Transcript of Trump's Last-Ditch Case Just Blew Up in 24 Hours

The Trump regime's criminal case right before the midterm elections against FBI Director James Comey has just backfired in the regime's face. And I'm not talking about the 8647 seashell case, although that one's backfired in their face already as well. I'm talking about the Trump regime criminal complaint alleging that on October 5th, 2016, James Comey and a group of FBI agents leaked information to the New York Times about Yahoo saying that Yahoo said to have aided U.S. email surveillance by adapting a spam filter. I know, a spam filter story involving Yahoo on October 5th, 2016. Huh? Let me explain to you what's happening here. So on October 5th, 2026, the Trump regime filed a criminal complaint against James Comey in Washington, D.C. federal court. But the Trump regime immediately filed a motion to keep the criminal complaint under seal because they said there could be a number of co-conspirators in the Yahoo spam filter case. So we have to keep this super secret. So Comey knew about this back on October 5th. Now you fast forward to now, and James Comey has been fighting for this case to be unsealed so that the public can see what the hell is actually happening here.

And in the interim period of time, James Comey Comey has filed a motion to dismiss, which I think he's going to prevail in. What's important to note here at the outset is that the Trump regime did not indict James Comey. They did something called filing an information, or basically filing a criminal complaint. Now, in federal courts where we're dealing with felony counts, which is what is being alleged here by the Trump regime, you eventually need an indictment. The law allows the Department of Justice to first bring a criminal complaint or information. If in 30 days after service of said complaint, said summons of complaint, or the arrest, 30 days thereafter, you then have to go and get an indictment. You have to go before a grand jury and present these facts. The Trump regime has not done that yet. Why? Because it would likely be rejected by a grand jury. And as part of Donald Trump's deranged behavior, year before the midterms. He wanted this filed and he wanted this filed now. And they don't think through the 2nd and 3rd and 4th level consequences to these things. Now, James Comey immediately filed a motion to dismiss.

And now that the federal judge has unsealed this entire case, we can see everything that's taken place from October 5th, 2026 until today, October 26th, 2026. And at the end of last week, uh, Comey filed this motion to dismiss and it's pretty Straightforward statute of limitations, which is the time frame within which you can bring a certain type of case. This case alleging national defense secrets were leaked to the New York Times because of some Yahoo spam filter thing, whatever the New York Times even reported, it's just a ridiculous and frivolous thing to begin with. I don't even think this is a national defense secret at all. There's a 5-year statute of limitations. So let's count together. October 5th. October 5th. 2016, 5 years later, October 5th, 2021. So we are well past said statute of limitation. Well, the Trump regime argues that there is a very special statute that deals with espionage cases that extends the statute of limitations by another 5 years if you can show that there was espionage involved. And so the Trump regime says this was not just national defense, this was espionage. So extend the statute of limitations, right, from October 5th, 2021 to October 5th, 2026.

So the Trump regime's sloppy as hell lawyers at the DOJ wait till the very last day of the statute of limitations, and they think they're so smart, they're gonna say this is espionage. What the hell? This has nothing to do with espionage. But then James Comey's lawyers say, uh-huh, Okay. You do realize that the espionage extension of the statute of limitations requires an indictment? It literally says in the statute that the statute of limitations on a national defense or other case will be extended 5 years if the indictment relates to espionage, and that a grand jury indicts with an espionage element to the charge. And then the Trump regime has responded, actually, the indictment and a criminal complaint are the same thing. And James Comey and his lawyers like, no, they're like different things. That's like saying basketball and golf are the same thing because they involve balls, right? No, they're not the same thing. An indictment is an indictment. It has to go before a grand jury. The grand jury indicts, and the statute uses the word indictment if you're going to extend 5 years. And then here you just filed a criminal complaint on October 5th, 2026, and that's not an indictment.

So that's what Comey argues. The Trump regime has since responded and they said, nope, same thing, doesn't matter, premature. Let this case continue and we'll have to get the indictment pretty soon. That's what the Trump regime is arguing. The federal judge will ultimately now have to make that ruling. In any event, if you pull back for a second, do you see how frivolous this thing is? The Trump regime is alleging that Comey on October 5th, 2016 said something to the New York Times about a spam filter involving Yahoo. This is where they're going with it. Prosecutors say that an internal government email containing proposed talking points circulated among about 30 intelligence community personnel. The New York Times published its article within 3 hours. Prosecutors alleged that the spam filter case contained classified information when Charlie Savage, in this New York Times article, wrote about Yahoo's cooperation with U.S. surveillance. That's what you're saying was an espionage violation by James Comey? So on the merits, this case— can you believe it— is more frivolous than the seashell case. On the merits. But set aside the merits. Just talk about procedure. This case should have been brought in 2021.

So you wait until the very date of the statute of limitations October 5th, 2026, file a criminal complaint, then don't read the statute that says there needs to be an espionage indictment, not criminal complaint, to extend the statute of limitations. So that's what this is about. James Comey has now put out a statement. Here's what he has to say. Play this clip.

