“DISBARRED!” Prosecutor drops BAD NEWS for DOJ after vindictive prosecution

at a place where we can definitively say, to the extent we can definitively say, we will let you know.

Director Comey posted this almost a year ago.Why bring this case now?Did you always feel like this was a strong prosecution or did something change recently?

This investigation just didn't come now.It's the result of a lot of work by law enforcement over the past year.We don't time when we bring cases around anything other than when the investigation is at a place where we should go to the grand jury, and that's exactly what we did in this case as well.

As you heard from the Attorney General and the U .S.Attorney, former FBI Director James Comey has now been indicted for two felony counts.While many of you may read this indictment and view this matter as a simple investigation, it is the farthest thing from that.Every single investigation this FBI and our partners at the Department of Justice undertake, especially those that involve the threats to harm or hurt or even kill individuals, whether they hold public office or are civilians in our country, are met with the same measure of investigative prowess and tools and personnel and partnership with the Department of Justice as anyone else.As the U .

S.Attorney indicated, James Comey will be afforded every matter of due process under the United States Constitution.And as the Attorney General indicated, this has been a case that's been investigated over the in the past 9, 10, 11 months.These cases take time.Our investigators work methodically.They are career agents, career prosecutors who work these matters.

They call the balls and strikes in the field as they see fit pursuant to the facts of the case and the law.They took that information and made a presentment to a grand jury, a jury of appears in the district in which the alleged crime took place.And that grand jury spoke.

And that grand jury returned a two count indictment againstBoth of them kind of stressed this idea that this was a long time in the making.It was a very serious investigation leading to a very serious indictment.So, first and foremost, your reaction to that claim by both of these members of the DOJ.

Yeah, Brian, this incident would probably take a full 30 minutes to investigate.What we know is that James Comey is walking down the beach.He sees some seashells arranged in a series of numbers.47, he snaps a picture, he posts it on Instagram, saying something like, hey, cool shell formation I saw on the beach this morning.Investigation complete.The evidence is in.

Now the only thing left was to talk to James Comey.James Comey volunteered to talk to law enforcement authorities.He said, No, I did not intend a threat.He said I didn't even know 86 could be interpreted as a threat.You know, and here is what the DOJ and the FBI should have done to complete the investigation.We're going to go through the whole investigation here in the space of about three minutes.

You know what they should have done?They should have cracked open the dictionary.because James Comey could call, as his first witness at trial, the Merriam -Webster Dictionary because here's the definition of the term 86.86 is slang, meaning to throw out, to get rid of, or to refuse service to.It comes from the 1930s soda counter slang, meaning that an item is sold out.Let me put a little bit more meat on the bones there.

If a diner has run out of meatloaf, the staff would say, hey, 86 meatloaf from the menu.We don't have any more.Donald Trump said that byposting a picture of those numbers, 86, 47, that was an assassination threat.So I guess in our diner example, they were threatening to assassinate the meatloaf.This is absolutely effing laughable, Brian, and any Any DOJ official, any prosecutor, any lawyer who would put their fingerprints anywhere near this investigation, this indictment, should be disbarred because it is such an obvious and inarguable abuse of prosecutorial power.

It is prosecutorial misconduct, you know, to charge a threat.Listen, for 30 years as a prosecutor, do you know how many alleged threats I had to assess to see whether they satisfied the elements of the crime?You know, threats to another.The threat has to be direct, clear, unambiguous, and there has to be some evidence of an intent to harm somebody, to carry it out.86 -47 when the definition, the dictionary definition of 86 does not even list a threat as one of the possible and accepted definitions of that slang term 86.This is a bad faith, lawless, vindictive prosecution that violates James Comey's due process rights.

You have a due process right not to be vindictively pursued criminally by your own government.You know, this is beyond laughable.This is an indication that the Department of Justice is imploding.And we know why Todd Blanch brought this.It didn't take a year to investigate.In the time we've been discussing it, the investigation could have been completed.

This is Todd Blanche's desperate attempt to keep his job as acting Attorney General, maybe even be promoted to full Attorney General.Because we all know, Brian, Pam Bondi was very likely fired because she didn't successfully prosecute Donald Trump's perceived enemies.This is, it really is horrific.But, you know, on the upside, it's an indication that this Department of Justice is absolutely falling apart.The wheels are coming off.

Glenn, to that end, let's say because the administration is moving forward with this nakedly vindictive prosecution, I'm going to put on the screen right here a tweet by Jack Posobiec, who is this right -wing provocateur slash mouthpiece from January 29th, 2022, where he writes 86 -46.If the DOJ is going to prosecute James Comey for taking a photo of some seashells in the formation of 86 -47, how would it be possible that by that same logic, they couldn't also prosecute or they wouldn't also prosecute Jack Posibiec for posting a message that says the exact same thing of about a different president.

Well, that Jack fella committed no crime.So you can't use a baseless, bad faith, vindictive prosecution of one person to justify a similarly vindictive, lawless prosecution of another.So let me ask this.

So wouldn't it be smart then for some Democratic entity to try and prosecute Jack Posibiec at the exact same time so that these cases about the same exact thing on the same standard become intertwinedand then the DOJ has to make the decision to either move forward where, you know, where you write 86, if that's going to be a prosecutable offense, then suddenly you have to do so, the DOJ has to do so and move forward knowing full well that this prosecution is going to impact one of their own allies.

