Anonymous ID: 318282 Sept. 27, 2025, 4:29 a.m. No.23661194   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1238 >>1495 >>1785

>>23661185

 

Try actually reading the Memos.

 

No, any special prosecutor Comey wanted appointed had zero to do with Mueller.

The content of the memos unrelated to what Mueller was doing.

 

Mueller appointment had to do with Andrew McCabe opening Obstruction on the President after Comey was fired.

Anonymous ID: 318282 Sept. 27, 2025, 4:30 a.m. No.23661200   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1203

>>23661187

 

No, the difference is you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what going dark is. You didn't do a basic search to understand what it was. You instead portrayed it as something, I don't know, secret and sinister.

Anonymous ID: 318282 Sept. 27, 2025, 5:09 a.m. No.23661314   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1330 >>1495 >>1785

>>23661301

 

The Daniel Richman / Comey memos were leaked AFTER the testimony.

 

Daniel Richman further declined to renew his unpaid position as a SGE (Special Government Employee) in February 2017.

 

So, no, any leaking related to the memos does not contradict his actual testimony.

 

You just don't understand the facts of what you are talking about. At all.

Anonymous ID: 318282 Sept. 27, 2025, 5:25 a.m. No.23661365   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1422

>>23661330

 

No, you're just delusional and trying to cope with not understanding the facts of the case.

 

The Comey memos leak is not referenced in the indictment. What they are actually citing is leaks PRIOR to the testimony related to the Clinton email investigation. ZERO to do with Comey memos.

 

But sure, Comey could absolutely have been leaking other things to Richman. This isn't some sort of secret groundbreaking theory. It's as basic as it gets. You aren't "winning" anything. You are making the most basic and obvious of guesses, but without actual evidence. I never once said it couldn't have happened.

 

There are plenty of leaks swirling around Comey. There was even a leak several days prior to the testimony itself, trying to shape public perception. It citied Comey's thinking about an investigation. There's plenty to suggest that Comey could have been leaking.

Anonymous ID: 318282 Sept. 27, 2025, 6:03 a.m. No.23661478   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1495 >>1587 >>1785

>>23661422

 

The Richman / Comey leak theory has been around for like 8 years now.

 

It could be Richman. It could be a couple of other high-ranking officials one step from Comey. We don't really know.

 

It could even be multiple, with the indictment being a placeholder with superseding indictments coming later. Perhaps they have documents corroborating the allegations.

 

None of this amounts to substantive evidence, though. There's no secret story here. All we can do is wait to see what actual evidence they have.

Anonymous ID: 318282 Sept. 27, 2025, 6:58 a.m. No.23661642   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>23661587

 

You're justโ€ฆwrong and conflating things.

 

Richman absolutely had reason to have access. He had TWO jobs.

 

One of them related to media outreach.

 

The other related to going dark, which is a broad term for FBI efforts related to decryption. That work absolutely can require access.

Anonymous ID: 318282 Sept. 27, 2025, 8:30 a.m. No.23661913   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>23661852

 

He didn't resign. He didn't renew (for an unpaid position). There's nothing strange about that.

 

Sure, it could be an elaborate cover story. But that would be incredibly stupid, because he didn't need one.

 

Nobody even knew who he was until he was voluntarily along with Comey made themselves a huge news story with the memos. Even with the memos, nobody even knew he was an SGE until years later. We only even know because they made us know.