Is James Comey guilty of federal crimes?


>>DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AGREE ON ONE THING, JAMES COMEY IS GUILTY OF POLITICIZING THE FBI AND MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION. IN YOUR EYES HE MAY BE GUILTY TOO OF SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS, SELF-REGARD AND THE INAPPROPRIATE PRODUCTION OF A PETTY CASH FOR GOSSIP REVENGE ATTACK ON PRESIDENT TRUMP. BUT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, EVEN JAMES COMEY. SO TONIGHT, IS HE GUILTY OF FEDERAL CRIMES, WE ASK THAT. IN A MOMENT TOP LAWYERS FOR THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE GOES HEAD-TO-HEAD IN THE NEXT REVOLUTION SPECIAL AS WE PUT JAMES COMEY ON TRIAL.>>WELCOME TO THIS SPECIAL EDITION OF THE NEXT REVOLUTION. I’M STEVE HILTON. I’M JOINED LIVE IN NEW YORK BY THE BEST LEGAL TEAM IN TELEVISION STANDING BY TO CUT THROUGH THE SPIN AND POLITICS AND FOCUS ON THE THREE AREAS WHERE THERE ARE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT JAMES COMEY MAY HAVE BROKEN THE LAW. HIS HANDLING OF THE CLINTON E-MAIL INVESTIGATION, HIS ROLE IN LEAKS OF CONFIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND THE ACTIONS HE TOOK IN CONNECTION WITH THAT INFAMOUS RUSSIA DOSSIER. AS WE INVESTIGATE THE CHARGES, LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK. YOU MIGHT SEE YOUR COMMENTS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN AE WITH WILL READ YOUR VERDICTS LATER IN THE SHOW — AND WE WILL READ YOUR VERDICTS LATER IN THE SHOW. FOR THE PROSECUTION, COHOST OF THE FIVE, FORMER PROSECUTOR, AND FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST. FOR THE DEFENSE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY WHO WORKED AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WITH JAMES COMEY, AND FORMER UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ASSISTANT CHIEF DEPUTY. AND OVER HERE, AT THE OTHER TABLE ARE OUR LEGAL ANALYSTS WHO I WILL BE GOING TO FOR DETAILS ON ALL OF THE CHARGES, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY AND TRIAL ATTORNEY. OKAY. LET’S GET RIGHT TO THE FIRST SET OF POSSIBLE CHARGES AGAINST JAMES COMEY — COMEY INVOLVING HIS HANDLING OF THE HILARY CLINTON E-MAIL INVESTIGATION. THE CHARGES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND PERJURY. LET’S GET SOME INSIGHT NOW FROM YOU ABOUT THOSE CHARGES AND THEN WE WILL DEBATE THEM.>>PERJURY IS PRETTY WELL KNOWN THE TRADITIONAL ELEMENTS ARE KNOWINGLY FALSE STATEMENT UNDER OATH IN A PROCEEDING WHETHER BEFORE CONGRESS, A GRAND JURY, OBSTRUCTION IS MORE OPEN ENDED. IT’S ONE OF THE PROSECUTOR’S BEST FRIENDS. TRADITIONALLY THE ELEMENTS INCLUDE FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS CONCEALING EVIDENCE OR MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT. BUT IT ALSO HAS A BROADER CATEGORY, THE INTERFERING WITH THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF LAW. THE KEY TO OBSTRUCTION IS SHOWING A CORRUPT INTENT. WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN IMPROPER PURPOSE OF JAMES COMEY? WELL, CONSIDER THAT HE’S RECENTLY SAID THAT IN OCTOBER 2016, HE WAS CONSIDERING THE POLITICAL PRESIDENTIAL INEVITABILITY OF HILARY CLINTON AS A FACTOR IN A DECISION HE MADE.