Speaker 1: Former FBI director James Combing. He's in serious trouble, indicted
Speaker 1: now on two counts, and the charges that have been
Speaker 1: brought against him are significant. It also comes from a
Speaker 1: hearing that happened in front of Judiciary Center. Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: is going to be a very important part of this
Speaker 1: entire case because of the questioning of James Comber about
Speaker 1: five years ago. Now, why is this happening now? The
Speaker 1: statue of limitations is running out? And is it going
Speaker 1: to actually be a case where James Comby could go
Speaker 1: to jail? But first I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: about my friends over at Patriot Mobile. You've got a
Speaker 1: lot of choices for cell phone service, with new ones
Speaker 1: popping up all the time. But if you want to
Speaker 1: make a difference and you want to stop giving your
Speaker 1: money to liberal companies, well one way you can do
Speaker 1: that is by getting rid of Liberal Mobile you probably
Speaker 1: have right now. That is where hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: Americans are now coming together and have made Patriot Mobile
Speaker 1: what they are today. They've been in service now for
Speaker 1: thirteen years, and right now is the best time ever
Speaker 1: to switch because it's never been easier. Now, before I
Speaker 1: tell you about that, I want you to know why
Speaker 1: switching is so important, because every time you make a call,
Speaker 1: every time you send a text, and every time that
Speaker 1: you pay your bill, you're actually standing up for the
Speaker 1: values you believe in. Your First and your Second Amendment rights,
Speaker 1: the rights of unborn children, and you stand with our military,
Speaker 1: our veterans, our wounded warriors, and our fallen soldier families.
Speaker 1: Because Patriot Mobile takes about five percent of your bill
Speaker 1: every month at no extra cost to you, and they
Speaker 1: give it back to these organizations that fight for our values. Now,
Speaker 1: let's talk about switching. It has never been easier. You
Speaker 1: can keep your same number, keep your same phone, or upgrade.
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile's got a one hundred percent US based customer
Speaker 1: service team and literally they can now with technology, get
Speaker 1: you activated in minutes from the comfort of your home
Speaker 1: or your office. You're second contractor owe money on your phones,
Speaker 1: no worries. Patriot Mobile has a contract buyout program. And
Speaker 1: this is how we win, folks by aligning our spending
Speaker 1: with our values. Every dollar we spend matters. Now, let
Speaker 1: me also give you a free month of service. Go
Speaker 1: to Patriotmobile dot com slash ferguson that's Patriot Mobile. Dot
Speaker 1: com slash ferguson, or you can call them nine to
Speaker 1: seven to two Patriot, use the promo code ferguson, and
Speaker 1: you're gonna get one month free service by switching today.
Speaker 1: So again, Patriotmobile dot com slash ferguson, use the promo
Speaker 1: code ferguson. You'll get a free month of service today
Speaker 1: Patriotmobile dot com slash ferguson or nine to seven to
Speaker 1: two Patriot. I want you to hear what Senata Cruz
Speaker 1: had to say as we sat down and talked about this.
Speaker 1: Take a listen, all right, So, Senator, I want to
Speaker 1: start with this clip, and I think this is a
Speaker 1: great starting point for this indictment of the former FBI
Speaker 1: director James Comey. This is you questioning Comy back in
Speaker 1: September of twenty twenty. This is the back and forth
Speaker 1: between the two of you. Everyone listening. This is really
Speaker 1: an important part of history now and going to probably
Speaker 1: be an important part of this case.
Speaker 2: To another topic. On May third, twenty seventeen, in this committee,
Speaker 2: Chairman Grassley asked you point blank quote, have you ever
Speaker 2: been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating
Speaker 2: to the Trump investigation of the Clinton investigation. You responded
Speaker 2: under oath quote never. He then asked you, quote, have
Speaker 2: you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be
Speaker 2: an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation
Speaker 2: or the Clinton administration? You responded again under oath No. Now,
Speaker 2: as you know, mister McCabe, who works for you as
Speaker 2: publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal and that you were a directly aware
Speaker 2: of it and that you directly authorized it. Now, what
Speaker 2: mister McCabe is saying and what you testified to this
Speaker 2: committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false.
Speaker 2: Who's telling the truth?
Speaker 3: I just can only speak to my testimony. I stand
Speaker 3: by what the testimony you summarized that I gave in
Speaker 3: May of twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2: So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak.
Speaker 2: And mister mccab if he says contrary, is not telling
Speaker 2: the truth. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine
Speaker 3: is the same.
