LOS ANGELES (OC).–Showing that the law is all about technicalities, Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick chastised Department of Justice Prosecutor Lindsey Halligan for not producing sufficient evidence in the reciprocal discovery process in the case of 64-year-old former FBI Director James Comey. Comey’s attorney and friend Columbia University Law Professor Daniel Richman claimed that the DOJ “indicted first, investigated later,” in a case of vindictive prosecution by DOJ attorneys. Richman claims that the DOJ case against Comey lacked legal basis but was purely vindictive prosecution by President Donald Trump looking to retaliate against Comey for his role in the 2016 presidential campaign. Comey opened a counterintelligence investigation based on bogus probable cause from former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “Steele dossier.”
Comey had no legal basis for opening up a counterintelligence investigation into Trump, claiming he colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. All the facts in evidence at the time involved Hillary’s paid opposition research, orchestrated by Hillary’s campaign law firm Perkins Cole who paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS to create the fabricated Steele Dossier to tie Trump to the Kremlin. Judge Fitzpatrick asked the DOJ to produce all the evidence amassed against Comey for lying to Congress about whether or not he ordered his staff to leak to the press, like Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Comey pleaded not guilty to all charges, maybe because he was the one the leaked to confidential sources at the New York Times and Washington Post. Surely Judge Fitzpatrick knows something about Comey’s history while FBI Director with Trump.
Comey’s attorneys call the DOJ’s case against Trump vindictive prosecution, all part of Trump’s organized plan to retaliate against his past enemies. Trump fired Comey May 8, 2017, citing his role in leaking to the press and leading an investigation of Trump based on fake probable cause. Comey’s defense lawyer wants a transcript of the confidential grand jury to determine whether anything irregular took place. “The procedural posture of this case is highly unusual,” saying the Justice Department looked like it was in an “indict first” and investigate later. But Comey was well knon before fired by Trump for investigating Trump and his 2016 for colluding with the Russian Federation to win the election. Comey has no evidence other than the Steele Dossier, the paid opposition research arranged by Democrat attorney and operative Mark Elias.
Elias who’s now a self-avowed defender of democracy and the Constitution, once worked for the dirtiest political operation for Hillary in the 2016 campaign. Suddenly, Elias, once the purveyor of fake opposition research against Trump, has now become a Democrat hero accusing Trump of subverting democracy. Judge Fitzpatrick wants the DOJ to produce by tomorrow all the evidence collected through search warrants collected by the DOJ in 2919 and 2020. How ironic that Comey’s defense attorney Daniel Richman, when he was the one Comey asked to serve as a confidential source to the press. Comey’s lawyers claim that when Comey denied order leaks to press, he was referring to former Deputy Atty. Gen. Andrew MeCabe. If Richman turns out to be one of Comey’s leakers, how about that for a technicality? Or worse yet Comey himself leaked constantly to the press in 2016.
Judge Fitzpatrick doesn’t understand the degree of treachery from Comey back in 2016 when he probably had a team of leakers to media, including himself. Comey’s lawyers told the judge that they had not reviewed files taken from Richman, not knowing whether the information was classified or used as evidence. “We’re going to fix that, and we’re going to fix that today,” Fitzpatrick told lead prosecutor Lindsey Halligan. Comey’s defense team have already questioned Halligan’s qualifications, trying to take advantage of her inexperience. Whether Comey can get off on a technicality is anyone’s guess. There’s a lot of room for mistakes in prosecutions. Richman knows what buttons to push with the judge, making prosecutors look bad. Comey’s indictment is long overdue, knowing how he used Hillary’s bogus dossier to investigate Trump in 2016.
When it comes to the law, the most convincing facts don’t matter in any case if there’s a breach of civil or criminal procedure, giving defense attorneys a way out. Comey abused his position as FBI Director to use federal law enforcement job to go have Trump politically. Comey and his anti-Trump posse failed in 2016 to stop his election as president. When Trump considered running again in 2024, the same federal prosecutors, with former Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland appointing Special Counsel Jack Smith, threw the book at Trump, charging his with crimes that could have put him away for life. Smith, like Comey, was part of the anti-Trump federal conspiracy that did everything to prevent him from running for president in 2024. Federal judges must show impartiality but they shouldn’t show extreme prejudice against Trump’s DOJ prosecutors.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