>>ABOUT THAT INVESTIGATION?>>ABOUT THAT, WAS HE IN FACT INFLUENCED OR IS A FACTOR CONSIDERING CLINTON’S INEVITABILITY IN JULY 2016, WHEN HE IN A HIGHLY IRREGULAR FASHION SHUT DOWN THE CLINTON E-MAIL INVESTIGATION.>>YOU’VE SAID IT FIRST THOSE ARE THE POTENTIAL CHARGES, PERJURY, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. LET’S REMEMBER WE’RE NOT INTERESTED IN ANYONE’S OPINION ABOUT JAMES COMEY. WHAT WE’RE INTERESTED IN IS WHETHER OR NOT HE BROKE THE LAW. KIMBERLY, THOSE CHARGES RELATING TO THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION.>>IT’S VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE WE’RE BEGINNING TO SEE A LOT OF THE FACTS COME OUT. WE HAVE HIS STATEMENTS IN FRONT OF CONGRESS. WE HAVE NOW OF COURSE STATEMENTS IN THE BOOK THAT IS ABOUT TO BE RELEASED. WE ALSO HAVE THE IG’S INVESTIGATION. WE WON’T REALLY KNOW FOR SURE, AND I WANT TO POINT THIS OUT TO THE VIEWERS WHETHER OR NOT HE COMMITTED THESE CRIMES UNTIL THAT REPORT IS COMPLETED AND RELEASED. SO BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW NOW, WE KNOW THAT THIS WAS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT SPECIFICALLY SEEMED TO HAVE AN INTENDED PURPOSE IN AN OUTCOME. HE SAID THAT HE MADE THE DECISION AFTER SPEAKING TO HILARY CLINTON, BUT THERE’S INVESTIGATION REPORTS SAYING THAT IN FACT, HE HAD ALREADY PREDETERMINED THE OUTCOME AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAD BROKEN THE LAW. INTERESTING BECAUSE OF THE TREMENDOUS INCONSISTENCY THERE. DID HE MAKE KNOWINGLY A FALSE STATEMENT WHEN HE MADE THAT ASSERTION AND SAID HE WAITED? AND WHY IN FACT WERE HER AIDES GIVEN IMMUNITY? IT WAS ALMOST TO HELP PUSH THE INTENDED OUTCOME ALONG TO GET TO A CERTAIN DETERMINATION.>>SO GREG, BEFORE THE DEFENSE GET A CHANCE TO CHALLENGE THE ARGUMENTS, WHAT WOULD YOU ADD TO THE CASE AGAINST JAMES COMEY, IN RELATION TO THE CLINTON E-MAIL INVESTIGATION ON THE SPECIFIC CHARGES THERE OF PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION?>>THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HILARY CLINTON WAS POWERFUL, OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, UNDER A VARIETY OF STATUTES THAT SHE BROKE THE LAW. AND IF JAMES COMEY CLEARED HER FOR POLITICAL REASONS, THAT’S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THAT’S A CORRUPT INTENT.>>UH-HUH.>>AND I FIND IT VERY CURIOUS IN HIS BOOK THAT ON THE REOPENING OF THE HILARY CLINTON CASE, HE ADMITS THAT POLITICS WAS INFLUENCING HIM.>>UH-HUH.