It's alarming that they obtained an indictment in the first place. We know the saying regarding the ham sandwich, but how could anyone even vote to indict on these facts? The charge will be dismissed, but this shouldn't even be an indictment to begin with. The aim is to vex and cause pain to Comey, and even though he is likely not worried, he still has to deal with this charge. I wonder how many Americans understand how deeply wrong this is.
where are the laws that can be used to disbar and impose severe penalty on the abuse of "vexatious lawsuits"? Besides, every one of the admin is close to severe abuse of violating the Constitution and lying - why are they not being impeached?
I guess I wonder what liberals would say if a leading Republican had posted something like this about Kamala Harris or Barak Obama? What about the leftist idea that "speech is violence"?
Yes, great, and you are right. But I wonder where were the progressives during the peak woke Biden admin years? I would call this Comey prosecution a form of political lawfare. And an attack on free speech. To be fair, we should admit there was plenty of lawfare during the Biden admin also against Trump and his crowd....Most troubling was the whole Russia hoax which tried to imply that Trump was elected in 2016 due to Russia. And of course, many other political prosecutions and Trump himself on trial for an alleged "rape" in a womens department store, 30 years ago that was never reported to the police!
The rape case was not a government prosecution, unless I misunderstand the case. The only arguably meritless government prosecution of Trump was, unjustly, the one he got convicted on. The documents case and the election interference cases were at the least based on breaking the laws directly, and not in some weird roundabout way that was clearly only intended to punish Trump.
The Russia hoax convictions were standard "work up the chain" cases, and the people were convicted of obstruction and perjury, as is frequently the case with white collar criminal groups: they are easy cases to win because they rely and clear recorded evidence. You may want to think back to Whitewater and the Clintons.
If you are trying to say that the Biden admin didnt do lawfare against Trump, I just don't agree. I will also point out that the rape case was clearly financed by big dem donors, E Jean Carroll, the alleged victim didnt pay the bills. Letitia James the NY Attorney general went after Trump for some other nonsense. The Russia hoax is the most shocking and disturbing. It was the first time in my lifetime that I saw half the country openly contesting election results. It also made me quite blasé about all the January 6 stuff and Trump's election denials ( I know democrats freak out about that). I was just like, hey the democrats did this after the first Trump elections, and it happened again in Georgia with Stacey Abrams. And I will add, that I used to be a democrat. I didnt vote for Trump in 2016.
I'm saying the Biden administration's lawfare was based in behavior that was for behavior that one could easily argue is against the law. No guarantee a judge and jury would have seen it that way; that's why we actually try the cases. This, as opposed to the way the Trump administration uses lawfare: trump up prima facie bullshit charges to attack his enemies. Think about the documents case: how many times did Trump have to simply comply the the order to return the documents? It was more than a year. Do I think making sure the media was tipped off and included was slimy and dumb? Yes. Do I like the Biden administration? Hell no. But if you cannot see the material difference between the lawfare the Biden admin engaged in vs. the lawfare of the Trump administration, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Yes, you are correct about that. I am not defending this attack on free speech. I was just pointing out that the democrats, my former party, would be able to have the moral highground on this issue if they hadn't censored all over the place - and done lawfare- during the Biden admin! FIRE was very active in contesting their dreadful censorship and attacks on free speech- as FIRE is now, regarding what the Trump admin is doing.
First, Comey was indicted by a grand jury. Second, Watts was just a citizen who was a soldier, not the head of the FBI... and organization with the connections and resources and power to easily carry out an assassination of the President.
Your moral equivalency arguments are so far off, they are almost humorous satire.
That's not why Watts' conviction was reversed. It was because his statement amounted to nothing more than crude political rhetoric. If he had expressed a serious intent to kill President Johnson, his conviction would have stood, regardless of how feasible it would have been for him to carry it out.
Likewise, even granting your highly questionable premise that a *former* FBI director could easily arrange the president's death, having the means to carry out violence doesn't mean that someone actually threatened to do so. There's nothing in the indictment to suggest that Comey's post, using a slogan commonly used to call for the president's removal from office or to simply signal opposition to him, communicated a genuine intent to personally kill him.
This isn't good persuasion stuff. At the very least I would expect an honest and objective journalist to acknowledge the difference. You and your ilk persecute Trump for every utterance even making up fantastic explanation of his meaning and intent of words taken significantly out of context and cherry-picked from a complete speech. The lie about "fine people" was bad enough, but now it is one of your Democrat campaign non-profits (SPLC) that paid for the KKK to attend. Trump says go march peacefully, and yet you and your ilk continue to demand he go to prison as a traitor for organizing and motivating an insurrection... ignoring that the claim and the definition of the word don't line up at all.
With clear explosion in leftist violence including assassination culture and polls showing that your political tribe support it, someone that worked at the head of the FBI even INFERRING that the President should be assassinated should be locked up if only to send a message to all you that it will no longer be tolerated.
Watt's was a flippant remark in a conversation with another. Comey was clear to broadcast his dream of Trump assassination to the world.
