[Alberta's Child]

I've been saying for months that the facts of this particular case -- the Comey "leaks" to the New York Times -- would never support any kind of criminal prosecution. There were two items in particular that come into play here:

1. The documents were classified retroactively, which means a prosecutor would have an extra hurdle to clear in order to make the charges stick.

2. The documents were Comey's own infantile memos to himself -- which means a prosecutor would first have to prove that the information contained in them was true in order to get a conviction.

Item #2 is a critical point. We've been saying from the beginning that the memos were a bunch of self-serving nonsense, and were filled with a lot of fiction. Heck -- Comey himself even made conflicting points about the contents of these memos when he was testifying before the Senate after he had been fired.

You can't have it both ways. Either the documents were childish fiction, or they were classified matters of fact. I'll go with "Childish Fiction" for $500, Alex.

[Alberta's Child]

I'll add a third point to Post #11, too.

3. If Comey were ever prosecuted for leaking those memos to the NYT, he'd have the right to call President Trump as a witness to testify about whether the information in them was true or false. There's no way in hell that was ever going to happen, folks.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

Good insight. Thanks for sharing that. Time will tell but I am not that hopeful that anyone in the coup will face the music.