"... with the defendant himself”?Q: How will you prove intent when Comey said he didn't associate '86' with doing harm and he took it down promptly, saying it was political speech?
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 28, 2026
BLANCHE: How do you prove intent in any case? With witnesses, documents, with the defendants himself, and that's how we'll do it in… pic.twitter.com/qrpe4lnDHN
8647 Popehat:Witnesses? pic.twitter.com/KNBv20ZaZ1
— Andy (@BWFCAndyG) April 28, 2026
/5 As we wait to see the indictment I am interested to see whether they are smart enough to evade First Amendment analysis by just reciting the elements and not describing the “threat.”(First Amendment protects all but a “true threat.” Whuch is why Secret Service investigate first, and seek indictments later.)
If I was more familiar with Federal Criminal Procedure, I’d start a pool on how soon after Comey enters a plea, that this gets dismissed. I’m sure it can be measured in Scaramuccis. Because they just don’t know how not to make this worse:
FBI Director Kash Patel explains how the criminal investigation into James Comey’s seashell post wasn’t a simple one: This has been a case that's been investigated over the past 9, 10, 11 months. These cases take time. Our investigators work methodically pic.twitter.com/QEJ4GnwnEK
— Acyn (@Acyn) April 28, 2026
If the SS told me to remove such a photo I'd have told them to shove a seashell somewhere. But Comey isn't someone I have a lot of respect for on the basis of courage.
ReplyDelete