>>THAT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT IT INFLUENCED HIS ORIGINAL DECISION TO EXONERATE HER. I DON’T KNOW HOW IN THE WORLD YOU WRITE AN EXONERATION STATEMENT TWO MONTHS BEFORE YOU EVEN INTERVIEW HER.>>THAT’S THE PERJURY POINT, ISN’T IT? HE SAID THAT IT WASN’T WRITTEN UNTIL THE INTERVIEW, BUT ACTUALLY TURNS OUT THAT IT WAS –>>IT WAS HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY –>>ON THE OBSTRUCTION A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE POINTED TO THE LACK OF A GRAND JURY BEING IMPANELLED.>>RIGHT.>>SUBPOENAED AND SO ON. COULD YOU TALK TO THOSE POINTS A LITTLE?>>YEAH, I THINK IT IS VERY TELLING BECAUSE AGAIN IT REALLY GOES TOWARDS THE — ALMOST LIKE A GOAL, AN IDEOLOGICAL GOAL, A PREDETERMINATION THAT HILARY CLINTON WAS GOING TO BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND WHY WOULD YOU NOT TALK TO THE PEOPLE, THE AIDES, THE PEOPLE THAT WERE INVOLVED WITH HER RIGHT AWAY FROM THE BEGINNING? WHY WASN’T AN IMPARTIAL GRAND JURY IMPANELLED TO GET TO THE ACTUAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER? WHY AHEAD OF TIME WERE HER AIDES PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY INVOLVED AND ACTING IN CONCERT WITH HER GIVEN AN IMMUNITY? — GIVEN AN IMMUNITY? ALMOST LIKE AN ASSIST.>>THOSE TWO ACTIONS NOT IMPANELLING THE JURY AND IMMUNITY FOR THE AIDES, HOW IS THAT A CRIME?>>COMEY SAID IN HIS VERY PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTES. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TO REFER IT TO DOJ AND IMPANEL A GRAND JURY TO DECIDE. BUT THEN HE LEAPS TO THE CONCLUSION, BUT NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD EVER BRING SUCH CASE.>>RIGHT.>>WHICH IS SPECULATION. I INTERVIEWED FIVE FORMER FBI TOP OFFICIALS. THEY ALL SAID THAT WHAT COMEY DID WAS WRONG.>>UH-HUH.>>AND IT’S NOT UP TO HIM TO BE A PROSECUTOR. THE FBI DOES –>>MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG, WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO ESTABLISH IS WHETHER IT WAS ILLEGAL. WHAT’S YOUR RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES THERE THAT WHAT HE DID IN RELATION TO THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION COULD HAVE BROKEN THE LAW IN RELATION TO PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION?>>KIMBERLY I THINK MAKES A TERRIFIC POINT. HER FIRST POINT IS WE NEED TO KNOW THE FACTS. WE NEED MORE FACTS. WE NEED MORE INFORMATION. AND THAT’S WHERE REALLY I COME DOWN BECAUSE LOOK, I WILL BE THE FIRST ONE TO TELL YOU, STEVE, THERE ARE SOME PROCEDURES HERE, HAVING BEEN AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR A LONG LONG TIME, HAVING TRIED A NUMBER OF BIG CASES NATIONAL CASES AND INVESTIGATIONS, I SAW SOME THINGS HERE THAT I DIDN’T QUITE UNDERSTAND. AND I STILL DON’T UNDERSTAND. FOR EXAMPLE, WHY IS THE FBI DIRECTOR HIMSELF TAKING OVER THE CASE, ANNOUNCING A DECLARATION AND NOT INTERACTING WITH THE DOJ? IN MY EXPERIENCE, I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT. BUT KIMBERLY’S POINT IS WELL TAKEN. