department to become the US attorney and prosecute this case. Take it through the grand jury. That's the first big battle. The next big battle though will be Leticia James' attorneys arguing another very s similar thing to what James Comey's team will be arguing that Donald Trump has launched a revenge tour against them. They're going to argue that their cases both of them separately they'll argue that their cases should be dismissed because the prosecutors shouldn't have brought them to begin with that it was a constitutional violation and that they were vindictively sought out that the Justice Department was weaponized. So, we're going to hear that over and over again, but not too many times over because this case is moving so so fast and the trial date is not far away at all. Casey, yeah, pretty remarkable. All right, Caitlyn Pollance, thank you as always for your reporting. Really appreciate it. Joining us now in the arena to discuss is Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He is the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee. Uh, Congressman, always great to see you. Thank you so much for being here. Uh, I want to start uh with your 4:01 reaction uh today here to what we saw from Leticia James. Do you think the government has a case here? Well, I think what we're seeing with James is a pattern now where criminal defendants targeted by Donald Trump are alleging that the new US attorneys who are installed just to prosecute them are not legitimately appointed. That the prosecution is uh patently unconstitutional because it is vindictive and selective in nature. and that the real justice process that existed before ended up with no indictments and they had to implant these new US attorneys to do it. So, um you know, I think that the merits of the case um could be, you know, debatable once you got into that. Except the problem is is that the government is going to face all of these very difficult threshold motions to dismiss based on extremely, you know, aberrant 5:03 and exceptional circumstances relating to a prosecution. Do you think it's wise for James and Comey to combine legal forces here? Um, well, I wasn't aware they were doing that. I mean, I think that their uh threshold motions in any event are going to be very similar because Donald Trump is clearly on a rampage against his political foes. And this cuts completely against the American system of justice. Um, you know, if you go to an authoritarian regime, they don't have a doctrine called selective or vindictive prosecution because that's built into the system. But here where the rule of law is supposed to govern, um that's totally anothetical to what it's all about when you have a president essentially identifying people to be investigated and to be prosecuted. And that's so clearly what's been happening in these cases. I also want to walk through with you something we learned about yesterday uh 6:01 from the former special counsel in the January 6th investigation, Jack Smith. uh he wrote a letter uh to uh your committee, the House Judiciary Committee, as well as to the Senate Judiciary Committee, offering to testify in public about the investigation that he led, having obtained toll records for a number of Republican lawmakers in the course of that investigation. Would you like to see Jack Smith testify? Absolutely. Um, you know, we have seen the special counselss and the independent councils going all the way back to Kenneth Star all come and testify in public about their investigations and about all of the legal issues that are raised there. And there's no reason for this to be uh a backroom behind closed door um session led by uh the Republicans on the committee. It should be a public hearing where every do you think Jim Jordan will go for it? Will he go for having it in public? Well, he should go for it if he is willing to honor the president of our 7:01 committee, which has always had the special counsel's come in and testify in public before the entire committee, before the Congress, and before the public. And the only reason they wouldn't do that is if they're afraid that Jack Smith would be So, let's start with where Lisa left off. And and Judge, I'm going to come back to you. This idea that the defense is going to file a motion questioning the eligibility of Lindseay Halligan in her role. Does that sound like a a strong approach or strategy for a defense lawyer to take? It's an unusual one because we've we're rarely in such a position, but it is Pat Fitzgerald's duty. It's his job to, you know, turn over every stone and look behind every door and make sure they make every argument. And if this is a viable one, he'll make it. It's hard to have any insight because US attorneys are US attorneys and we do not have we don't run into this issue. We don't have run into an issue where someone gets fired and then someone is put in, you know, so quickly and somewhat surreptitiously into a into a position. But the real issue here is something a little bit different, which is this 8:00 isn't necessarily about the trial or the process or whether Mr. Comey is guilty or not guilty and whether there's a trial. This is really about uh humiliation. It's getting him out there. It's having um him in, you know, cops and kevlar jackets going to pick him up and that wish. And that's really what's troubling. But in terms of that motion, that will be determined. But I I think um Lisa Rubin was right that the the indictment may still stand even if she doesn't. The fact that someone else didn't sign it may be maybe more technical, but we'll find that out. Rebecca, what do you make of what we learned about how the lawyers acknowledged in court these uh prosecution lawyers that is that were brought in from the North Carolina uh that we were discussing district. So do you they said they didn't they didn't see the case. They acknowledged how new this was to them. What does that suggest to you? And are you surprised even more so that they decided to join forces with this office? Yes. So, I mean, you don't go into court, especially in a case like this, which as we've said, it is very hard to 9:01 prove a lying to Congress count. And that's because it has to you have to show that this is an intentional falsehood. So, to the extent that there's any wiggle room in the words that the individual said, that is a defense. And you need to show that there is no wiggle room, that this person intentionally lied, that they said something factual, and that that fact is absolutely untrue and they knew it to be untrue. That is extremely hard to prove. So when um normally a case is put together, you know, as as Chris was noting earlier, the FBI or the investigators put this case together in a very careful way, bring this evidence to a prosecutor who himself or herself would review this evidence and make sure that they are behind it and then go into court. So it is extremely unusual that you would have a situation where the prosecutors assigned to this case say to themselves like we don't you know I mean this can happen you know I was a state prosecutor this can happen in state court where it's just like there's a lot of shuffle and back and forth but in the federal system it's very rare and in a case like this with account like this it's even rarer. 10:01 What do you think about the piece of the classified intelligence Chris and that being an issue for Comey's lawyers being able to access and have the security clearances that are needed. Well, they'll they'll get it. I number one, they they've had them before. So, uh the court will order this. And I'm not quite sure how much classified information will have to be produced for for this. It's I mean, the charge on its face is not something you would have a ton of classified information involved in. So, remember when I said that sooner or later Leticia James and James Comey were going to end up on the same side? Maybe not officially, but definitely in spirit. Yeah. Well, it's it's happened. You could call them Team James or James Squared if you want to make it sound like a pop duo ready to drop a remix after they're done taking down Trump. But jokes aside, what started as an informal alignment has now become an official one. They're literally joining legal motions, responding to Trump's 11:00 actions that have clearly crossed the line with both of them. Now, don't get me wrong, their individual cases are totally separate. uh they're dealing with different charges, different legal issues, uh different courts. They're not co-fendants in some giant Trump conspiracy case or anything like that, but what's undeniable is the pattern. They've both become targets. That's the common thread that keeps tightening around this situation. And then you have that retired judge we talked about, the one who basically threw the whole thing out. She didn't just question the legitimacy of the case. She flat out said, 'I dismiss this.' There's no validity here. Of course, we'll have to wait for the main trial judge to speak, but that statement was loud. It sent a message that this case and others like it hold no real weight. And it's not just her other prosecutors and judges have hinted at the same thing. No substance, no credibility, no traction. Meanwhile, you've got the John Bolton situation, which lives in its own universe. Everyone can see that one for what it is. Pure political revenge. 12:02 Bolton's on Trump's personal hit list and everyone knows it. The twist, though, is that the legal footing in his case might actually exist, at least technically, depending on how you interpret the law. But that same legal backbone, it's nowhere to be found in the Comey or Leticia James cases. And that's exactly why that retired judge, based on her experience, dismissed it without hesitation.

SITE COUNT