No, you don't use lawlessness as a prosecutor to meet the force of lawlessness by other prosecutors.What you do is James Comey stands tall, walks into court, and as but one example, They hold up the fact that this Jack fella used the identical language with respect to President Joe Biden and was not prosecuted.But you can't prosecute somebody else who committed no crime to prove a point that that is what Donald Trump's dirty DOJ leadership is doing.But our viewers should rest assured that this case will be dismissed and it will probably give rise to to a successful lawsuit that could be filed by James Comey for the persistent vindictive prosecutions that are being brought by this runaway lawless Department of Justice.

Okay, that's actually an interesting point.I want to dig into that point right there, because I'm constantly asking you how these victims of a weaponized government can be made whole.Because really, What the Trump administration seeks to do, they know that this isn't going to go anywhere.They're looking to harass this guy.They're looking to make him spend boatloads of money, which he'll do, defending himself.They're looking to cause stress.

They're looking to cause financial harm.And look, there is a small part of them that hopes that if it lands in front of a judge, who they're friendly with, that maybe this thing does move forward.Maybe there is a 1 % chance that James Comey does actually fall victim to the Trump administration.schemes.But overall, they're looking to make his life a living hell and use the federal government as the cudgel through which they can do that.And so I'm constantly focused on this idea of, well, what's the remedy here when the federal government goes after you?

And oftentimes it's nothing, but it sounds here like there might be some remedy.So can you speak on that idea of what recourse James Comey has when there's such a blatant vindictive prosecution taking place?

Sure, so ordinarily it's pretty challenging to successfully sue a government employee or official if they're acting within the scope of their official governmental duties and that makes sense.I was a prosecutor and I didn't want to be sued by everybody who was aggrieved by my prosecutorial decisions.Every, you know, defendant that I prosecuted or every Everybody that I declined to prosecute because the evidence wasn't there, so I had an ethical responsibility not to bring a charge, and then the victim or the victim's family might want to sue me.Well, as long as I'm acting within the scope of my official duties as a government employee or official, I'm immune from prosecution, and that's the way it should be.Because if you allowed every government employee and official to be dragged into court all day every day by aggrieved citizens, then the government wouldn't function.It couldn't operate.

But when you're acting beyond the scope of your official duties, if as a prosecutor I said, you know what, I am sick and tired of my neighbor.I don't like him.I think he detracts from the neighborhood.I'm just going to make up a criminal charge and I'm going to try to make his life miserable, which is a variation on the theme of what Donald Trump does to his perceived enemies.You know what I would be doing?I would be acting outside the scope of my official duties.

So my neighbor could sue me in my personal capacity and could recover money damages.That is what James Comey has available to him based on this, you know, now string, two and perhaps counting, of vindictive baseless, evidence -free prosecutions.You can't do it and you can't use your government position as a shield against being held accountable for abusing your prosecutorial power.

And finally, Glenn, does this very transparent, very blatant, very egregious vindictive prosecution make the overall goal of this administration more difficult?Because a judge is going to throw this thing out.It likely won't even make its trial.And the next time Trump engages in a vindictive prosecution, which is all but guaranteed, isn't every subsequent judge more primed to see that this is Trump's M .O., that he is going to you know, prosecute James Comey from now until the end of time and whether it's, you know, some even even if it means he has to look at a random, you know, banal post about seashells to try and do it.

Doesn't that make it all the more egregious?the next time this happens and a judge is like, this is what Trump does.I mean, if he tried to prosecute James Comey for showing a picture of some fucking seashells, there's no way that this guy has a leg to stand on in any legitimate prosecutions that he brings.And so I'm gonna be more inclined as a judge to throw this thing out because this is now shown that there is a pattern that this guy engages in.

Yeah, judges don't live in soundproof chambers.They know what's going on in the Trump administration.Donald Trump has priors on the vindictive path.front.And the good news is, you know, judges are not supposed to take into account, you know, things that are extraneous to the case, things where there has been no evidence introduced that is directly part of the legal proceedings.However, Once you have priors as an administration, as a Department of Justice, as a president, as an attorney general, you know, those priors can can literally become relevant evidence.

We call it 404B evidence, evidence of other crimes or other bad acts that bear on what's going on in this case.So you can bet when James Comey is presented in court, and this thing will probably get dismissed pretty quickly on the motions, I suspect, but you can bet James Comey will be bringing in other evidence of vindictive prosecutions and investigations perhaps.perhaps like Jerome Powell, into his case.You'll see it in briefs.He will cite those other vindictive investigations and prosecutions as evidence of a pattern, other acts of misconduct by the same prosecutorial authority, who, as we all know, is Donald Trump, because he has seized control of the Department of Justice and basically anointed himself, you know, the country's top prosecutor.So, you know, this is not going to end well for Donald Trump, it's not going to end well for DOJ, not going to end well for Todd Blanch or the attorneys who actually have fingerprints on this indictment.

All we are doing now is expanding the membership In, you know, the future Donald Trump disbarred lawyers club.There are already four members.There are many others who have been sanctioned, like, you know, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis and and others.And, you know, Todd Blanch, Pam Bondi and the people with their fingerprints on this indictment.going to go the way of Rudy Giuliani and the rest of them.I don't understand why they don't view what happened during the first Trump term and the consequences to those lawyers as a cautionary tale that would make them think twice before they're willing to do Donald Trump's lawless bidding.

But, you know, here we are.

Well, we will of course stay on top of this.If we have any updates, we'll bring them to you.For those who are watching, if you'd like to follow along and support our work, the best way to do that, 100 % free, is to subscribe to both of our channels.I'm going to put those links right here on the screen and also in the post description.Again, doesn't cost anything to subscribe, but it's a great way to support our work and independent media more broadly.I'm Brian Tyler Cohen.

And I'm Glenn Kirshner.You're watching The Legal Breakdown.