"Comey Boomerang: Ex-director confronted with personal emails, notes after playing victim card"
Comey played the victim card in fighting his indictment...[it] boomeranged when prosecutors and his old agency [FBI] released an avalanche of new evidence showing the ex-FBI director hoped to please Hillary Clinton, cheered on media leaks he claimed he did not sanction, and wrote emails and notes that directly conflict with his past congressional testimony.
Liar, liar.
proof that Comey used a private email account to conduct FBI matters -- including media strategy with a top lieutenant -- at the same time his agency probed Clinton for improperly using her own private email
The cache of documents also includes September 2016 handwritten notes in which Comey appears to address U.S. intelligence intercepts about Clinton planning to manufacture a Russia scandal against Trump, something he told senators he didn't recall knowing.
personal emails showing that Comey openly talked in the days before the 2016 election that he expected to be working soon for President-elect Hillary Clinton and that he was being kept apprised by his friend Richman on apparent efforts to anonymously provide information to the news media.
The DOJ also showed on Monday that, despite Comey telling Congress he didn’t recall it, he had taken handwritten notes in September 2016 indicating he had been briefed on the so-called Clinton Plan Intelligence indicating Clinton’s 2016 campaign planned to [falsely] tie Trump to Russia [with misinformation that Clintons had fabricated].
Judge & jury can still rig it for him tho.
While Truth remains.
“The prosecution is not vindictive. The defendant has not produced ‘direct evidence’ of a vindictive motive. And he has not shown that the prosecutor pursued this case ‘solely to punish’ him for exercising his First Amendment rights. So he has not carried his heavy burden of establishing vindictive prosecution,” the DOJ lawyers said Monday. “The prosecution is also not selective. The defendant has not identified similarly situated individuals who were not prosecuted. And he has not provided evidence that the decision to prosecute him was made because of his protected activities. He has not produced the ‘clear evidence’ required for dismissing an indictment based on selective prosecution.”
The DOJ court filing added: “A duly appointed and unbiased prosecutor presented the indictment. And a duly constituted grand jury found probable cause that he committed the indicted offenses.