The lack of acknowledgement for the difference related to Comey's professional roles is enough to discount your entire credibility to write about this. There is no counter thought. You are just taking an ideological left view that is void of objectivity. And your assassination culture needs to stop immediately. Comey is a perfect target to get the ball rolling on that.
You're making a lot of assumptions about me that aren't accurate. I know that in our polarized environment, it's easy to assume that if someone criticizes something associated with "your side," they must be aligned with the other. But that's not the case here. The organization I work for, FIRE, is nonpartisan and defends free speech as a matter of principle. If you look at our website or Substack, you'll find plenty of examples of us pushing back against censorship from the left as well.
Got it. So you are a free speech absolutist? Can I go back in everything you have previously wrote on the topic to confirm it?
I used to be a free speech absolutist until I considered that protection of our individual rights was being hijacked and abused by the Matrix, and that about half the population, mostly females and young people, are prone to easy influence, brainwashing and gaslighting.
Free speech is a God-given right to INDIVIDUALS like Watt... that has been enshrined in constitution Bill of Rights. God did not give rights to systems, regimes, institutions, entities, etc., These collectives of power exploit God-given, constitutionally-protected individual rights to abuse that power hiding behind laws that should not apply to them. Comey is part of a regime that has been involved in a decade-long project to defeat and remove Trump from power. Comey is speaking for that regime that wants Trump gone. Their failure to do it at the ballot box and in legislature and the judicial system they have abused, had led them to message the half of the easily brainwashed public to embrace assassination to rid themselves of the Trump Derangement Syndrome playing in their media feeds owned by the same regime.
I hate to confirm Godwin's law, but would you have supported Hitler's speech and the Nazi's speech in 1930s Germany with your same set of values? Do you support Madrassa with Imams that preach versions of Islam that call for global terrorism? People in positions of power of our institutions have a higher level of ethical, moral and legal responsibility. Comey is not Watt. Not by a long shot.
In May of 2025, Comey, of course, was no longer head of the FBI and hadn't been for 8 years, but was a citizen with a long record of service to our country.
It's alarming that they obtained an indictment in the first place. We know the saying regarding the ham sandwich, but how could anyone even vote to indict on these facts? The charge will be dismissed, but this shouldn't even be an indictment to begin with. The aim is to vex and cause pain to Comey, and even though he is likely not worried, he still has to deal with this charge. I wonder how many Americans understand how deeply wrong this is.
where are the laws that can be used to disbar and impose severe penalty on the abuse of "vexatious lawsuits"? Besides, every one of the admin is close to severe abuse of violating the Constitution and lying - why are they not being impeached?
Trump and his supporters can (and constantly do) dish it out, but how dare they have to take it.
I guess I wonder what liberals would say if a leading Republican had posted something like this about Kamala Harris or Barak Obama? What about the leftist idea that "speech is violence"?
I'm sure many people would make the same dumb arguments, but we are against those dumb arguments too. For example:
https://eternallyradicalidea.com/p/why-the-words-are-violence-argument
Yes, great, and you are right. But I wonder where were the progressives during the peak woke Biden admin years? I would call this Comey prosecution a form of political lawfare. And an attack on free speech. To be fair, we should admit there was plenty of lawfare during the Biden admin also against Trump and his crowd....Most troubling was the whole Russia hoax which tried to imply that Trump was elected in 2016 due to Russia. And of course, many other political prosecutions and Trump himself on trial for an alleged "rape" in a womens department store, 30 years ago that was never reported to the police!
Two wrongs don't make a right. Someone has to stand on principle. FIRE has, and I joined them because of that.
I agree! I am a member and a donor also to FIRE! And its important that there are people like both of us as part of that movement!
The rape case was not a government prosecution, unless I misunderstand the case. The only arguably meritless government prosecution of Trump was, unjustly, the one he got convicted on. The documents case and the election interference cases were at the least based on breaking the laws directly, and not in some weird roundabout way that was clearly only intended to punish Trump.
The Russia hoax convictions were standard "work up the chain" cases, and the people were convicted of obstruction and perjury, as is frequently the case with white collar criminal groups: they are easy cases to win because they rely and clear recorded evidence. You may want to think back to Whitewater and the Clintons.
If you are trying to say that the Biden admin didnt do lawfare against Trump, I just don't agree. I will also point out that the rape case was clearly financed by big dem donors, E Jean Carroll, the alleged victim didnt pay the bills. Letitia James the NY Attorney general went after Trump for some other nonsense. The Russia hoax is the most shocking and disturbing. It was the first time in my lifetime that I saw half the country openly contesting election results. It also made me quite blasé about all the January 6 stuff and Trump's election denials ( I know democrats freak out about that). I was just like, hey the democrats did this after the first Trump elections, and it happened again in Georgia with Stacey Abrams. And I will add, that I used to be a democrat. I didnt vote for Trump in 2016.
