Quote:

---

Comey claiming attorney client privilege between him and the lawyers he was providing classified info for purposes of leaking makes those attorneys co-conspirators and communications are NOT protected under crime/fraud exception.

---

You should reach out to Blondi & Halligan. It does not appear this is an issue raised anywhere by them!

Quote:

---

You should reach out to Blondi & Halligan. It does not appear this is an issue raised anywhere by them!

---

Doesn't matter with these judges anyway. Both the magistrate judge and his superior judge are well aware of the conflicts through Comey's lawyers' assertions about attorney client privilege.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You should reach out to Blondi & Halligan. It does not appear this is an issue raised anywhere by them!

---

Doesn't matter with these judges anyway. Bot the magistrate judge and his superior judge are well aware of the conflicts through Comey's lawyers' assertions about attorney client privilege.

---

You know dang good and well that this does not excuse not raising the issue. Even if you have terrible trial court judges, you preserve the issue for appeal!

Quote:

---

You know dang good and well that this does not excuse not raising the issue. Even if you have terrible trial court judges, you preserve the issue for appeal!

---

And that works both ways. Richman's digital data was subpoenaed several years ago. No objections from Comey back then for attorney client privilege. Richman was using his university email account to communicate with Comey who had hired him and Fitzgerald right after Comey's firing.

Quote:

---

No objections from Comey back then for attorney client privilege.

---

The documents were reviewed by his attorney and documents were withheld. When was he supposed to raise this objection? I think you are mixing up issues here.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

No objections from Comey back then for attorney client privilege.

---

The documents were reviewed by his attorney and documents were withheld. When was he supposed to raise this objection? I think you are mixing up issues here.

---

With the flurry of filings back and forth a lot of issues are getting mixed up and convoluted. Surprised you don't find the unethical behavior by Comey and his various counsels more objectionable.

I fully expect Comey to skate here as he has won beat the clock for his more serious crimes thanks to Wray, Barr and Garland. Richman was being investigated for espionage. Doesn't get much more serious than that. And Comey was in on it. He was the instigator in fact but Wray made sure to throw enough monkey wrenches to sabotage that case to make it not capable of being prosecuted.

But my outrage meter was pegged long ago and it is hard to care about Comey and his merry band much anymore.

Quote:

---

With the flurry of filings back and forth a lot of issues are getting mixed up and convoluted. Surprised you don't find the unethical behavior by Comey and his various counsels more objectionable.

---

It is convoluted as hell especially for those that never worked in this area. Its a mess to be sure! Your last sentence is, respectfully, hot garbage.

Quote:

---

I fully expect Comey to skate here as he has won beat the clock for his more serious crimes thanks to Wray, Barr and Garland. Richman was being investigated for espionage. Doesn't get much more serious than that. And Comey was in on it.

---

SOL on espionage is 10 years.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I fully expect Comey to skate here as he has won beat the clock for his more serious crimes thanks to Wray, Barr and Garland. Richman was being investigated for espionage. Doesn't get much more serious than that. And Comey was in on it.

---

SOL on espionage is 10 years.

---

So indict Richman and Fitzgerald for their roles? Name Comey as unindicted co-conspirator? Doubtful that would happen after all of this time and some deliberate missteps by Wray's FBI.

I say they should!

There's plenty of time. Or will be blaming Bondi and Patel for missteps come 2027?

Unreal that he's gonna get away with the lying about leaking classified info. Any time a liberal or democrat say to me no one is above the law I'm gonna ignore anything else they have to say. Comey should be going to prison as he broke the law and I'm no lawyer but it's clear as day to me.

Im Gipper said:

---

I say they should!

There's plenty of time. Or will be blaming Bondi and Patel for missteps come 2027?

---

A lot of blame to go around. If Bondi and Patel fall into that tranche too? So be it.

Like I said, my outrage meter is pegged and frozen for the forseeable future. Our judiciary system is too far gone, IMO.

When I got out of the law biz, I did so for a reason. Other lawyers. They were so corrupt. no integrity nor ethics. Manufacturing or materially altering evidence (yeah I caught several of those events) loss of composure (had to step in the break up near fights between counsel in the court house). I grew weary.

