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

at a place where we can definitively. say, and to the extent we can. definitively say, we will we will let. you know. >> Uh 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 This investigation just didn't come. now. It's the result of of of a lot of. work by law enforcement over the past. year. We don't time when we bring 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.

in this case as well. >> As you heard from the Attorney General. and the US 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 furthest. thing from that. Every single. investigation this FBI and our partners. at the Department of Justice undertake, especially those that involve the. threats to. um harm or hurt or even kill. individuals, whether they behold public. office or civilians in our country, are.

met with the same measure of. investigative prowess and tools and. personnel in partnership with the. Department of Justice as anyone else. As. the US 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 past. uh 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 a. peers in the district in which the. alleged crime took place, and that grand. jury spoke, and that grand jury returned a two-count. indictment against James Comey. >> You're watching the Legal Breakdown. Glenn, that was Attorney General Todd. Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel both. trying to lend credence to this. obviously vindictive prosecution against. James Comey. Both 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. >> Hey 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, 8647. 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 I. didn't even know 86 could be interpreted. as a threat. You know, but 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 3 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 [snorts]. 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 by posting 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 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 Blanche 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 it. 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 8646. If the DOJ is going to prosecute James. Comey for taking a photo of some. seashells in the formation of 8647, how would it be possible that, by that.

same logic, they wouldn't also. prosecute, or they wouldn't also. prosecute, Jack Posobiec 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. But, >> So, wouldn't wouldn't it be smart then.

for some Democratic entity to try and. prosecute Jack Posobiec at the exact. same time so that these cases. about the same exact thing on the same. standard become intertwined and then the. DOJ has to make the decision to either. move forward where you know, where you. write 86 is that's going to be a. prosecutor 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 what you can't prosecute. somebody else who committed no crime to. prove a point that that is what Donald. Trump's 30 DOJ leadership is doing. But. our viewers should rest assured that. this case will be dismissed and it will. probably give rise 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 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 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 their schemes. But 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. what's the remedy here when the federal. government goes after you and often. times it's nothing but but it sounds. here like there might be some 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 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 you know if you. allowed every government employee and. official to be dragged into court all.

day every day by aggrieved you know. citizens then the government wouldn't. you know 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 them. You know, I I don't I 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 another it's a very. 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, um, 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 it 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. MO, 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, um, the next time this happens and and 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. 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 going to 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 prosecution.

front. And the good news is, you know, judges are not supposed to take into. account, you know, ex- 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 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, cuz 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. Blanche 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. Blanche, Pam Bondi, and the people with. their fingerprints on this indictment. are 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, it. 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 Kirschner. >> You're watching the Legal Breakdown. >> [music].