Prosecutor in 2019 Epstein Case Is Maurene Comey, Daughter of Fired FBI Director James Comey

Things that make you go "hmmmmmmm...."

Full title at link: Prosecutor in 2019 Epstein Case Is Maurene Comey, Daughter of Fired FBI Director James Comey — Who Participated in 2017 Pussy Hat March

Now this…

CNN reported on Saturday night that the prosecutor is James Comey’s daughter.

A team of federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York, along with some in the public corruption unit, have been assigned to the case.

Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI director James Comey, is one of the prosecutors, according to a source with knowledge of the case.

CNN didn't exactly bury this fact in their article, which focused on Epstein's charges and arrest, but they certainly didn't highlight it either.

I find it curious that this source chose to highlight that Ms. Comey attended the Woman's March... how is that even significant to the issues at hand? It's not as far as I can see.

I can't help but think of the potential conflict of interest here. I don't like the incestuous nature of this at all. I can't help but think Ms Comey is using this opportunity to help her father in some kind of deal. But I don't know how. While James Comey would certainly have intimate knowledge of the details of the Epstein case, unless he was personally involved (and I have seen no such suggestions that he was) and could provide firsthand testimony, I don't know how Comey could benefit.

So my gut is telling me something is very very wrong here, but I can't put my finger on anything in specific. I'd love to hear -- and discuss -- other thoughts and theories... anything and everything.

ETA: I've been focusing on the Comey implications, but the implications for the Clintons are worth discussing too. I guess it depends on whether one believes Comey is a friend or foe to the Clintons. If friend, then we might expect the Clintons to be protected from criminal implications in the case. If foe, then we might expect one or both of the Clintons to be targeted and even criminally charged in the case. Interesting times.

Likewise for Trump's connections to Epstein, though no doubt neither Comey considers Trump a friend! But in the court of public opinion, those who hate Trump will suspect the worst and those who support Trump will believe the best. We can be sure the haters will make as much of Trump's connections as possible, no matter how flimsy.

a reply to: Boadicea


Super fishy again. The last prosecutor that cut him a deal was Alexander Acosta. You know how he got rewarded for cutting a deal for Epstein?

Trump gave him a job as labor secretary.

originally posted by: Duderino
a reply to: Boadicea

Super fishy again. The last prosecutor that cut him a deal was Alexander Acosta. You know how he got rewarded for cutting a deal for Epstein?

Trump gave him a job as labor secretary.

"Labor" Secretary... the irony, eh?

I've gotta say that really gave me a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach. It may be the only time I've agreed with Pelosi when she objected based on Acosta's kid glove treatment of Epstein.

In a country of over 350 million the same names keep popping up.

This is from two weeks ago; I'm not sure how or if this is relevant, but thought it would be worth posting here:

Comey Hid ‘CLINTON EMAILS’ Binder In His Office Safe and Had Hillary’s Backup Email Device

Former FBI director James Comey had a white binder marked “Clinton Emails” in his office on May 16, 2017, a few days after he was fired, as the Department of Justice was trying to get back the items in Comey’s office safe.

The State Department and FBI also possessed a “Datto” backup email device for Hillary Clinton’s private email server, which a judge ordered released

Here’s the scoop provided to Big League Politics by whistleblower Mark Pullen:

In the exit documents for James Comey’s departure from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a page among the documents showed Comey had a binder in his safe that contained Hillary Clinton’s emails. The document does not show what medium was used to store the emails within the binder... In the FBI’s report on Clinton’s mishandling of Classified information, it has a page from then FBI agent Peter Strzok to the National Security Agency: an order to preserve any emails sent to or from @clintonemails.com.

It seems to me that Comey could have been protecting Hillary from prosecution... or he could have been preparing to blackmail her. Or probably both -- protecting her from prosecution in order to blackmail her.

originally posted by: Duderino
a reply to: Boadicea


Super fishy again. The last prosecutor that cut him a deal was Alexander Acosta. You know how he got rewarded for cutting a deal for Epstein?

Trump gave him a job as labor secretary.

I’m not sure how that makes sense considering the deal was made back in 2007.

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick
In a country of over 350 million the same names keep popping up.

Yup -- again and again and again.