Well, they're back again. It would almost be funny if it weren't such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice, one that we cannot become numb to. Nothing's changed with me. I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid of these people, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. And I'm still lucky to have an amazing family and an incredible group of lawyers that will stand up in court and fight the latest and whatever comes after this. The next couple years are going to be hard for all of us. It's really important that we stand straight and keep the faith in America.

Now folks, this comes on the same day as James Comey's daughter, Maureen Comey, won a federal federal, uh, her federal lawsuit against the Trump regime for unlawful termination. She's entitled to back pay and she's entitled to reinstatement because the Trump regime unlawfully fired her. A federal judge said that the undisputed facts basically show that she was fired because she was James Comey's daughter, that she was an accomplished prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. She was handling top cases. And then she got an email from the Trump regime DOJ saying that they were firing her. There are certain civil servant protections that were not afforded to her. They did not go through the process to fire her. And so she'll get her back pay, she'll get reinstatement. And of course, the Trump regime will try to appeal that and they'll continue to harass her. But both of this stuff happened on the very same day. Just so you can see what Comey was charged with, let me just— this is it. It's a 2-pager. Again, this is not an indictment. This did not go before the grand jury. And the Espionage Statute to increase the statute of limitations by 5 years, which would make it October 5th, 2026, requires that there be an indictment.

And here is what, uh, it says. On or about October 5th, 2016, the Trump DOJ alleges in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant James Brian Comey, while lawfully possessing, accessing, controlling, and being entrusted with any document, writing, code, notebook, signal sketch, photograph, note relating to national defense and information relating to the national defense, and having reason to believe such information could be used to injure the United States and to advantage any foreign nation, knowingly and willfully communicated, delivered, transmitted, and caused that information to be communicated, delivered, and transmitted to a person entitled to receive it, all in violation of 18 USC Section 793. And then the second count was basically a kind of a repeat allegation. Upon conviction of the offense, James Comey shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to the statute. And then it says, um, you know, uh, it's signed by the DOJ lawyers who, in my opinion, should lose their bar licenses for bringing something so horrific. This is the article that they alleged violates our national security from October 5th, 2016. Yahoo said to have aided U.S. email surveillance by adapting spam filter. And the way we know a lot of the details is because this whole file has become unsealed.

So there were like 12, 13 documents now that we have access to. And you can see that Comey requested that this entire file be unsealed, which the court just granted. That's how we have all these filings from October 5th to October 26th of 2026. And we have the United States motion to— a response to Comey's motion to dismiss. And here's what it says. The United States opposes Mr. Comey's motion to dismiss the information. Mr. Comey moves to dismiss the information purely on an incomplete statutory reading of the text. He asserts that Section 19 of the Internal Security Act of 1950 unambiguously states the government may invoke that extended period— that's the extended 5 years for espionage— only by obtaining a grand jury indictment, and that a criminal information, which the government can issue unilaterally without grand jury involvement, does not suffice. Mr. Comey also contends that an indictment fundamentally differs from an information and that Congress intentionally omitted the information from Section 19, pointing to other statutory provisions. Mr. Comey is mistaken. Then the government goes on to argue, Mr. Comey's motion should be denied for 2 reasons. Fundamentally, the motion is premature. This prosecution proceeds currently by an information, and there is no indictment to be dismissed.

Yeah, Comey knows that. He wants to dismiss the information. What are you talking about? Then it goes on to say, second, the information here is timely under Section 19 of the Internal Security Act. That's what adds the 5 years if it's espionage. Then it says Section 19 sets the limitation period for the underlying espionage offenses at 10 years, and under 18 U.S.C. Section 3282, the statute of limitations period is satisfied whether the indictment is found or the information is instituted. The case comes down to a syllogism. Section 3282 makes a prosecution timely if the indictment is found or the information is instituted within the period that governs the offense. Section 19 does not displace that rule. It supplies only the period for a violation of Section 793. That period is 10 years. Congress did not need the word information. It had no reason to write it. Yeah, it did have a reason to write it. If you're going to extend a 5-year to a 10-year, you want to make sure that there's an indictment and not some frivolous action by way of information. It's obvious why Congress did not include the word information the way the other statute did, because it would be easy just to say information or indictment.

The indictment is a higher bar. You need a grand jury. And so if you're going to extend 5 years, a grand jury has to find probable cause of espionage. Congress was precisely aware this is the exact type of case they wanted to avoid. That's the legislative history of this. So that's what the Trump regime is arguing right over there. It's absolutely frivolous and disgusting, but I wanted to give you that complex statutory breakdown so you understand. Thanks for watching. We appreciate you. We're grateful for you. Thank you, everybody. And, uh, get WTF America, the book that Elon Musk is trying to suppress on X by putting adult content warnings on it when people post about it. Thanks.