Speaker 2: Today, all right, I'm going to make a final point
Speaker 2: because my time has expired. This investigation of the president
Speaker 2: was corrupt. The FBI and the Department of Justice were
Speaker 2: politicized and weaponized, and in my opinion, there are only
Speaker 2: two possibilities that you were deliberately corrupt or willfully incompetent,
Speaker 2: and I don't believe you were incompetent. This has done
Speaker 2: severe damage to the professionals and the honorable men and
Speaker 2: women at the FBI, because law enforcement should not be
Speaker 2: used as a political weapon.
Speaker 1: All right, So you listen to that, and then you'll
Speaker 1: look at the indictment. Count one false statement to the
Speaker 1: US Senate that he had not quote authorized someone else
Speaker 1: of the FBI to be an anonymous news source. Count two,
Speaker 1: call me obstructed the Senate Judiciary Committee's investigation through his
Speaker 1: quote false and misleading statements. That is a big smoking gun.
Speaker 2: Well it is. It's the basis of the indictment and
Speaker 2: this will be the central focus of the trial. Now.
Speaker 2: James Comy put out a statement tonight on Instagram, and
Speaker 2: his statement is striking in that it is a political statement.
Speaker 2: It is not a statement about the facts of the law.
Speaker 2: So give a listen to what James Comby said this
Speaker 2: evening in response to the indictment.
Speaker 3: My family and I have known for years that there
Speaker 3: are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we
Speaker 3: couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not
Speaker 3: live on our knees, and you shouldn't either. Somebody that
Speaker 3: I love dearly recently said that fear is the tool
Speaker 3: of a tyrant, and she's right. But I'm not afraid,
Speaker 3: and I hope you're not either. I hope instead you
Speaker 3: are engaged, You are paying attention, and you will vote
Speaker 3: like your beloved country depends upon it, which it does.
Speaker 3: My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but
Speaker 3: I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and
Speaker 3: I'm innocent, So let's have a trial.
Speaker 1: I love how he is a victim there and acting
Speaker 1: like he's above all of this. But center, let's just
Speaker 1: go back to three point thirty of twenty three. James
Speaker 1: Comy tweeted out, quote, it's been a good day. That
Speaker 1: is how I reacted to trumping and died in the
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg hush money case. So to act like he's
Speaker 1: some sort of guy that's above all this, look at
Speaker 1: his own words.
Speaker 2: Well, his statement he put out in response to this
Speaker 2: that could have been given by Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 2: or Keing, Jeffries, or any other political Democrat, and in fact,
Speaker 2: he makes a call come out and vote. It's a
Speaker 2: get out the vote message. This is a former director
Speaker 2: of the FBI. But to give you a sense of
Speaker 2: just how much he loathes Donald Trump, this is a
Speaker 2: former director of the FBI who tweeted out to the
Speaker 2: world a picture of shells spelling out eighty six forty seven,
Speaker 2: in other words, slang for kill the current President of
Speaker 2: the United States, Donald J. Trump. To say, calling for
Speaker 2: the murder of the sitting president is not appropriate for
Speaker 2: the former FBI director. In an ordinary time, that would
Speaker 2: be such an obvious statement that nobody would even think
Speaker 2: to say it. But that's just how much James Comy
Speaker 2: loathes Donald Trump. And understand. When Trump became president the
Speaker 2: first time in January of twenty seventeen, President Trump unfortunately
Speaker 2: made a serious mistake, which is he left James Comy
Speaker 2: in office. In hindsight, on January twentieth, twenty seventeen, President
Speaker 2: Trump should have called James Comy and said thank you
Speaker 2: for your service to the nation. Your services are no
Speaker 2: longer required. I am certain President Trump wishes he had
Speaker 2: done that. I think the White House team believed that
Speaker 2: Komy could focus on law enforcement could not be politicized,
Speaker 2: and that assumption proved to be in error. James Comy
Speaker 2: presided over weaponizing and politicizing the FBI. He was part
Speaker 2: of weaponizing and politicizing the Department of Justice. And it
Speaker 2: was because they hated Donald Trump, and frankly, they were
Speaker 2: angry at the American people for electing him in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: and so the FBI set out to try to attack
Speaker 2: and to try to ultimately remove from office the President
Speaker 2: of the United States. Now, again this should not bear saying,
Speaker 2: but it is not the job of law enforcement to
Speaker 2: determine the will of the voters. Is wrong, and the
Speaker 2: elected president should no longer be president. But that's what
Speaker 2: Comy presided over. And so when I listen to him
Speaker 2: say I weep for the Department of Justice, it really is.
