Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Exclusive: Justice Department indicts former FBI Director James Comey for a second time
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/28/politics/justice-department-indicts-ex-fbi-director-james-comey-again
Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted a second time by Trump’s Justice Department, two sources familiar told CNN.
The specific charges were not immediately clear.
President Donald Trump has long pressed for his political adversaries to face charges, including the former FBI director whom he believed to be a key player in the alleged effort to “weaponize” justice system against him.
In September of last year, the Justice Department first brought charges against Comey, accusing him of lying to Congress over leaks to the press. The case was dismissed late last year by a federal judge who found that the interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia had been improperly appointed, having skirted approval from the Senate.
The specific charges were not immediately clear.
President Donald Trump has long pressed for his political adversaries to face charges, including the former FBI director whom he believed to be a key player in the alleged effort to “weaponize” justice system against him.
In September of last year, the Justice Department first brought charges against Comey, accusing him of lying to Congress over leaks to the press. The case was dismissed late last year by a federal judge who found that the interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia had been improperly appointed, having skirted approval from the Senate.
23 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
There was a perfect storm of shit that prevented her from becoming President. Comey was a major one I'll admit. I wonder if he thinks it was worth it? 
This case is so stupid that Blanche, Patel and the attorney who signed the indictment need to be disbarred or sanctioned. There is existing SCOTUS authority that this statement is protected by the First Amendment. The SCOTUS opinion dealt with a less ambiguous compared to the 8647 being used here
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/watts-v-united-states/
Court said anti-war protester’s threat was crude political hyperbole
On further appeal, the Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 per curiam opinion. The majority determined that the federal statute prohibiting threats against the president was constitutional and that true threats receive no First Amendment protection.
However, the majority also determined that Watts’s crude statements were political hyperbole rather than true threats. “What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech,” the majority wrote. “The language of the political arena … is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.”
The Court agreed with Watts’s counsel’s characterization of Watts’s speech as “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President” that did not qualify as a true threat.
Justice William O. Douglas concurred in an opinion that would have gone further than the per curiam majority opinion and invalidated the federal statute. “Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution,” he concluded. Justice Abe Fortas, joined by John Marshall Harlan, dissented in a very short opinion questioning whether the Court should have taken the case.
On further appeal, the Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 per curiam opinion. The majority determined that the federal statute prohibiting threats against the president was constitutional and that true threats receive no First Amendment protection.
However, the majority also determined that Watts’s crude statements were political hyperbole rather than true threats. “What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech,” the majority wrote. “The language of the political arena … is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.”
The Court agreed with Watts’s counsel’s characterization of Watts’s speech as “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President” that did not qualify as a true threat.
Justice William O. Douglas concurred in an opinion that would have gone further than the per curiam majority opinion and invalidated the federal statute. “Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution,” he concluded. Justice Abe Fortas, joined by John Marshall Harlan, dissented in a very short opinion questioning whether the Court should have taken the case.
Link to tweet
In 1966, Robert Watts said if he were forced to carry a rifle, the first man he’d want “in his sights” was LBJ.
The Supreme Court said that was political hyperbole, not a true threat.
Now imagine if Watts had written it in seashells.
The Supreme Court said that was political hyperbole, not a true threat.
Now imagine if Watts had written it in seashells.
Is there any legal recourse?
