Predict Trump's first revenge prosecutions!
- Thread starter Trebuchet
- Start date
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
IANAL, but as I understand it, the judge is being very tactful with the word "missteps." Imagine a kid who robbed a convenience store, carjacked some passerby to escape, then crashed the car into a school bus and his attorney says, "my client may have made a youthful mistake." It's that kind of tactful.
If Halligan talked to the grand jury without a court reporter present (and it appears that she did), that's a very big deal. If she then lied about that to the judge, that's contempt of court* and could (and SHOULD!) result in jail time. Though I suppose Trump would pardon her.
*IANAL, but I don't think it's perjury. I think it SHOULD be perjury, but I don't think it is.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
While it's often satisfying to read bench slaps against parties we don't like, judges generally have to use restrained language in order to avoid the appearance of prejudice. Here the judge is ruling on a prima facie issue. At this stage, the decision is that there's enough "irregularity" merely to allow the defense to look for wrongdoing and make a case for it that the same judge will rule on later. So at this stage he has to be scrupulously neutral so that his eventual decision on full briefing and hearing won't seem prejudiced.
Yes, that rises to something that could result in dismissal of the relevant charges, albeit without prejudice.
For lawyers, it's a Rule 11 violation that can lead to personal sanctions under Rule 11(c).
It's not perjury because there's no specific oath that applies to a lawyer's statement to a court. It's subsumed by the general oath of office that lawyers take when admitted to a particular bar. And as part of that oath, they're governed by the rules of the court which require candor before the court. If this seems namby-pamby, the rules governing lawyer conduct—taken as a whole—require quite a lot more candor than a party simply swearing to something. It covers a lot more conduct.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Magistrate Judge William E Fitzpatrick enumerates 11 specific issues in section "VI. Findings by the Court", pages 20-22:
- "whether the Richman Warrants were executed in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the orders of the issuing court"
- "whether the government exceeded the scope of the Richman Warrants in 2019 and 2020"
- "whether the government had the lawful authority to search the Richman materials anew in 2025"
- "whether the government’s 2025 seizure of the Richman materials included information beyond the scope of the original warrants"
- "whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law"
- "the facts provide a reasonable basis for the defense to show that they were prejudicedby the government’s use of the Richman materials in the grand jury"
- "whether the government took sufficient steps to avoid the collection and review of privileged materials"
- "whether privileged information was used, directly or indirectly, by the government to prepare and present its grand jury presentation"
- "whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law"
- "whether the grand jury proceedings were infected with constitutional error"
- "the grand jury transcript and recording likely do not reflect the full proceedings"
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
If the government's misconduct is deemed to be willful, that can be grounds for dismissal with prejudice.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
The government's case against Comey brought us more entertainment yesterday in the form of courtroom drama—no, it would be more accurate to say it was courtroom comedy.
The court has established that there were two drafts of the indictment. The first draft charged Comey on three counts. After the grand jury returned no true bill on the first count (meaning the grand jury was not convinced there was enough evidence of that crime to take it to trial), that count was dropped from the second draft. That second draft was the indictment submitted to the court. US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff asked (alleged) interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan whether that second draft was ever shown to any members of the grand jury other than the foreperson. Halligan responded by saying "The foreperson and another grand juror was also present." Which means most members of the grand jury never even saw the indictment that ended up being submitted to the court. Nachmanoff said he "just wanted to make sure" of that irregularity, and Halligan confirmed it.
Assistant US Attorney Tyler Lemons said that was the only way the prosecutors could have handled it. Comey's attorney, Michael Dreeben, said the irregularity means "There is no indictment." Asked to brief the court on what the Gaither v United States precedent has to say about that, Halligan and Lemons submitted seven pages of argument saying their mistake didn't matter.
In a separate filing yesterday, Lindsey Halligan, Gabriel J Diaz, and Tyler Lemons argued that Halligan's misrepresentations of several matters of law (when she was instructing the grand jury) didn't matter either.
Another question before the court is whether the case should be dismissed on grounds of selective and/or vindictive prosecution. On that matter, there is the factual question of whether government attorneys wrote a letter of declination recommending against Comey's prosecution. When Judge Nachmanoff asked whether such a letter existed, Tyler Lemons said that information might be "privileged" because it could be considered internal "work product" not subject to disclosure. As the judge asked several times whether the letter even existed, Lemons refused to answer. When the judge insisted Lemons tell him who had instructed Lemons to avoid discussion of that letter, Lemons named Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
News media reported months ago that career prosecutors had drafted a detailed memo recommending against bringing a case against Comey. That was part of the story surrounding the dismissal of interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Erik Siebert's and his (alleged) replacement by Lindsey Halligan.