Speaker 2: You know, there's a Yiddish word, hootspot. And I got
Speaker 2: to say, James Comy really ought to have a T
Speaker 2: shirt with that printed on it, because he is grieving
Speaker 2: for the Department of Justice. Why because he has been
Speaker 2: indicted for what I think is clearly a felony, and
Speaker 2: we're going to break down in just minutes, Why exactly
Speaker 2: this is a felony, what the crime is. And I
Speaker 2: want to point out nowhere in his statement does Comy
Speaker 2: get into the actual facts. Nowhere in the statement does
Speaker 2: he get into what he did. Nowhere in the statement
Speaker 2: does he get into the law. He just gives a
Speaker 2: political statement. He will not be on his knees. He
Speaker 2: calls Trump a tyrant who is ruling by fear. Look,
Speaker 2: this is an indictment that was returned by a grand
Speaker 2: jury in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and it was returned
Speaker 2: because of I believe clear evidence demonstrating Comy committed felonies.
Speaker 1: Senator, I want to bring up a point that no
Speaker 1: one in the media has brought up so far about
Speaker 1: this indictment. And I brought it up on CNN and
Speaker 1: they were like all deer in headlights, there is something
Speaker 1: about this case. And they were saying, Oh, this is
Speaker 1: just political retribution by Donald Trump that clearly they weren't
Speaker 1: going to bring this case. He had to fire the
Speaker 1: person in charge of this office in Virginia, had to
Speaker 1: put in somebody that would weaponize the DOJ.
Speaker 4: Here's the fact that most people don't know.
Speaker 1: James Comy's own son in law was literally inside the
Speaker 1: prosecutor's office that was tasked.
Speaker 4: Just think about this with indicting his father in law.
Speaker 1: And so when you say it there and I look
Speaker 1: at this, I'm like, man, the deep state got together
Speaker 1: to protect James Comy at all costs.
Speaker 4: And as soon as the indictment came out later in the.
Speaker 1: Day, James Comy's son in law then gave his resignation
Speaker 1: letter because I guess he just couldn't stop what was inevitable.
Speaker 2: Well, and look, I think what should govern this case
Speaker 2: is the facts and the law. And I believe James
Speaker 2: Comy should have been indicted five years ago, and indeed
Speaker 2: I called upon him to be indicted five years ago.
Speaker 2: So let me lay out the facts and in December
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty. So the questioning that we played in
Speaker 2: the first segment was September thirtieth of twenty twenty. And
Speaker 2: by the way, the reason the indictment was brought right
Speaker 2: now is the statute limitations was going to run next
Speaker 2: week and so they had to bring it before the
Speaker 2: end of the statute limitations or they would not be
Speaker 2: able to charge him. But on December tenth of twenty twenty,
Speaker 2: here's the letter that I sent to Bill Barr, then
Speaker 2: the Attorney General of the United States, and Christopher Ray,
Speaker 2: who was then the director of the FBI. Days before
Speaker 2: the presidential election in twenty sixteen, a Wall Street Journal
Speaker 2: article quoted an anonymous source confirming the existence of a
Speaker 2: probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server
Speaker 2: while serving as Secretary of State, an investigation that up
Speaker 2: to that point, mister Comy and the FBI declined to confirm.