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY, WHO ELSE WAS INVOLVED IN THOSE DECISIONS. WHAT’S THE PAPER TRAIL WHAT WOULD LEAD –>>CAN I JUST FOCUS YOU ON THIS QUESTION?>>YES, OF COURSE.>>OF OBSTRUCTION. THE TWO QUESTIONS, OBSTRUCTION AND PERJURY. LET’S TAKE PERJURY FIRST, ACTUALLY. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN VERY FOCUSED ON THAT. HE SAID THAT HE WAS — THAT HE ONLY MADE THE DECISION TO EXONERATE HER AFTER THE INTERVIEW, BUT THERE ARE DOCUMENTS THAT SHOW THAT THE EXONERATION DECISION WAS BEING PREPARED BEFORE THAT. THERE?>>WELL, FIRST OF ALL, NOW IT IS THREE ON ONE, THANK YOU, GUYS, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. [LAUGHTER]>>IT IS NOT PERJURY, NUMBER ONE, BECAUSE EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT PERJURY AND WE ALL THINK LOOK THIS GUY SAID SOMETHING, SEEMS FALSE, THAT’S PERJURY. PERJURY IS A REALLY TOUGH CRIME TO PROSECUTE AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS DONE IT AND DEFENDED IT, IT IS REALLY HARD TO PROVE. FIRST OF ALL DRAFTING AN OPINION IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN MAKING A DECISION.>>SORRY TO CUT YOU, BUT PEOPLE CAN’T UNDERSTAND IF THEY REALLY WERE INTERESTED IN LEARNING FROM THE INTERVIEW, WHY THE EXONERATION WAS PREPARED BEFOREHAND.>>WELL, REGARDLESS OF WHY IT WAS PREPARED BEFOREHAND, AND PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND, YOU’RE ASKING WHETHER YOU CAN PROSECUTE HIM FOR SOMETHING. WHETHER THEY UNDERSTAND OR DON’T UNDERSTAND DOESN’T REALLY MATTER. THE QUESTION IS COULD THEY PROVE IT? AND THE ANSWER WOULD BE NO BECAUSE ANY TIME YOU’RE DRAFTING A MEMO, AND I COULD SAY TO ANYBODY, LOOK, I THINK X AND THIS IS WHAT MY OPINION IS GOING TO BE, BUT I’M GOING TO WAIT TO FIND OUT UNTIL WE HAVE THE INTERVIEW WITH HILLARY DONE BEFORE I ISSUE MY DECISION.>>THE PERJURY CHARGE IS ABOUT WHAT HE SAID TO CONGRESS.>>RIGHT. HE SAID TO CONGRESS HE HADN’T DECIDED. HE DIDN’T SAY HE HADN’T DRAFTED AN OPINION.>>YOU ARE SAYING THAT PROVING HE WAS LYING THEN IS GOING TO BE –>>PROVING THAT HE WAS LYING IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE.>>PERJURY IS A TOUGH CHARGE.>>ONE FOR THE GOOD GUYS.>>LET’S GO TO THE OBSTRUCTION POINT BECAUSE THE WAY IN WHICH THE INVESTIGATION WAS CARRIED OUT, ALL THE POINTS YOU MADE, NOT IMPANELLING THE GRAND JURY, THE FAILURE TO GET WARRANTS TO SEARCH — THERE’S A SET OF THINGS THAT NORMALLY WOULD BE EXPECTED TO HAVE HAPPENED THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN, DOES THAT ADD UP TO OBSTRUCTION?