The reason I have to say Lindsey Halligan is Siebert's alleged replacement is that there is a legal and factual question as to whether Halligan's appointment followed the lawful process. To avoid a potential conflict of interest, that question is being considered by an entirely separate court in South Carolina. It was the US District Judge in that court, Cameron Currie, who highlighted the fact that there was no court reporter in the room during the final minutes of the grand jury's session. It now appears that the second draft of the indictment was shown to the foreperson and one other member of the grand jury at that time, with no other members of the grand jury present.
In yet a third court, three days ago (17 November), magistrate judge William Fitzpatrick ruled that all grand jury materials must be turned over to Comey's defense team. I have already commented on that ruling.
In short, there are now at least three separate problems that could lead to dismissal of the case against Comey:
If the case is dismissed with prejudice, as now appears to be a distinct possibility, it will be hard for the government to file another version of the case against Comey, as the statute of limitations has now run out.
That's some legal team you've got there, Pam Bondi.
The court has established that there were two drafts of the indictment. The first draft charged Comey on three counts. After the grand jury returned no true bill on the first count (meaning the grand jury was not convinced there was enough evidence of that crime to take it to trial), that count was dropped from the second draft. That second draft was the indictment submitted to the court. US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff asked (alleged) interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan whether that second draft was ever shown to any members of the grand jury other than the foreperson. Halligan responded by saying "The foreperson and another grand juror was also present." Which means most members of the grand jury never even saw the indictment that ended up being submitted to the court. Nachmanoff said he "just wanted to make sure" of that irregularity, and Halligan confirmed it.
Assistant US Attorney Tyler Lemons said that was the only way the prosecutors could have handled it. Comey's attorney, Michael Dreeben, said the irregularity means "There is no indictment." Asked to brief the court on what the Gaither v United States precedent has to say about that, Halligan and Lemons submitted seven pages of argument saying their mistake didn't matter.
In a separate filing yesterday, Lindsey Halligan, Gabriel J Diaz, and Tyler Lemons argued that Halligan's misrepresentations of several matters of law (when she was instructing the grand jury) didn't matter either.
Another question before the court is whether the case should be dismissed on grounds of selective and/or vindictive prosecution. On that matter, there is the factual question of whether government attorneys wrote a letter of declination recommending against Comey's prosecution. When Judge Nachmanoff asked whether such a letter existed, Tyler Lemons said that information might be "privileged" because it could be considered internal "work product" not subject to disclosure. As the judge asked several times whether the letter even existed, Lemons refused to answer. When the judge insisted Lemons tell him who had instructed Lemons to avoid discussion of that letter, Lemons named Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
News media reported months ago that career prosecutors had drafted a detailed memo recommending against bringing a case against Comey. That was part of the story surrounding the dismissal of interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Erik Siebert's and his (alleged) replacement by Lindsey Halligan.
The reason I have to say Lindsey Halligan is Siebert's alleged replacement is that there is a legal and factual question as to whether Halligan's appointment followed the lawful process. To avoid a potential conflict of interest, that question is being considered by an entirely separate court in South Carolina. It was the US District Judge in that court, Cameron Currie, who highlighted the fact that there was no court reporter in the room during the final minutes of the grand jury's session. It now appears that the second draft of the indictment was shown to the foreperson and one other member of the grand jury at that time, with no other members of the grand jury present.
In yet a third court, three days ago (17 November), magistrate judge William Fitzpatrick ruled that all grand jury materials must be turned over to Comey's defense team. I have already commented on that ruling.
In short, there are now at least three separate problems that could lead to dismissal of the case against Comey:
- multiple errors by Lindsey Halligan and her team
- evidence of selective and vindictive prosecution, much of which has been provided by President Trump
- whether Halligan's appointment was even legal
If the case is dismissed with prejudice, as now appears to be a distinct possibility, it will be hard for the government to file another version of the case against Comey, as the statute of limitations has now run out.
That's some legal team you've got there, Pam Bondi.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Yesterday, Lindsey Halligan et al. filed a GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE CORRECTING THE RECORD in which Lindsey Halligan et al. directly contradicted what Lindsey Halligan et al. said in court the day before.
I kid you not. As I wrote here yesterday:
"That claim" (my highlighting), which they now say is conclusively refuted, was made by Halligan and Lemons in Wednesday's court session.
Yesterday's "GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE CORRECTING THE RECORD" concludes by saying:
In particular, the assertions made in court by Lindsey Halligan and Tyler Lemons on Wednesday are, according to Lindsey Halligan and Tyler Lemons, contradicted by the official transcript of the 25 September hearing before Magistrate Judge Vaala.