Speaker 2: We now know that this leak was authorized by then
Speaker 2: Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe. Mister McCabe initially
Speaker 2: told FBI agents under oath that he did not authorize
Speaker 2: the leak and he did not know who did, but
Speaker 2: when confronted later with contrary evidence, he confessed both to
Speaker 2: knowing about and authorizing the leak. We do not know, however,
Speaker 2: whether and to what extent then FBI Director Comy was
Speaker 2: aware of and authorized this leak. After the fact, mister
Speaker 2: Comy has repeatedly stated, I'm sorry. Mister McCabe has repeatedly
Speaker 2: stated that mister komy knew of and effectively authorized the
Speaker 2: leak by approving it. He told the Office of Inspector
Speaker 2: General that quote he and Komy discussed the October thirtieth
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal article in person on October thirty first,
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen, and that at that meeting, quote he told
Speaker 2: Comy that he had authorized ad slash Opa and Special
Speaker 2: Council to disclose the account of the August twelfth call
Speaker 2: and did not say anything in any way to suggest
Speaker 2: that it was unauthorized. According to mister McCabe, mister Komy
Speaker 2: quote did not react negatively, just kind of accepted it,
Speaker 2: and quote thought it was a good idea that they
Speaker 2: presented this information to the media. He again reiterated mister
Speaker 2: Comy's involvement at a hearing last month at the Senate
Speaker 2: Judiciary Committee. I asked mister McCabe. According to The Washington
Speaker 2: Times April eighteenth, twenty eighteen, mister McCabe insisted that he
Speaker 2: told his boss that he had authorized disclosure about the
Speaker 2: Clinton investigation, but mister Comy has denied this claim, and
Speaker 2: mister McCabe told investigators that mister Comy knew he had
Speaker 2: authorized disclosure and agreed it was a good idea. Is
Speaker 2: that accurate? Is that your testimony to this committee? Mister
Speaker 2: McCabe replied, that is my recollection. Mister Comy, however, has
Speaker 2: sworn under oath that he has neither authorized the leak
Speaker 2: nor knew of mister McCabe's involvement. At a May twenty
Speaker 2: seventeenth hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley asked,
Speaker 2: mister Comy, have you ever been an anonymous source in
Speaker 2: news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or
Speaker 2: the Clinton investigation. Mister Comy replied never. Senator Grassley then asked,
Speaker 2: have you ever authorized some someone else at the FBI
Speaker 2: to be an anonymous source in news reports about the
Speaker 2: Trump investigation or the Clinton administration? He testified no. And
Speaker 2: this October that a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, mister Komy testified,
Speaker 2: in response to my questioning, quote, I stand by the
Speaker 2: testimony that you summarized that I gave in May of
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen. Mister Komy's denial in front of the Senate
Speaker 2: is consistent with his statement to the OIG. He told
Speaker 2: the OIG that quote, he recalled seeing this article, but
Speaker 2: he did not know how the disclosure about the paidag
Speaker 2: call in the October thirtieth article happened. He said that
Speaker 2: he was quote very concerned about that part of the article.
Speaker 2: Komy told OIG he considered the disclosure about the paidag's
Speaker 2: call problematic because it related the sensitive FBI information. The
Speaker 2: OIG report continues, quote according to Komy, he discover us
Speaker 2: the issue with mccab after the article was published, and
Speaker 2: at the time mccab quote definitely did not tell me
Speaker 2: that he authorized the disclosure of the paidag call. Comy
Speaker 2: said that mccab gave him the exact opposite impression. Mister
Speaker 2: Comy asserted that he took from whatever communication they had
Speaker 2: that mister mccab wasn't involved in the leak. And here's
Speaker 2: what's critical. Mister Comy and mister McCabe's statements are irreconcilably contradictory.
Speaker 2: Mister mccab says that he told mister Comy of the
Speaker 2: leak and that mister Comy approved, effectively authorizing the leak
Speaker 2: after the fact. Mister Comy, on the other hand, has
Speaker 2: said that he neither authorized the leak nor knew of
Speaker 2: mister McCabe's involvement. One of them is lying under oath
Speaker 2: a Federal crime eighteen USC. Section sixteen twenty one. The
Speaker 2: American people deserve to know who those are the facts,
Speaker 2: and it is a simple binary choice. Either James Comy
Speaker 2: lied under oath and committed to felony, or Andrew McCabe
Speaker 2: lied under oath or committed to felony. Because what they
Speaker 2: said is precisely opposite. There is not a world in
Speaker 2: which neither of them committed a felony. And the only
Speaker 2: choice is which one broke the law by bringing this indictment. Obviously,
Speaker 2: the Department of Justice has determined it was James Comy
Speaker 2: who lied under oath and broke the law, and that's
Speaker 2: what the trial will be all about.
Speaker 4: All right, Senator.
Speaker 1: So here's what I've been hearing on online from the media.
Speaker 1: They're like, hey, Donald Trump weighed in on this too much.
Speaker 1: They're gonna get this thing kicked out before it even
Speaker 1: goes to a judge. This is a waste of the
Speaker 1: American taxpayer's dollars. And then if that's not enough, they say, well,
Speaker 1: no one ever gets indicted and they actually go forward
Speaker 1: and get a conviction on someone lying to Congress because well,
Speaker 1: a lot of people lie to Congress, and even if
Speaker 1: you did lie, it may have been a mistake. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be very hard to get a conviction. Break down,
Speaker 1: how this could roll out in court, what could happen?
Speaker 2: Well, at the end of the day, the factual predicate
Speaker 2: behind this crime is not terribly complicated. As I mentioned,
Speaker 2: there's a direct contradiction between James Comey's testimony under oath
Speaker 2: before the Senate and Andrew McCabe's testimony under oath before
Speaker 2: the Senate. They cannot both be true. One or the
Speaker 2: other is deliberately lying. And how do we know which
Speaker 2: one is likely to be lying? Well, the FBI, in
Speaker 2: all likelihood, possesses the information that confirms who's telling the
Speaker 2: truth and who's lying. Indeed, if you look at the
Speaker 2: account of what occurred, mckab initially told the same lie
Speaker 2: that Komy did. Mckayb initially said he didn't leak the information. Yeah,
Speaker 2: he didn't authorize it and he didn't know who did.
Speaker 2: But then the FBI Office of Inspector General confronted him
Speaker 2: with contrary evidence. I don't know what the contrary evidence is,
Speaker 2: but they put in front of him, mister McCabe, you
Speaker 2: said you didn't leak this information. Well, boom, here's the
Speaker 2: evidence to the contrary And what did McCabe do oh crap,
Speaker 2: you got me. Okay, you're right, I leaked it. I'm
Speaker 2: the one who did it, and I talked to Comy
Speaker 2: about it. I told him about it. So he admitted
Speaker 2: that when he was caught in a lie. I don't
Speaker 2: know specifically what confirming evidence the FBI in the Department
Speaker 2: of Justice has, but they have enough that they caused
Speaker 2: McCabe to reverse his first lie and instead to say, yes,
Speaker 2: he did it, and Comy knew about it. And so
Speaker 2: between the two, you know, it was interesting. When I
Speaker 2: was questioning Comy, he said a couple of times, well,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to characterize, as he put it, Andy's testimony. Well,
Speaker 2: I get politically that's a smart move, not to characterize
Speaker 2: Andy's testimony. But you know what, his entire legal defense
Speaker 2: is going to be, McCabe is lying because he doesn't
Speaker 2: have an alternative. That's his only argument is when McCabe said, under.
Speaker 4: Oath, good point that I know about it.
Speaker 2: Comy's defense team is going to have to say McCabe
Speaker 2: was lying. And by the way, mccab is going to
Speaker 2: be the star witness at the prosecution. The prosecution is
Speaker 2: going to put Andy McCabe on the stand and he's
Speaker 2: going to ask them, did you leak it? Now, I'm
Speaker 2: going to predict Andy McCabe is going to say, yes,
Speaker 2: did you talk to James Comy about it? Yes? Did
Speaker 2: he authorize it? Yes? And the reason I'm going to
Speaker 2: predict he's going to do all of that is because
Speaker 2: Andy McCabe testified to that in front of Congress, and
Speaker 2: if he gives any other answer, he'll be indicted for
Speaker 2: lying to Congress. So he can't have it both ways.
Speaker 2: And I expect that Comy's lawyer will try to cross
Speaker 2: examine him, and we'll try to argue McCabe is lying.
Speaker 2: But it's very difficult to see why McCabe would have
Speaker 2: any incentive to lie. He and Comy were thick as thieves.
Speaker 2: He was only forced to admit the truth when confronted
Speaker 2: with contrary evidence. Again, we don't know what that evidence is,
Speaker 2: but presumably the FBI and the Department of Justice do so.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it is contemporaneous phone calls, perhaps
Speaker 2: with the reporters. I don't know if it is notes.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's emails. I don't know if
Speaker 2: it's testimony from someone else at the FBI. Who said, Hey,
Speaker 2: Andrew McCabe told me to do this. But it is something,
Speaker 2: and it was something that was compelling enough that it
Speaker 2: caused Andrew McCabe to abandon line number one. And and
Speaker 2: so at the end of the day, this is not
Speaker 2: a complicated factual case. This is not some grand tapestry.
Speaker 2: It's a he said, he said, she said. But you
Speaker 2: have both testimonies under oath, and it's going to be
Speaker 2: a question of what additional evidence is there to confirm
Speaker 2: who's telling the truth and who's not. I also think
Speaker 2: I will be surprised if James Comey's lawyer puts him
Speaker 2: on the stand. Now, under our justice system, the prosecution
Speaker 2: cannot force a defendant to testify. But I'm going to
Speaker 2: predict James Comy is not going to take the stand
Speaker 2: because if he takes the stand, he can be cross examined,
Speaker 2: and he does not want to be cross examined, because
Speaker 2: this is someone who presided over weaponizing the Department of
Speaker 2: Justice with the objective of taking out Donald J. Trump
Speaker 2: and getting under oath, getting cross examined by a skilled
Speaker 2: trial attorney, and again under oath. By the way, if
Speaker 2: he lies in his trial testimony, he can be indicted
Speaker 2: and prosecuted again for lying under oath. Again, I don't
Speaker 2: think his lawyer will do that. And so at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, look, the press is going to
Speaker 2: go on and on and say, well, Trump hates James Comy.
Speaker 2: That is certainly true, but being hated by the President
Speaker 2: is not enough to exonerate you from criminal conduct. And
Speaker 2: in this instance, I believe Comy should have been indicted
Speaker 2: five years ago because it was clear he had deliberately
Speaker 2: lied to Congress. And look, we started by playing my
Speaker 2: cross examination. This wasn't an absent minded lie. This wasn't oh,
Speaker 2: I'm not paying attention. This was careful, This was deliberate,
Speaker 2: this was strategic, this was planned. I believe this was
Speaker 2: James Comy saying, I face no accountability whatsoever. I can
Speaker 2: lie under oath and no one's going to hold me
Speaker 2: to account. And I think he feels he feels clever,
Speaker 2: but he also feels vindicated. Listen, James Comy was someone
Speaker 2: who I think fancied himself as j Edgar Hoover. He
Speaker 2: fancied himself as as an incredibly powerful director of the FBI,
Speaker 2: empowered to remove the tyrant. That's what he said in
Speaker 2: his statement tonight that he thinks Trump is a tyrant.
Speaker 2: And I think when the American people elected him in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen, I think Comy was angry and he decided
Speaker 2: he would use the power of the FBI to remove
Speaker 2: the president elected by the people. And so I think
Speaker 2: it is quite fitting that he is facing accountability for
Speaker 2: committing criminal conduct. Let me repeat, this indictment is not
Speaker 2: for being an opponent of Donald Trump. It is not
Speaker 2: for being a political political figure on the other side
Speaker 2: of Donald Trump. This indictment is for deliberately and knowingly
Speaker 2: lying under oath to the United States Senate, which is
Speaker 2: a clear and unmistakable felony. And and I think I
Speaker 2: think Comy. I think the odds are good that Comy
Speaker 2: will be convicted. And I think if he's convicted, I
Speaker 2: think he's going to serve jail time.
Speaker 1: How much of it very quickly. Of his past will
Speaker 1: come back to haunt him. He is a prolific guy
Speaker 1: when it comes to leaking. He's a pro at it.
Speaker 1: He's on amateur Yes, he knows how to leak. Hell,
Speaker 1: he leaked information that was apparently classified to make sure
Speaker 1: that there was a a special counsel that went after
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. We know that for a fact, and it
Speaker 1: went to one of his former law friends at a
Speaker 1: university that then went to a newspaper. That is a fact.
Speaker 1: Will that come up? And then the other question I
Speaker 1: have for you quickly is this, will the testimony the
Speaker 1: day before Congress be used in court?
Speaker 4: Or literally?
Speaker 1: Will senators that interviewed him, Would you guys go to
Speaker 1: court or would they just use the testimony video?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think they would use the testimony. They would
Speaker 2: read or play the testimony. I don't think you're going
Speaker 2: to see senators testifying, and the record is clear and objective,
Speaker 2: and so everyone knows exactly what his testimony was. In
Speaker 2: terms of his past pattern, I think it could certainly
Speaker 2: come in. The prosecution might try to bring it in
Speaker 2: to establish a pattern. That would be difficult. But I
Speaker 2: think if Comey's lawyer argues, well, he couldn't possibly have
Speaker 2: approved this, he never would have approved a leak, then
Speaker 2: I think the prosecution would be able to get all
Speaker 2: of that in as rebuttal to the defendant's argument. So
Speaker 2: I think it's more more likely to come in as
Speaker 2: rebuttal evidence than directly proving a pattern. But my guess
Speaker 2: is one way or another that evidence is going to
Speaker 2: come in. And you're right, there's a clear pattern. Comy
Speaker 2: has a long pattern of relying on media leaks to
Speaker 2: advance his own personal agenda.
Speaker 1: Don't forget Share this podcast wherever you can with your
Speaker 1: family and your friends, and I'll see you back here
Speaker 1: tomorrow