The professional had left the profession, as far as I could see and I never wanted to be that type of a lawyer. Not a trial lawyer anyway. I switched to real estate, contract law for awhile but even that had lawyer cheats in them. Redline changes that were not redlined which signal the changes being made during a contract negotiation, etc.

Now there will be posters who will come on here and say that it was always up to me to double check and do my job to make sure that 100+ page contracts were the same, redlined or not. But they also want me to bill my clients for only one reason...a professional's word can no longer be trusted...ever. So my clients were supposed to suffer because opposing counsel was dishonest and unprofessional?

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

I say they should!

There's plenty of time. Or will be blaming Bondi and Patel for missteps come 2027?

---

A lot of blame to go around. If Bondi and Patel fall into that tranche too? So be it.

Like I said, my outrage meter is pegged and frozen for the forseeable future. Our judiciary system is too far gone, IMO.

When I got out of the law biz, I did so for a reason. Other lawyers. They were so corrupt. no integrity nor ethics. Manufacturing or materially altering evidence (yeah I caught several of those events) loss of composure (had to step in the break up near fights between counsel in the court house). I grew weary.

The professional had left the profession, as far as I could see and I never wanted to be that type of a lawyer. Not a trial lawyer anyway. I switched to real estate, contract law for awhile but even that had lawyer cheats in them. Redline changes that were not redlined which signal the changes being made during a contract negotiation, etc.

Now there will be posters who will come on here and say that it was always up to me to double check and do my job to make sure that 100+ page contracts were the same, redlined or not. But they also want me to bill my clients for only one reason...a professional's word can no longer be trusted...ever. So my clients were supposed to suffer because opposing counsel was dishonest and unprofessional?

---

"Our judiciary system is too far gone,"

This X 1,000 and IMHO, there's no way to fix it. America, ain't it great.

I'm feeling angry and outrage over this. It's clear the man broke the law and he's going to walk away a free man.

I know, I'm sorry and I know it likely hurts many who believe in this country and what it stands for or stood for and it hurts this country to its very core.

BREAKING: Prosecutors in the Comey case just told the judge that they’re under orders from the Deputy Attorney Generals’s office not to disclose whether career prosecutors wrote a memo recommending *against* indicting Comey prior to Halligan going to the grand jury.

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 19, 2025

Career (insert any bureaucrat position here) = leftist activist

Hearing in Comey just ended. Govt admits 2d indictment never presented to full grand jury. Judge concerned. AUSA also admits DAG Blanche’s office told him not to disclose whether earlier prosecutors wrote a declination memo (saying why there was no case).

— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) November 19, 2025

Foreman apparently told GJ coordinator that GJ rejected count 1 but approved counts 2 & 3, so govt drafted new 2-count indictment and foreman signed. But 2d indictment—operational one—never shown to full GJ.

— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) November 19, 2025

ETFan said:

---

BREAKING: Prosecutors in the Comey case just told the judge that they’re under orders from the Deputy Attorney Generals’s office not to disclose whether career prosecutors wrote a memo recommending *against* indicting Comey prior to Halligan going to the grand jury.

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 19, 2025

---

How is that relevant?

flown-the-coop said:

---

Career (insert any bureaucrat position here) = leftist activist

---

Or maybe the career prosecutor was not willing to jeopardize his law license by misleading the court about why the government is refusing to disclose potential Brady material.*

*Edit: After listening to attorneys that attended the hearing, the issue about the memo is not Brady, but the malicious prosecution claim. If the judge allows discovery on malicious prosecution, then the DOJ will be required to turnover the memo. From the questions asked at the hearing, it appears that the judge believes that discovery may not be necessary because there is already enough evidence to find malicious prosecution. Also, the career prosecutor tried to avoid directly answering questions about a declination memo, but the judge pointedly asked about why he could not respond to the questions about the existence of the memo.

After the hearing today, Ms. Halligan needs to start preparing her defense to challenges to her bar license.

