Transcription
The former FBI director, James Comey, has just been indicted out of the Eastern District of Virginia at the direction of Donald Trump. You will recall that Donald Trump fired the former Republican top federal prosecutor from the Eastern District of Virginia. His name was Eric Seabert, and he specifically recommended that no criminal case be brought against James Comey because there was not evidence to support an indictment.
So, Donald Trump pushed out Eric Seabert and he put into that position someone by the name of Lindseay Halligan, who's Donald Trump's former personal lawyer. She's never tried any case before in her life. Donald Trump then put out a message to Pam Bondi, his attorney general, saying, "You need to criminally prosecute James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff, and New York attorney general Leticia James."
Now, James Comey went first because the statute of limitations, which is five years on bringing a claim of making false statements and obstruction, would expire on September 30th of 2025. The alleged statements by James Comey were made on September uh 29th of uh 2020. And that's why or September 30th of 2020, right around that time period. Um, so that's why uh the indictment was kind of rushed and Donald Trump put in place uh Lindseay Halligan. Uh the grand jury returned an indictment uh on two of the three counts that were brought before it. They rejected one of the counts. I'm going to go through the indictment um with you.
Now, when you're seeking an indictment, the other side, the criminal defendant or the person you're seeking to indict, they're not in that room, nor is a judge in the room. So a grand jury just has to make the decision based upon the averments and the representations by the prosecutors which is why the system is based on good faith and it's based on prosecutors upholding the law because anybody can go into a grand jury where the other side doesn't show up and make things up if you're trying to seek an indictment.
Now once you criminally indict then a criminal case is filed and a criminal case is brought then a prosecution takes place and then you actually have to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. Now after this indictment was uh brought and achieved uh the criminal case has been assigned to a judge by the name of Michael Knackman who was appointed during Biden's administration. a Biden appointee. Um, we're getting a lot of feedback right now from people at the DOJ. Ken Delaneian at MSNBC reports, "What I'm hearing from DOJ sources, the Comey indictment is among the worst abuses in DOJ history. Shocking. It's hard to overstate how big a moment this is."
Again, a former FBI director, right? the FBI's within the uh province of the Department of Justice. So basically the top person being indicted by a DOJ by a federal prosecutor who Trump put in place ordered on social media to indict him and someone who's never tried a case in her life. Zero trials yet alone actually act as a federal prosecutor.
Now Donald Trump has issued the following statement. "Justice in America. One of the worst human beings this country has ever been exposed to is James Comey, the former corrupt head of the FBI. Today, he was indicted by a grand jury on two felony counts for various illegal and unlawful acts. He has been so bad for our country for so long and is now at the beginning of being held responsible for the crimes against our nation. Make America great again."
Now, that post right there is further evidence of what James Comey will undoubtedly be bringing very soon, which is a motion to dismiss based on vindictive prosecution, saying that this is a uh politically motivated attack by Donald Trump on James Comey, that it was improperly brought based upon Donald Trump's own desire to retaliate and have retribution. I think that vindictive prosecution motion will indeed be successful when it was brought. And all of these statements made by Donald Trump, the ones to Pam Bondi, the statement I just read, will be brought uh as part of a vindictive prosecution motion to dismiss.
And James Comey just issued a powerful video response. A defiant Comey says that he's heartbroken for the corrupted Department of Justice. He says, "I'm innocent. I have faith in the federal judicial system. I am not running from this. Let's have a trial." Moments ago, James Comey posted the following video. Powerful stuff. Let's play it.
"My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump. But we couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn't either. Somebody that I love dearly recently said that fear is the tool of a tyrant. And she's right. But I'm not afraid. And I hope you're not either. I hope instead you are engaged. You are paying attention. And you will vote like your beloved country depends upon it, which it does. My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I'm innocent. So, let's have a trial and keep the faith."
Attorney General Pam Bondi also writes, "No one is above the law. Today's indictment reflects this Department of Justice's commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case."
Well, I I want to go bring those facts to you and I want to share with you what they're claiming is the false statement that James Comey made. And I'm going to prove to you in very short order that he didn't make a false statement and that this case is going to fall apart very quickly, not with conjecture, but with the facts right here. So, one of the things you'll note when we pull up this indictment right here, you see how short it is right here. Um, it's two pages in length. This is the entire indictment that you're looking at right here. Look at the bottom. Lindseay Halligan signed it. I'll give you Lindsay Halligan's statement as well that she just made. And again, as Carol Lenning of the Washington Post says, US Attorney Lindseay Halligan issued this statement about Comey's indictment. "Trump named Haligan who has never prosecuted a case to the position days ago and we're told she was present in the grand jury room. Her predecessor again Republican former top federal prosecutor in Virginia resisted such charges for lacking sufficient evidence and was pressured to resign last week or else."
And here's the statement from Lindseay Halligan. "The charges as alleged in this case represent a breach of public trust at an extraordinary level," said US attorney. "The balance of power is a bedrock principle of our democracy and it relies upon accountability and a forthright presentation of facts from executive leadership to congressional oversight. Any intent to avoid, evade, prevent or obstruct compliance is a violation of professional responsibility and most importantly the law."
