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.
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.