Trump already tried to criminally prosecute Comey for not lying to Congress. Comey moved to dismiss the indictment and a selective or vindictive prosecution. That motion was never decided because unqualified DOJ Trump humper Lindsay Halligan wasn't legally appointed to her position. As a result, the DOJ blew the statute of limitations, something that in my part of the legal universe would be considered malpractice.
But never fear, that dastardly rascal Comey just can't stop not committing crimes. Last year, he Instagrammed a photo showing shells on a beach arranged to read "8647." The DOJ was so concerned that Comey was threatening to kill Trump that it waited a year to indict him. (No, the timing had nothing to do with Todd Blanche's desire to become AG. Don't be silly.)
The indictment is, on its face, ridiculous. "86" is restaurant slang for "get rid of." So, the DOJ is trying to throw Comey into prison for 10 years for posting the equivalent of "Get rid of Trump." This is a classic example of protected political speech -- the kind of speech that deserves and gets the strongest protection under the first amendment. Lord knows what Blanche told the grand jury to get this indictment, but I'd bet that it violates the Constitution. (Remember, there is no judge or defense attorney at a grand jury hearing. The quality of the indictment depends entirely on the integrity of the prosecutor.)
It's even more ridiculous when you look at what the Supreme Court has said on the topic of threats. Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) involved an 18-year-old draftee who said "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get on my sights is L.B.J." The Supreme Court held this was not a "true threat" against the President.
This is the government attempting to imprison Comey for expressing a political opinion that is clearly not a "true threat." It is Orbanesque authoritarianism that affects every citizen's ability to criticize the government. This will be thrown out. If there is justice, Todd Blance will join the disbarrred former Trump lawyers club.the Supreme Court wrote:But whatever the "willfullness" requirement implies, the statute initially requires the Government to prove a true threat. We do not believe that the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner fits within that statutory term. For we must interpret the language Congress chose "against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). The language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes, see Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, 383 U.S. 53, 58 (1966), is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact. We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President." Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise. Watts, 394 U.S. at 708.
Hat tip to Popehat for his excellent write up on the indictment.https://www.popehat.com/p/the-comey-thr ... 96527e10db