I'm saying the Biden administration's lawfare was based in behavior that was for behavior that one could easily argue is against the law. No guarantee a judge and jury would have seen it that way; that's why we actually try the cases. This, as opposed to the way the Trump administration uses lawfare: trump up prima facie bullshit charges to attack his enemies. Think about the documents case: how many times did Trump have to simply comply the the order to return the documents? It was more than a year. Do I think making sure the media was tipped off and included was slimy and dumb? Yes. Do I like the Biden administration? Hell no. But if you cannot see the material difference between the lawfare the Biden admin engaged in vs. the lawfare of the Trump administration, I'm not sure what to tell you.
As the article points out, during Biden's term there were Republicans displaying "86 46". Were any of them indicted?
Nope. Not to my knowledge.
That was my point.
Yes, you are correct about that. I am not defending this attack on free speech. I was just pointing out that the democrats, my former party, would be able to have the moral highground on this issue if they hadn't censored all over the place - and done lawfare- during the Biden admin! FIRE was very active in contesting their dreadful censorship and attacks on free speech- as FIRE is now, regarding what the Trump admin is doing.
86 47 forever! I’m printing up shirts and hats for my friends 😎😏🏖️
First, Comey was indicted by a grand jury. Second, Watts was just a citizen who was a soldier, not the head of the FBI... and organization with the connections and resources and power to easily carry out an assassination of the President.
Your moral equivalency arguments are so far off, they are almost humorous satire.
That's not why Watts' conviction was reversed. It was because his statement amounted to nothing more than crude political rhetoric. If he had expressed a serious intent to kill President Johnson, his conviction would have stood, regardless of how feasible it would have been for him to carry it out.
Likewise, even granting your highly questionable premise that a *former* FBI director could easily arrange the president's death, having the means to carry out violence doesn't mean that someone actually threatened to do so. There's nothing in the indictment to suggest that Comey's post, using a slogan commonly used to call for the president's removal from office or to simply signal opposition to him, communicated a genuine intent to personally kill him.
Please, don't waste your energy on convincing Frank Lee of anything. He lurks around Persuasion so he can "own some libs" when he can.
This isn't good persuasion stuff. At the very least I would expect an honest and objective journalist to acknowledge the difference. You and your ilk persecute Trump for every utterance even making up fantastic explanation of his meaning and intent of words taken significantly out of context and cherry-picked from a complete speech. The lie about "fine people" was bad enough, but now it is one of your Democrat campaign non-profits (SPLC) that paid for the KKK to attend. Trump says go march peacefully, and yet you and your ilk continue to demand he go to prison as a traitor for organizing and motivating an insurrection... ignoring that the claim and the definition of the word don't line up at all.
With clear explosion in leftist violence including assassination culture and polls showing that your political tribe support it, someone that worked at the head of the FBI even INFERRING that the President should be assassinated should be locked up if only to send a message to all you that it will no longer be tolerated.
Watt's was a flippant remark in a conversation with another. Comey was clear to broadcast his dream of Trump assassination to the world.
The lack of acknowledgement for the difference related to Comey's professional roles is enough to discount your entire credibility to write about this. There is no counter thought. You are just taking an ideological left view that is void of objectivity. And your assassination culture needs to stop immediately. Comey is a perfect target to get the ball rolling on that.
You're making a lot of assumptions about me that aren't accurate. I know that in our polarized environment, it's easy to assume that if someone criticizes something associated with "your side," they must be aligned with the other. But that's not the case here. The organization I work for, FIRE, is nonpartisan and defends free speech as a matter of principle. If you look at our website or Substack, you'll find plenty of examples of us pushing back against censorship from the left as well.
Just curious. What is your opinion on the Alex Jones award for hurting the feelings of the Sandy Hook parents?
Got it. So you are a free speech absolutist? Can I go back in everything you have previously wrote on the topic to confirm it?
I used to be a free speech absolutist until I considered that protection of our individual rights was being hijacked and abused by the Matrix, and that about half the population, mostly females and young people, are prone to easy influence, brainwashing and gaslighting.
Free speech is a God-given right to INDIVIDUALS like Watt... that has been enshrined in constitution Bill of Rights. God did not give rights to systems, regimes, institutions, entities, etc., These collectives of power exploit God-given, constitutionally-protected individual rights to abuse that power hiding behind laws that should not apply to them. Comey is part of a regime that has been involved in a decade-long project to defeat and remove Trump from power. Comey is speaking for that regime that wants Trump gone. Their failure to do it at the ballot box and in legislature and the judicial system they have abused, had led them to message the half of the easily brainwashed public to embrace assassination to rid themselves of the Trump Derangement Syndrome playing in their media feeds owned by the same regime.
I hate to confirm Godwin's law, but would you have supported Hitler's speech and the Nazi's speech in 1930s Germany with your same set of values? Do you support Madrassa with Imams that preach versions of Islam that call for global terrorism? People in positions of power of our institutions have a higher level of ethical, moral and legal responsibility. Comey is not Watt. Not by a long shot.
How shallow your commitment to our Constitution goes! Disappointing.
In May of 2025, Comey, of course, was no longer head of the FBI and hadn't been for 8 years, but was a citizen with a long record of service to our country.
Does he still have security clearance. Is he still interviewed and quoted by media from his role? That is a bonehead point.
Clearly those spook connections last longer than the career. He hired many of the people still working in the FBI.