>>THE BASIC ARGUMENT I WOULD LIKE ON THIS. BREAK IT DOWN SIMPLER. COPS ALL THE TIME DO INVESTIGATIONS AND MAKE THOUSANDS OF MISTAKES, NOT THAT THEY ARE TRYING THEIR HARDEST, NOT THAT THEY ARE INCOMPETENT, BUT THEY ARE PEOPLE, THEY MAKE MISTAKES. ANY INVESTIGATION CAN HAVE A LOT OF MISTAKES. ON COMEY IS NOT ON THE PROSECUTOR SIDE. HE’S ON THE COPS SIDE. IF I WAS DEFENDING THIS, THEY RAN THE SHOW, THEY COULD HAVE PROSECUTED HILLARY IF THEY WANTED TO. AS A MATTER OF FACT –>>IT’S NOT THE PROSECUTION. IT WAS THE WAY IT WAS CONDUCTED>>IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW THE INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED.>>YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA DIRECTED THE WAY THAT THE FBI –>>I’M NOT CLAIMING ANYTHING. I’M SAYING I HAVE A CREDIBLE ARGUMENT TO GIVE IMMUNITY TO ANY WITNESS, THAT HAS TO COME TO DOJ. THAT CAN’T COME FROM THE FBI DIRECTLY. DOJ HAS TO APPROVE THAT. IT’S NOT LIKE HE’S BY HIMSELF SAYING HEY HERE’S AN IMMUNITY AGREEMENT. THAT’S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS.>>YOU CAN BE THE HEAD OF AN INVESTIGATION AND OBSTRUCT IT YOURSELF.>>RIGHT.>>IF YOU ARE MAKING DECISIONS FOR A CORRUPT PURPOSE. THAT’S THE LANGUAGE OF THE OBSTRUCTION.>>JUST SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT, BECAUSE WHEN, YOU KNOW, TO A LAYPERSON THAT WORD CORRUPT MEANS MONEY CHANGING HANDS. THAT’S NOT THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF CORRUPT, IS IT?>>IT IS DEFINED FIVE DIFFERENT WAYS UNDER THE STATUTE. LIE, THREAT, BRIBE, CONCEALING EVIDENCE, DESTROYING DOCUMENTS, THOSE ARE THE EXAMPLES IN THE STATUTE, BUT THERE ARE OTHERS. CLEARING SOMEBODY FOR A POLITICAL REASON AND IGNORING THE LAW WOULD ALSO QUALIFY AS A CORRUPT PURPOSE.>>THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DIDN’T EVEN RUN UNTIL AFTER TRUMP WAS IN OFFICE. SO NOBODY’S BEEN CLEARED OF ANYTHING. ANYBODY COULD HAVE PICKED UP THAT INVESTIGATION AT DOJ. ANYBODY COULD HAVE FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THE PROSECUTION. I THINK ON SOME CHARGES THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STILL EXISTS. SO WHEN YOU SAY THAT HE ENDED THE INVESTIGATION OR HE STALLED IT, WELL, MAYBE, AND IF THAT WAS THE CASE, WHY DIDN’T SOMEBODY ELSE PICK IT UP?>>YEAH, BUT I THINK THIS IS VERY TELLING. I MEAN, LET’S BE HONEST. THIS WAS JAMES COMEY’S SHOW. HE WAS THE ONE RUNNING THE INVESTIGATION. HE WAS THE ONE DECIDING WHEN HE SHOULDN’T HAVE IMPROPERLY — WHETHER OR NOT THAT CHARGES SHOULD BE BROUGHT. WHAT I’M SAYING THERE IS A TRAIL FROM CORRUPT INTENT FROM BEGINNING TO END>>HE DOESN’T HAVE THE AUTHORITY –>>LET KIMBERLY FINISH.>>THEY WEREN’T ABLE TO ISSUES SUBPOENAS TO BE ABLE TO GATHER EVIDENCE FOR CONGRESS TO BE ABLE TO GET IT. WHY SUCH A DELAY IN BEING ABLE TO OBTAIN NECESSARY ITEMS TO SHOW BEFORE ITEMS WERE DESTROYED, DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE IN A CASE? HE SHOULD HAVE RIGHT AWAY GONE IN AND MADE SURE THAT THEY HAD THOSE ITEMS, THE ABILITY TO GET THEM BEFORE THERE WAS ENOUGH TIME TO DESTROY THEM. THAT’S STRIPPED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF JUSTICE IN THIS CASE AND HE WAS CALLING THE SHOTS, AND THAT’S HOW I BELIEVED HE

