To reiterate, he showed extreme lack of judgement and balance. No matter what he thought 86 47 "means." HA! Too clever by half. With his flawed judgement, he should NEVER be in command of a passenger air flight, ever again! Even packages are not safe with him, should he make his statement more clear by some action.
What a moron. He must be a real gem to fly with. Looks like he just upgraded to captain too. That was a quick career! Please don't let the jetbridge hit you on the head on your way out! BUH BYE 👋
This can't be taken lightly and the Grand Jury didn't either,i think this is a way to get him to eat some crow and realize there's laws you just can't Flaunt as a nothing burger,if i know my people and i do on the E Coast on NC they will fry THIS MOTHAFUCKER OK.
Is it my age??? I worked in bars and nightclubs back in the 90's in college (ok, and a gentlemen's club). We used to use the term "86'd" or "86 him" and such and it only ever referred to "get him out of here and ban him". I brought this up from Comey's original post as well. Sure, its not cool and all, but I didn't think that was intended to mean "killing" either. I've talked to others 50+ and everyone I talk to agrees as well - even if the mob used it and even if it some cases it could be intended that way it doesn't have to mean that. Honestly think given the right scenario I could use the term. Like man they need to 86 AOC from congress. Sure the "from congress" makes the intent more obvious, but I doubt a single use of "8647" is going to get someone fired or criminally charged on its own.
" The mob used it and . . . it "could be" WAS intended that way! "
86 47 is absolutely a threat to the President! Too clever by half, hiding behind innuendo.
EVERYONE KNOWS what Comey meant! Trump had already been impeached, twice, sued and charged in various courts intended to "take him out." After every effort including Russia Russia Russia, failed: what means did Comey intend to imply to "take him out" ?
Please! We are not that naive or stupid. Hopefully the jury will be the same.
I completely agree that EVERYONE KNOWS what Comey meant. I'm saying what would hold up in court and I don't see this holding up. The prosecution has to prove intent here due to the ambiguous meanings. And if Comey argued it meant "get him out of here" then how do you disprove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm being realistic here. Maybe I'm wrong, but this same type of tactic has been used against Trump for years as well. The degree might be different, but its the same as people arguing he was inciting violence J6th because "they know what he meant". Right or wrong, this one is not a slam dunk to prosecute him with I don't think.
I would agree that it would be very difficult to get a conviction based solely on what was shown in the indictment but rarely does an indictment contain everything that is presented at trial or ever everything that is presented to the Grand Jury. I am sure the lengthy investigation included all of his telephone, text, email and other communication as well as private contacts. Intent will be a major factor and It would not surprise me if they have evidence proving what his true understanding and meaning when he used the term "86". Neither a competent prosecutor nor a Federal Judge are going to sign off on the indictment of a former FBI Director without there being more than simple supposition.
I believe his book will help convict him. There was a discussion on X about it. Seems his book points out how things are used as comms. "86" some one being said comm.
To reiterate, he showed extreme lack of judgement and balance. No matter what he thought 86 47 "means." HA! Too clever by half. With his flawed judgement, he should NEVER be in command of a passenger air flight, ever again! Even packages are not safe with him, should he make his statement more clear by some action.
What a moron. He must be a real gem to fly with. Looks like he just upgraded to captain too. That was a quick career! Please don't let the jetbridge hit you on the head on your way out! BUH BYE 👋
This can't be taken lightly and the Grand Jury didn't either,i think this is a way to get him to eat some crow and realize there's laws you just can't Flaunt as a nothing burger,if i know my people and i do on the E Coast on NC they will fry THIS MOTHAFUCKER OK.
I'm talkin Corney here not the pilot,he's gonna get fired and a visit.
Is it my age??? I worked in bars and nightclubs back in the 90's in college (ok, and a gentlemen's club). We used to use the term "86'd" or "86 him" and such and it only ever referred to "get him out of here and ban him". I brought this up from Comey's original post as well. Sure, its not cool and all, but I didn't think that was intended to mean "killing" either. I've talked to others 50+ and everyone I talk to agrees as well - even if the mob used it and even if it some cases it could be intended that way it doesn't have to mean that. Honestly think given the right scenario I could use the term. Like man they need to 86 AOC from congress. Sure the "from congress" makes the intent more obvious, but I doubt a single use of "8647" is going to get someone fired or criminally charged on its own.
" The mob used it and . . . it "could be" WAS intended that way! "
86 47 is absolutely a threat to the President! Too clever by half, hiding behind innuendo.
EVERYONE KNOWS what Comey meant! Trump had already been impeached, twice, sued and charged in various courts intended to "take him out." After every effort including Russia Russia Russia, failed: what means did Comey intend to imply to "take him out" ?
Please! We are not that naive or stupid. Hopefully the jury will be the same.
I completely agree that EVERYONE KNOWS what Comey meant. I'm saying what would hold up in court and I don't see this holding up. The prosecution has to prove intent here due to the ambiguous meanings. And if Comey argued it meant "get him out of here" then how do you disprove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm being realistic here. Maybe I'm wrong, but this same type of tactic has been used against Trump for years as well. The degree might be different, but its the same as people arguing he was inciting violence J6th because "they know what he meant". Right or wrong, this one is not a slam dunk to prosecute him with I don't think.
I would agree that it would be very difficult to get a conviction based solely on what was shown in the indictment but rarely does an indictment contain everything that is presented at trial or ever everything that is presented to the Grand Jury. I am sure the lengthy investigation included all of his telephone, text, email and other communication as well as private contacts. Intent will be a major factor and It would not surprise me if they have evidence proving what his true understanding and meaning when he used the term "86". Neither a competent prosecutor nor a Federal Judge are going to sign off on the indictment of a former FBI Director without there being more than simple supposition.
I'm just being cautious really - I am fully hopeful there's some more substance in the indictments.
I believe his book will help convict him. There was a discussion on X about it. Seems his book points out how things are used as comms. "86" some one being said comm.
I think these days it means something else as well.....
Ask the guys who invented the term.