Logos Stick said:

---

ETFan said:

---

BREAKING: Prosecutors in the Comey case just told the judge that they’re under orders from the Deputy Attorney Generals’s office not to disclose whether career prosecutors wrote a memo recommending *against* indicting Comey prior to Halligan going to the grand jury.

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 19, 2025

---

How is that relevant?

---

Potential Brady material (exculpatory evidence) that is required to be provided to the defense.

Joseydog said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Career (insert any bureaucrat position here) = leftist activist

---

Or maybe the career prosecutor was not willing to jeopardize his law license by misleading the court about why the government is refusing to disclose potential Brady material.

After the hearing today, Ms. Halligan needs to start preparing her defense to challenges to her bar license.

---

She can stand in line at the bar license office behind Merrick Garland, Eric Holder, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, Judge Broasburg, Judge Marshan and Justice KJB... all more deserving of being disbarred.

Comey is guilty as sin. I care not about nitpicky procedural **** Comey's team keeps throwing out there for their liberal lapdog "judge" to preside over.

Joseydog said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

ETFan said:

---

BREAKING: Prosecutors in the Comey case just told the judge that they’re under orders from the Deputy Attorney Generals’s office not to disclose whether career prosecutors wrote a memo recommending *against* indicting Comey prior to Halligan going to the grand jury.

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 19, 2025

---

How is that relevant?

---

Potential Brady material (exculpatory evidence) that is required to be provided to the defense.

---

Their opinion on the matter is not evidence.

Logos Stick said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

ETFan said:

---

BREAKING: Prosecutors in the Comey case just told the judge that they’re under orders from the Deputy Attorney Generals’s office not to disclose whether career prosecutors wrote a memo recommending *against* indicting Comey prior to Halligan going to the grand jury.

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 19, 2025

---

How is that relevant?

---

Potential Brady material (exculpatory evidence) that is required to be provided to the defense.

---

Their opinion on the matter is not evidence.

---

You are correct in that their opinion is not "Evidence." But that is not the issue here.

Brady requires that certain potentially exculpatory evidence must be turned over to the defense. A memo on no viable case can potentially contain such evidence.



NOTE: There is not enough information in these tweets for one to determine one way or the other on whether this memo falls under the Brady requirements. It could be work product.

Based on these tweets above about the multiple indictments, this shows complete incompetence from DoJ.. Halligan and whoever decided to put her in the job completely botched this prosecution.

Yep. She'll be disbarred for this.

Im Gipper said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

ETFan said:

---

BREAKING: Prosecutors in the Comey case just told the judge that they’re under orders from the Deputy Attorney Generals’s office not to disclose whether career prosecutors wrote a memo recommending *against* indicting Comey prior to Halligan going to the grand jury.

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 19, 2025

---

How is that relevant?

---

Potential Brady material (exculpatory evidence) that is required to be provided to the defense.

---

Their opinion on the matter is not evidence.

---

You are correct in that their opinion is not "Evidence." But that is not the issue here.

Brady requires that certain potentially exculpatory evidence must be turned over to the defense. A memo on no viable case can potentially contain such evidence.



NOTE: There is not enough information in these tweets for one to determine one way or the other on whether this memo falls under the Brady requirements. It could be work product.

---

You are correct and I was a little loose in my terminology (use of the term evidence for the memo itself). In the civil context, the memo could also be subject to the deliberative process privilege, but I am not too sure how that governmental privilege applies in criminal cases.

ETFan said:

---

Yep. She'll be disbarred for this.

---

No, she won't.

ETFan said:

---

Yep. She'll be disbarred for this.

---

That's ridiculous. This is just incompetence, not malice.

HTownAg98 said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Yep. She'll be disbarred for this.

---

That's ridiculous. This is just incompetence, not malice.

---

Ok

HTownAg98 said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Yep. She'll be disbarred for this.

---

That's ridiculous. This is just incompetence, not malice.

---

The technical phrasing is "perpetuating a fraud upon the court", and it will absolutely get you disbarred

She won't be disbarred but this will give Bondi an excuse to fire her.