100 thoughts on “Is James Comey guilty of federal crimes?

  1. This is obviously an attempt to start the cover up for Comey. Comey's name is on the illegal FISA warrants done.

  2. Apparently if you commit a crime BUT somehow don't intend to break the law while committing a crime it's perfectly ok. This new rule should ring throughout the American justice system

  3. One year later Comey still walking free dispite the more evidence one of the panel stated that's needed being there in abundance. And no other arrests. I'm late to this site but not as late as American justice.

  4. We have a lawyer in this panel with a $19.99 Casio watch. 😂😂😂👍👍 Unbelievable!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

  5. The game show format is kinda cheesy, not gonna lie… Not quite cringe, but definitely cheesy. And I'm glad I have some Dramamine pills on hand. I hope the cameraman didn't overdose on heroin.

  6. James Comey, the one man holding a position in America that deserves our respect, who should at all cost be honorable and stand up for our white house and the POTUS has let America down and is a total failure for his personal gain. Guilty…be gone with him finally.

  7. We all know a person could land in jail for jaywalking if unable to pay the fine. Contrast that with what the rich and powerful get away with. Makes me sick.

  8. he was guilty,,before bill Clinton hired him.long long fkn time ago changes nothing,,getting away with it and then running a nation?.what he didn't know about nosecone airlines?…guilt does not go away..it piles up…and no clothing/or words of any kind can conceal it…..

  9. If you need to ask the question if Comey is guilty, you have not been paying attention. You may as well go back to your feel-good tv shows and leave it for the people who care.
    The man is a treasonous coward who deserves nothing less than a firing squad. He betrayed his country and it's people and pledged his loyalty to criminals.

  10. This video is like being on a game show. The answer is obvious. The real question is, why the hell isn't he indicted yet?

  11. Were watching the fall of the law ,,, Uranium hillary walks ,dems getting away with all ,media bias as the day is long …lots of talk and diversion . Equal justice joke of the land …

  12. on all the comments are everybody's made in the last two-and-a-half 3 years there ain't nothing going to happen to none of these people none of these people are going to be convicted and you know that look how long is take them just to get the evidence these people be dead for you or do anything you're going to see

  13. comey is NOT in it by himself. It was a massive plot initiated by obama, in collusion with hillary and DNC. It involved obama's DOJ, FBI, CIA, and fractions in the government, and intelligence agencies of England, Italy, and Australia.

  14. Matthew 5:38-48

    "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.”

  15. Liars Perjury isn't hard to prove at all. . NRS 199.120 defines perjury as a false statement on a material issue made under oath. As to perjury and subornation of perjury, see NRS 199.120 to 199.200. Anyone who Executes an affidavit pursuant to NRS 15.010 which contains a false statement, or suborns any other person to do so; or Executes an affidavit or other instrument which contains a false statement before a person authorized to administer oaths or suborns any other person to do so, is guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury, as the case may be, which is a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
    Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §193.130 .(d) A category D felony is a felony for which a court shall sentence a convicted person to imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 4 years. In addition to any other penalty, the court may impose a fine of not more than $5,000, unless a greater fine is authorized or required by statute.
    NRS 686A.291 makes the filing of a false statement a crime, (D felony in fact), the overall intent of the statute is to address the filing of a false claim through the use of fraud, misrepresentations, or false statements. Also causing a violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 197.160Fraudulently presenting claim to public officer. As to punishment for gross misdemeanors, see NRS 193.140.
    NRS 51.105(1) states: "A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or physical condition, such as intent . . . is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule. " Counsel declared in open Court on or about the date of July 16 2019, That her clients had maintained the property and were the lawful owners both claims are proven false, and perjured by Counsel's own briefs and by the forensic audit.
    Section 605, vol. 1, N.C.L.1929, provides: "Section 605. Right of Attorney to Practice Suspended, When. § 15. In the case of the conviction of an attorney or counsellor of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, the clerk of the court in which the conviction was had shall, within thirty days thereafter, transmit to the supreme court a certified copy of the record of conviction. And upon such judgment of conviction being entered, all rights of such attorney to practice as such shall ipso facto be suspended until such judgment either becomes final or is reversed or otherwise set aside." As we are certain a conviction will be had we motion to set aside the lower courts order to grant property to Counsel's alleged client.
    NRS 199.120 states that "[a] person, having taken a lawful oath or made affirmation in a judicial proceeding or in any other matter where, by law, an oath or affirmation is required and no other penalty is prescribed, who . . . [s]uborns any other person to make . . . an unqualified statement or to swear or affirm in such a manner . . . is guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury." In Jimenez v. State, this court held that a prosecutor is forbidden from using perjured testimony to secure a conviction or judgement based on principles of fairness, and the conviction or judgement must be set aside if the false testimony affected the jury's verdict. 112 Nev. 610, 622, 918 P.2d 687, 694 (1996). Likewise, a prosecutor cannot allow a discovered false statement "to go uncorrected when it appears." Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972) (internal quotations omitted).

  16. Starting certainly before his Whitewater and HSBC crimes….the US has terabytes of evidence on that Brzezinski cabal rat.

