Napolitano : Comey probably didn't break the law

[Johan]

Fox legal analyst has bad news for Trump: Comey’s memos probably didn’t break the law — but do ‘indict’ the president



Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano said President Donald Trump was wrong about James Comey’s memos — which he said provided potentially damning evidence against the president.

Napolitano disagreed Monday morning that the former FBI director’s personal memos were classified, as Trump claims, and were not illegally leaked to a law professor friend who then shared the documents with reporters.
“It’s going to depend upon which four of the seven memos were leaked to the professor, whether anything in there was classified at the time, whether it was properly classified and whether the professor exposed classified materials,” Napolitano said.
Napolitano said Comey’s friend, Daniel Richman, had served in the Department of Justice, although in fact he was a consultant to the Cabinet agency and a former chief appellate attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
“I don’t think the professor did this,” Napolitano said. “This law school professor is a former ranking official of the DOJ who once had a security clearance and knows what it is like to deal with these things.”

He said several questions about the memos needed to be answered before determining whether any laws were broken when Comey shared his notes.
“When Jim Comey handed over the four memos had anything been classified or was it retroactive?” Napolitano said. “Question two, was the classification, if retroactive, a proper classification or was it classified for some other purpose? Question three, was anybody harmed by Jim Comey passing those memos on to the professor? That’s what the government is interested in.”

The former New Jersey Superior Court judge said he does not believe anything Comey shared was classified at the time, but he said the memos present bad news for the president.
“I don’t think there was anything in there that was classified, I really don’t,” Napolitano said. “I think those were his own recollections, maybe self-serving, maybe truthful.”

Napolitano said the memos appeared to confirm troubling accounts by Comey about the president’s behavior, which could be of interest to special counsel Robert Mueller.
“I think it’s an indictment — lower-case I, not an indictment from a grand jury — it’s an indictment of the president if those are accurate,” Napolitano said. “The memos are what Jim Comey told whatever committee he testified before — I don’t remember which one, it was shortly after he was fired — that the president attempted to interfere in the investigation of Mike Flynn. That doesn’t mean the president did. it means in Jim Comey’s view there is evidence of it. So the memos back up the testimony that he gave.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/fo...os-probably-didnt-break-law-indict-president/

 

[Jack Davenport]

He did break the law. This judge has been wrong many times before.
It’s not Comey we’re after.

People.Get.Ready.

 

[Will E Worm]

Attorney Reveals The Law That Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein & Yates Broke

“This is just proof of government corruption …they concealed evidence and they deceived a judge…. They used it. They signed a document in front of the judge, vouched for the reliability and authenticity of this document. In other words , they were lying to the judge, that’s a crime.18 USC 242 it’s abuse of power. And it’s tragic that the people we expect to uphold and enforce the law are breaking it. This is the proof.”

Article

He broke many laws.

 

[Johan]

Article

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:

You really think us4trump.com is a reliable news source ?

 

[Jack Davenport]

As reliable as MarketWatch.

 

[Straight Shooter]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/fo...os-probably-didnt-break-law-indict-president/

And I can counter that with Dershowitz's defense. Everyone's full of shit ok

 

[Will E Worm]

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:

You really think us4trump.com is a reliable news source ?

As reliable as MarketWatch.

:hatsoff:

 

[georges]

Comey is full of shit, lies and dishonesty

 

[Johan]

Comey is full of shit, lies and dishonesty

That was not what you used to say when he said, right before the election, that he would re-open the Hillary investigation...

 

[georges]

That was not what you used to say when he said, right before the election, that he would re-open the Hillary investigation...

I was expecting honesty from him but fact that he was crooked and rotten to the core
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/30/comey-steele-dossier-fisa/
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/gowdy-blows-the-lid-off-comey/

 

[Jack Davenport]

Georges is more courageous than his counterpart Euro lefties. He speaks truth from a country that does not have a first amendment.

 

[bodie54]

Right, because the conservativetribune is such a bastion of truth :1orglaugh

You know, if you really gave two shits about Georges You Might consider gently correcting him about some the assertions he makes that you know are bogus rather than cheering his embrace of fake news, which does nothing but undermine his overall credibility.

He and I have always had a cordial relationship, but I don't think I can have the same impact you could because though cordial I'm still from the "other side".

 

[Jack Davenport]

Right, because the conservativetribune is such a bastion of truth :1orglaugh

You know, if you really gave two shits about Georges You Might consider gently correcting him about some the assertions he makes that you know are bogus rather than cheering his embrace of fake news, which does nothing but undermine his overall credibility.

He and I have always had a cordial relationship, but I don't think I can have the same impact you could because though cordial I'm still from the "other side".