Well, we will be seeing soon her whether she's adhering to the rules of professional conduct and professional responsibility. But let's take a look right here. Count one, you'll see false statement within the jurisdiction of Virginia, which is a 18USC 1001A2 charge. Count two, obstruction of a congressional proceeding. 18USC section 1505. This is what it says.
Count one. There's no like facts that are alleged. It just has count one, count two, and it's signed and that's it. "On or about September 30th, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, James Comey, did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the government of the United States by falsely stating to a United States Senator, Ted Cruz, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he, James B. Comey had not authorized somebody else at the FBI, Andy McCabe, to be an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning person number one. The statement was false because, as James Comey Jr. then and there knew, he did in fact authorize person three to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning person one. All in violation of USC section 101 A2." That's it.
Count two, obstruction of a congressional proceeding. "On or about September 30th, 2020 in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, James Comey, did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the due improper exercise of the power of inquiry under which an investigation was being held before the Senate Judiciary Committee by making a false and misleading statement before the committee. All in violation of 18USC section 1505."
They're basically duplicative claims based upon the alleged same exact false statement. And the false statement they allege is that James Comey said that he had not authorized somebody at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports in an article to the Wall Street Journal about Donald Trump and the Steel Dossier. That's what this is basically all about. Why is it being brought in Virginia? Um, James Comey was in Virginia during the testimony, not in Washington DC. He was doing it from a Zoom, right? It was during COVID in September 2020. That's why it's being brought in Virginia.
Um, the grand jury did not um reach a consensus to indict on the other count. And the other count likely would have had with it a similar obstruction of a proceeding charge um which they would have just duplicated again. But the other charge was another count alleging that Comey made false statements. The grand jury, even though Comey and his lawyers were not present in the room, and no judge is present in the grand jury room, right? It's just Trump's lawyer, Lindseay Halligan, just basically saying what I said to you and saying, "This is false. It's been proven to be a lie. We know that James Comey authorized the statement. Please find the indictment." Okay. But the grand jury would not indict on this count which says "On or about September 30th, 2020, Comey willfully and knowingly made a material false statement during this hearing to the United States senator during the hearing that James Comey did not remember quote being taught of person one's approval of a plan concerning person two in the 2016 US presidential election. That statement in representation was false because as James B. Comey then and there knew, he had in fact been provided information regarding person one's approval of a plan concerning person two and the 2016 US presidential election." The grand jury did not reach a sufficient consensus to indict on that charge. Okay.
So, let's go to the charge that has been uh brought against Comey where the indictment is brought. It's that statement that he authorized it to take place. Let me show you the video from 2020. It's Senator Ted Cruz asking the questions and he's referencing testimony from 2017 where James Comey said, "I didn't authorize Andy McCabe, who worked at the FBI, to go and have other sources speak to the Wall Street Journal."
Now, here are the facts that seem to be true. It does seem to be true that James Comey at some period of time learned that Andy McCabe had authorized certain people to leak, but it was never the case that it was James Comey who authorized Andy McCabe to authorize the leak. You see the difference there? Yes, it does seem that James Comey may have learned after the fact that the leak took place and just was given that knowledge in the course of business. That's not inconsistent with what his under oath testimony is. Listen to the question that Senator Ted Cruz asks here. Listen carefully to the answer and I want to show you this in only the way Midas Touch does where we delve deep into the facts. So, let's play the actual testimony. Let's play it.
"Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017. So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak. Not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today. Okay. So, let me just read it for you again. So Ted Cruz says, 'All right, let's shift to another topic.' On May 3rd, 2017, in this committee, Chairman Grassly asked you point blank, 'Have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?' You responded under oath, 'Never.' He then asked you, 'Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?' You responded again under oath. No."
This is what Ted Cruz says. Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Pause right there. Do you see the compound nature of what Ted Cruz said? He says two things there. He says number one he says that you were aware of it and two that you directly authorized it. So two things have to be true. Aware of it and directly authorized it. Ted Cruz goes on to say now what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who's telling the truth? Then Comey responded as you saw. "I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017."
Ted Cruz, "So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak. And Mr. McCabe, if he says to the contrary, is not telling the truth. Is that correct?" Mr. Comey, "Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy McCabe's testimony, but mine is the same today."
Then Senator Cruz moves on. So, as you see, Senator Ted Cruz says that you were aware of it and you authorized it. It was true that at some point in time, uh, Comey became aware of it, but he never authorized it. I can go into McCabe's account. McCabe, this is the official McCabe account from the Inspector General. According to McCabe's testimony to the Office of Inspector General, November 29th, 2017, he and Comey discussed the October 30th Wall Street Journal article in person. On October 31st, 2016, when McCabe returned to the office from a trip, McCabe said that he told Comey that he had authorized, meaning McCabe had authorized certain people to disclose the account to the Wall Street Journal. McCabe told us that Comey did not react negatively. He just kind of accepted it. That was after the leak happened, October 31st, not October 30th. Then then the report goes on to say, "McCabe told us that he did not recall telling Comey prior to publication of the October 30th article that he intended to authorize or had authorized this leak to occur. Although he said it's possible that he did, he did not recall ever telling Comey prior to the publication that the leak happened. Even if he did tell Comey prior that the leak was going to happen, that didn't that wouldn't have mean Comey authorized it, but Comey didn't authorize it because the first conversation took place on October 31st after the article ran and that's when James Comey was first aware of it."