That may be a good thing, at least from one perspective. The repeat of the same few names again and again for literally decades might indicate that the corruption is confined to a relative few -- albeit a powerful few -- making it relatively that much easier to take down the house of cards... But even if true, it's still necessary to prepare for the vacuum that will result, and to keep a close eye on the sharks circling.

a reply to: Boadicea

*sigh* Just great. We know the outcome now. 😒

a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

I’m not sure how that makes sense considering the deal was made back in 2007.

I'm not trying to speak for the other poster -- just myself -- but it raises my eyebrows because the deal Acosta made was shameful and unconscionable. He should have been shamed out of the profession for that. But instead, he rose through the ranks.

So I wonder whose idea it was for Trump to appoint him to the position. Did Trump get bad advice from someone? And if so, who? Or was this Trump's idea? And if so, why???

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick
In a country of over 350 million the same names keep popping up.

Yup -- again and again and again.

That may be a good thing, at least from one perspective. The repeat of the same few names again and again for literally decades might indicate that the corruption is confined to a relative few -- albeit a powerful few -- making it relatively that much easier to take down the house of cards... But even if true, it's still necessary to prepare for the vacuum that will result, and to keep a close eye on the sharks circling.

Of course the FBI director at the time of the original Epstein investigation, none other than Robert Mueller.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
a reply to: Boadicea

*sigh* Just great. We know the outcome now. 😒

That's my fear.

But the process might be informative. Who will throw who under the bus? Who will be implicated in records and documents (like the flight logs) and depositions? Who will be suspiciously absent from any scrutiny or implications?

I obviously don't know yet. We'll have to find out together.

a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Of course the FBI director at the time of the original Epstein investigation, none other than Robert Mueller.

And in addition to being James Comey's good buddy, Mueller is also Godfather to one of Comey's kids...

I can't pin it down to Maurene specifically, but it's possible at this point.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

I’m not sure how that makes sense considering the deal was made back in 2007.

I'm not trying to speak for the other poster -- just myself -- but it raises my eyebrows because the deal Acosta made was shameful and unconscionable. He should have been shamed out of the profession for that. But instead, he rose through the ranks.

So I wonder whose idea it was for Trump to appoint him to the position. Did Trump get bad advice from someone? And if so, who? Or was this Trump's idea? And if so, why???

Yeah it’s something to think about. But then again that’s Washington for you.

a reply to: Boadicea

Wow.

Sounds to me like the Clintons (and probably countless others far more nefarious than them) will be getting away with this one!

Watch for future "conclusions" that state certain people directly involved clearly had no intent 😃

Wow. Looks like the Pelosis are throwing down the gauntlet:

(@sfpelosi):

"This Epstein case is horrific and the young women deserve justice. It is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated but we must follow the facts and let the chips fall where they may - whether on Republicans or Democrats.
#WeSaidEnough #MeToo"

Christine Pelosi Twitter

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: Boadicea

Wow.

Sounds to me like the Clintons (and probably countless others far more nefarious than them) will be getting away with this one!

Based on history, that is the logical conclusion to reach.

But maybe times are changing. There's a war brewing in the Democrat party. This may just be a new battle front in that war. We may just be surprised!

originally posted by: xuenchen
Watch for future "conclusions" that state certain people directly involved clearly had no intent 😃

Could very well be!

Or perhaps we'll hear there is "no controlling legal authority" for any/all dirty deeds that occurred in international air space...

a reply to: Boadicea

So I wonder whose idea it was for Trump to appoint him to the position. Did Trump get bad advice from someone? And if so, who? Or was this Trump's idea? And if so, why???

I know Acosta was not Trump's first choice. His first choice withdrew because of scrutiny about a marital dispute that happened 25 years earlier.

I do remember when Trump announced Acosta, he joked that he had to ask if he was kin to Jim Acosta, the acerbic journalist. He said something like 'I had to ask because I wasn't sure' (paraphrasing).

I would be curious as to who recommended him to Trump.

a reply to: queenofswords

I know Acosta was not Trump's first choice. His first choice withdrew because of scrutiny about a marital dispute that happened 25 years earlier.

I do remember when Trump announced Acosta, he joked that he had to ask if he was kin to Jim Acosta, the acerbic journalist. He said something like 'I had to ask because I wasn't sure' (paraphrasing).

I would be curious as to who recommended him to Trump.

Thank you -- very interesting and very good to know.

I would also like to know who recommended him, and on what qualifications.