I know this is supposed to be a serious post but in light of the fake news linked here by your brethren on the left your concern is that I fact check and call into question georges assertions?

I have yet to see you do that to any of the bullshit posted by your side.

 

[georges]

Right, because the conservativetribune is such a bastion of truth :1orglaugh

You know, if you really gave two shits about Georges You Might consider gently correcting him about some the assertions he makes that you know are bogus rather than cheering his embrace of fake news, which does nothing but undermine his overall credibility.

He and I have always had a cordial relationship, but I don't think I can have the same impact you could because though cordial I'm still from the "other side".

Maybe I should mention that the assertions you make are hardly the truth as well and thinking than voting Obama was the best thing that happened to the USA is very wrong. CBS, CNN and MSNBC were all the Obama's little media bitches and his shoewaxers as well, and you want to talk about fake news? Best joke, I have heard in a while.:sarcasm::drama::laugh: The liberal medias have shown their bias many many times and aside libelling and slandering the other party, there is not much intelligence coming from their side (especially if we talk about Michael the "Fat Stinky Pig" Moore or any tv host working for the big tv channels which is a generally leftist).Moreover you talk about credibility, but let me tell you one thing, former Clinton voters and Obama voters have not much credibility in my book.

 

[bodie54]

Maybe I should mention that the assertions you make are hardly the truth as well

On the contrary Georges, over the years I have routinely taken care to present you with verifiable links to verifiable facts when engaging in debate.
And as you well know I have never thrown stones at you or demeaned your character - despite that being a very popular sport around here.

All I'm saying is that your preferred news source IS a well known purveyor of fake news. And that your credibility would be much better served if you jettisoned such sources and argued from a point of greater validity and objectivity. This is not a personal attack on you. It's just a suggestion on how to better make your case.
There are plenty of legitimate issues to debate with liberals, but throwing in crazy shit like the Clintons being responsible for dozens of "mysterious" deaths undermines the credibility of the debater.

 

[bodie54]

I know this is supposed to be a serious post but in light of the fake news linked here by your brethren on the left your concern is that I fact check and call into question georges assertions?

I have yet to see you do that to any of the bullshit posted by your side.

Can you point out to me links to severely truth-impaired conspiracy sites posted by my side? If somebody is posting those I guess I've missed it.
But both my brother and I have stepped up on occasion to counter claims against your side if we knew them to be utterly false.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Can you point out to me links to severely truth-impaired conspiracy sites posted by my side? If somebody is posting those I guess I've missed it.
But both my brother and I have stepped up on occasion to counter claims against your side if we knew them to be utterly false.

I am not going to put a whole lot of effort in looking for past postings but I will run across them as I am reading and posting new things. I am sure I can have a fresh new batch for you relatively soon and will forward them to you as I come across them. Is Conservative Tribune conspiracy oriented in its reporting or simply a far right bent?

 

[bodie54]

Is Conservative Tribune conspiracy oriented in its reporting or simply a far right bent?

"Bias: extreme right, propaganda, conspiracy"

"Consistently fails fact checks"

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/conservative-tribune/

 

[Jack Davenport]

You mean like Washingtonpress.com which is linked here often.

 

[georges]

On the contrary Georges, over the years I have routinely taken care to present you with verifiable links to verifiable facts when engaging in debate.
And as you well know I have never thrown stones at you or demeaned your character - despite that being a very popular sport around here.

All I'm saying is that your preferred news source IS a well known purveyor of fake news. And that your credibility would be much better served if you jettisoned such sources and argued from a point of greater validity and objectivity. This is not a personal attack on you. It's just a suggestion on how to better make your case.
There are plenty of legitimate issues to debate with liberals, but throwing in crazy shit like the Clintons being responsible for dozens of "mysterious" deaths undermines the credibility of the debater.

Same goes with CNN, MSNBC and CBS which are not credible in my book and who have been pourveyors of fake news since decades and are heavily biased liberal medias. You still think that the Clinton are innocent people without blood on their hands? Then explain me how a person (a former Clinton associate) who should have testified against them ends up dead by accident???No, it is not crazy shit, it is the fact that you can't handle the truth which is more or less the same than saying that the Clinton fundation is a respectable organization which is hardly the case. I have taken a lot of "stones throwing" by people who are left wingers and I don't fear them (I have a very hard skin), when msnbc, cnn and cbs links will be validated as the undeniable truth then I will stick to them but until it is not the case and that they are just liberal medias full of bs, I will always counter argument them. Many people despise and hate the Clintons, count me as one of them and I don't hide it at all. We will never agree when it comes to politics but that is life. On this I wish you a good night.