The whole case is based on what I just shared with you. That's why whether you're a Democrat, Republican, independent, red state, blue state, whatever, you'll come to the conclusion that I just gave you that there's not a viable case against James Comey based on making false statements. So, you may go, "Well, Ben, then why would the grand jury indict?" Well, the grand jury is not applying a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what the jury has to do in a criminal case. But also, the grand jury was not provided what I just told you what the facts are. Had the grand jury actually been provided these statements by McCabe, I'm sure they would have come out different. All they would be given likely with Lindseay Hallan in the room. I wasn't in the room, so I don't know. But you would imagine they probably just gave the one-sided story which said, "Here's what Ted Cruz said, and here's what our investigation learned." You put up some FBI lackey who's willing to testify, "Yep, we found out that he authorized it." And then you ask for the indictment. That's what went down there.
Now, even the Fox host Curts here is saying, "Let's not mince words what happened. This has all been orchestrated by Trump." This is even on Fox here. Play this clip right here.
"Let's not mince words here. I say this as a former Justice Department reporter. This was completely and totally orchestrated by President Trump. uh he says he's leaving into justice, but you know, he very much out in the open. Uh remember, he fired his own appointee as US attorney in that part of Virginia uh because he didn't think there was enough evidence to bring this case, brought in uh White House aid, his former defense lawyer, whose job was to get this done. And apparently that has worked. I think we've become a nerd to this, but uh in previous administrations, any hint of um contact uh within a criminal case uh would be a scandal on its own. And so uh President Trump, by the way pulled the strings, has gotten his way with this initial indictment."
Now, just to remind you as well from that September 30th, 2020, that's why five-year statute, September 30th, 2025. That's why Trump rushed to do this. You had FBI Director Comey also making this testimony that he says Putin seems to have some leverage over Trump. It's one of the reasons that Trump uh does not like Comey. Here, play this clip.
"Never felt that way about American president. And I don't know whether the Russians have something over President Trump. But it's difficult to explain his conduct, his statements in any other way, especially his refusal to criticize Vladimir Putin even in public. And so it raises a significant question and obviously the question is only deepened by disclosure if it's true of significant indebtedness."
And going back to the 2017 testimony of Comey, here's what he said. Let's play it.
"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. And it was an active measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There is no fuzz on that. It is a high confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community and and the members of this committee have seen the intelligence. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and is very very serious which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that because this is about America, not about any particular party. So that was a hostile act by the Russian government against this country. Yes sir. In that time frame there were more than the DNC and the DC that were targets. Correct. There was a massive effort to target government and non-governmental near governmental agencies like nonprofits. What would be the estimate of how many entities out there the Russians specifically targeted in that time frame? It's hundreds. I suppose it could be more than a thousand, but it's at least hundreds."
And this was Comey December 17th, 2018 blasting House Republicans following his testimony. Then let's play it.
"President matter, the rule of law matters, and the truth matters. Where are those Republicans today? At some point, someone has to stand up and in the face of fear of Fox News, fear of their base, fear of mean tweets, stand up for the values of this country and not slink away into retirement, but stand up and speak the truth. I find it frustrating to be here answering questions about things that are far less important than the values that this country is built upon."
Okay, so I hope what this video was able to do was tie it together more than the arguments that you're seeing. I wanted to methodically go through why this is a bad not oh it's a bad case but also I think we're going to see mass resignations even more from the Department of Justice. I'm going to look to see what's happening in that Eastern District of Virginia because, you know, after after this, there was a whole memo by that former Republican prosecutor who was pushed out saying this is not a case and I bet you his analysis looked a lot like the analysis I just gave you, which is how could you indict the guy based on this?
So, what is a criminal case going to look like? Who's their witness? Their their witness is Andy McCabe. Andy McCabe's gonna go up and testify and say, "No, I didn't tell him that. It was October 31st." So, who who else are you gonna call in a criminal case like this? This is a case that is going to get dismissed. It's a matter of time. But for Donald Trump, this is what he wants to do. He wants to just go after his political enemies. He put in Lindseay Hallan to to to do that. By the way, do we have the video of Lindseay Halligan at Donald Trump's uh at the during the Mara Lago document case? Just so we all remember who Lindsay Hallagan is, too. Just play this clip of Halagan right here.
"Thanks for today. All right, make a come through. It really is, you know. Very good."
Now, I think we would expect that Donald Trump's going to be doing this to Schiff. He's going to be doing this to New York Attorney General Leticia James and others. I think we're going to start to see all of this happening, and I think it's going to backfire in Donald Trump's face. If I'm being totally blunt here, that's what I think is going to happen. We'll keep you posted every step of the way. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 6 million subscribers. I hope you appreciated the way we've just broke it down diligently. Have a good day. Love this video. Support independent media and unlock exclusive content. Add free videos and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today. You can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.