  17. Inevitability, of what he knew of what would be a criminally seditious fraudulent presidency, did NOT entail Comey the right to cover-up her crimes and defraud and setup Trump…sick cabal trash.

  18. When james comey's chain of command failed to stopped and removed him from the investigation they became their accomplices, al the way to obama, where the bucket stops. There was a complete collapse of oversight. From Comey to Obama they are all indirectly or directly guilty.

  19. EVERYONE should stop saying "NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW".
    COMEY AND MANY F.B.I AGENTS AS WELL AS H.R.C. SHOULD FACE THE MUSIC!
    BUT POWER NEVER ATTACKS POWER.

  20. listening to these men and H.A.Goodman on YouTube verifies perfectly Hillary Clinton,Comey and Peter Strzok as the sinister three who corrupted on purposes to get her either pardoned and or into the White House. Hillary will be and these men will be indicted after 2020s 're-election of President Trump

  21. Comey is still laughing at the US voters along with the Clintons; I would love to see him get his just deserts but only President Trump has the real stones in DC, he will need to push the Comey take-down . Trump 2020 and beyond!

  22. The answer to YOUR question as to why it took so long to get an investigation going is very simple, for a good number of years the FBI an the DOJ had turned into a convenient way to make a hell of a lot of money for themselves an to give their MIDDLE finger to the general public an to their House of Representatives an also to the POTUS.

  23. if i were on the grand jury there is tons of probable cause to bring indictments. Read into record and carry on

  24. James Comey is just another one of the many officials both elected and appointed who has become too corrupt to prosecute by way of their blackmail knowledge

  25. I HAVE BEEN A FOX FAN FOR DECADES AND SINCE DISNEY TOOK OVER THEY ARE GOING LIBERAL NEVER THOUGHT THIS WOULD HAPPEN BUT IT IS DISNEY HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF SOME HORRIBLE CRIMES CONCERNING CHILDREN AND THEY MUST CONTROL THE MEDIA BUT ITS TO LATE THE BIG WIGS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS HAVE THEIR NAMES OUT THERE AND THEY WILL BE PROSECUTED

  26. Proving Comey was lying is almost impossible, however proving others like those criminally charged and prosecuted for lying to Congress is apparently easy! It appears the judicial system is more one sided than ever, particularly for Hillary Clinton and other Democrats that have clearly violated numerous laws and obstructed justice over and over again to cover their actions!

  27. Steve Hilton's show is 900x better than that idiot Sean Hannity.
    Why can't Steve have a primetime slot instead of a teleprompter reader?

  28. Back when this whole investigation started and when told me that clear Hillary Clinton I thought it was a power-play I thought he was being really smart and I was happy cuz I said men James Comey is real smart you know and by exonerated from the charges the reason why I say that is because how do you stuck the charges on her and then prosecuted the Obama Administration was going to let's go out to party so I figured James Comey it's just me a smart about it so this week if she would have won he would have been in the clear but he still could have came after her if he was a true car so I said okay he's going to wait until Trump win and then the other stuff that was coming there was going to reopen the case because they didn't have a choice but to reopen the case because of all of the new stuff that was coming in so I thought he was being smart but I didn't know that James Comey was just as crooked as the rest of them or for some reason in my mind I think that all of the doj the FBI everybody I think for some reason that everybody was scared of Hillary Clinton she got something on everybody I don't know what it is but it when it comes down to call me I really thought he was being a smart guy

  29. Its funny, this show and upload happened a year ago. Would love to see them have that conversation now! Comey is definitely arrogant & corrupt, as well as one of the most bias officers of the law that there ever was! He will most likely be one of the (unfortunately only a) few people that will actually face proper or some form of Justice and quite possibly go to prison for his unlawful Deeds by trying to pull off one of the most elaborate & underhanded coups the world has ever seen!

  30. There are Democrats guilty all the way to the top. URANIUM ONE must have paid well all the way to the top.. Obama's buying Martha's vineyard. Did they make money? Looks like they made extra somewhere.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *