Let me translate this exchange, for those who don’t speak the somewhat rarified language of federal court oral arguments, into the vernacular:
THE COURT: Holy shit, dude! You’ve got like ten motions to dismiss that seem like winners, plus a bunch of other stuff. What order do you want me to handle these in?
DREEBEN: I feel you, my man. Do the vindictive prosecution motion and the fact that Halligan isn’t lawfully appointed first. And maybe throw in that the illegally appointed U.S. attorney didn’t even bother to present the indictment to the grand jury? The other stuff is dope too but it’s a little less foundational.
Here’s what absolutely never happens on this docket: Never does a document land that might plausibly suggest to a reasonable person that, well, Comey lied to Congress or obstructed a congressional investigation.
Never.
And yet, The Situation continues tomorrow.
COMEY IS COGNIZANT THAT TRUMP IS TRYING ALL AVENUES OF REVENGE....HIS DEMEANOR IS EXACTLY THE SAME....I ASSUME THIS WILL NOT BE OVER SOON...BUT THE FACT STILL REMAINS, I AM NOT GUILTY,SO I WILL JUST WAIT FOR THE JUSTICE SYSTEM TO WORK IT'S WAY THRU THE BULLSHIT.
THE COURT: Holy shit, dude! You’ve got like ten motions to dismiss that seem like winners, plus a bunch of other stuff. What order do you want me to handle these in?
SEEMS LIKE A SLAM DUNK TO ME....I HAD TO LOL WHEN I SAW THIS PIECE OF PRINTED PROOF
THE COURT: Holy shit, dude! You’ve got like ten motions to dismiss that seem like winners, plus a bunch of other stuff. What order do you want me to handle these in?
SEEMS LIKE A SLAM DUNK TO ME....I HAD TO LOL WHEN I SAW THIS PIECE OF PRINTED PROOF
Golly gee wilikers HA, did the judge rule to dismiss with prejudice that the statute of limitations had expired? No, they didn't, which would have put a permanent end to the complaint. But, since that argument offered by Dreeben wasn't a valid one, the judge didn't accept it. Same is true for the "vindictive" prosecution offered up by Dreeben, judge didn't accept that one as valid either, which would also been grounds to dismiss with, instead of without, prejudice. If either had been valid, then the judge had the grounds necessary to dismiss the complaint permanently, which is precisely what the judge didn't do.
Did the judge rule that the grand jury never handed down a valid indictment? No, they didn't do that either, did they. Your "succinct" translation is based upon the judge accepting Dreeben's motions as valid, which they didn't, with the exception of the improperly appointed prosecutor.
Perhaps, just perhaps mind you, and based upon the judge's actual ruling instead of the "interpreted" one you are proclaiming "exonerates" Comey, the indictment that was handed down was accepted as a valid indictment, which could explain why the judge ruled the complaint could be refiled by a prosecutor that had been properly appointed.
The reason it seems to be a "slam dunk" to you is that you are looking at the matter through the same TDS glasses that your biased source did rather than looking into the actual proceedings with a rational mind.
Now this . . . this is an actual exoneration . . .
Georgia moves to drop 2020 election interference case against Trump
"This entire case, from the initiation of the District Attorney’s investigation in 2021 to the present, is without precedent," noted Peter J. Skandalakis, who took the case over after Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was disqualified from handling it. "Never before, and hopefully never again, will our country face circumstances such as these."