When Lindsey Halligan et al. contradict Halligan et al. the very next day, it is safe to conclude Halligan et al. are confused, mistaken, or lying.
I kid you not. As I wrote here yesterday:
Halligan, Tyler Lemons, and Gabriel J Diaz are now trying to "correct the record" of what they said on Wednesday by saying "The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively refutes that claim and establishes that the grand jury voted on – and true-billed – the two-count indictment."
"That claim" (my highlighting), which they now say is conclusively refuted, was made by Halligan and Lemons in Wednesday's court session.
Yesterday's "GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE CORRECTING THE RECORD" concludes by saying:
Accordingly, any assertion that the grand jury "never voted on the two-count indictment" is contradicted by the official transcript.
In particular, the assertions made in court by Lindsey Halligan and Tyler Lemons on Wednesday are, according to Lindsey Halligan and Tyler Lemons, contradicted by the official transcript of the 25 September hearing before Magistrate Judge Vaala.
When Lindsey Halligan et al. contradict Halligan et al. the very next day, it is safe to conclude Halligan et al. are confused, mistaken, or lying.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
The Eastern District of Virginia judges have very little tolerance for this sort of screwing around. If anything it's just more evidence of irregularity.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Well, that's not the only explanation.
She could have been replaced with a clone. There is mind control. You are only limited by your imagination!
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Yesterday's news also brought word that
The Associated Press was told of this new development by Christine Bish, a real estate agent who is running for a seat in the US House of Representatives. Bish is a Republican, and has been trying to get prosecutors to go after Adam Schiff. To her dismay, some of those Maryland prosecutors served her with "a subpoena seeking information about communications she may have had with people claiming to be working at the direction of Pulte and Martin."
Ed Martin isn't just the US Pardon Attorney. He is also the director of DoJ's Weaponization Working Group, and has been ordained as a special prosecutor leading investigations into Schiff and New York AG Letitia James. On his first day in office, President Trump named Martin as interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia, where he dismissed 30 prosecutors who had worked on the January 6 cases. Trump wanted Martin's position as US Attorney for DC to become permanent, but Martin's over-the-top support for "Stop the Steal" was too much even for some Republicans. Trump withdrew his nomination when it became clear Martin's nomination wouldn't make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Bill Pulte is the guy who told Trump that Trump would be remembered as one of the "Great American Presidents" if Trump could get the mortgage industry to shift to 50-year mortgages. Before that debacle, Pulte was best known for using his position as head of FHFA to rummage through the mortgage records of prominent Democrats in search of anything he could use to accuse them of mortgage fraud.
Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte and US Pardon Attorney Ed Martin have led the effort to prosecute Adam Schiff (and other perceived enemies of the Trump regime) for mortgage fraud.
The Associated Press was told of this new development by Christine Bish, a real estate agent who is running for a seat in the US House of Representatives. Bish is a Republican, and has been trying to get prosecutors to go after Adam Schiff. To her dismay, some of those Maryland prosecutors served her with "a subpoena seeking information about communications she may have had with people claiming to be working at the direction of Pulte and Martin."
Ed Martin isn't just the US Pardon Attorney. He is also the director of DoJ's Weaponization Working Group, and has been ordained as a special prosecutor leading investigations into Schiff and New York AG Letitia James. On his first day in office, President Trump named Martin as interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia, where he dismissed 30 prosecutors who had worked on the January 6 cases. Trump wanted Martin's position as US Attorney for DC to become permanent, but Martin's over-the-top support for "Stop the Steal" was too much even for some Republicans. Trump withdrew his nomination when it became clear Martin's nomination wouldn't make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Bill Pulte is the guy who told Trump that Trump would be remembered as one of the "Great American Presidents" if Trump could get the mortgage industry to shift to 50-year mortgages. Before that debacle, Pulte was best known for using his position as head of FHFA to rummage through the mortgage records of prominent Democrats in search of anything he could use to accuse them of mortgage fraud.
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
They could be all three. Never leave to stupidity what can best be explained by stupid illegality.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Yesterday (Friday, 21 November 2025), James Comey and his defense team filed a new 29-page motion to dismiss the indictment. Those who are following the case may remember that, on 20 October, Comey filed a 51-page motion to dismiss, along with several exhibits including Exhibit D's list of public statements made by President Donald J Trump and James B Comey. Those who like to follow along in their hymn books can peruse the entire docket, which now consists of 212 entries.
Yesterday's motion to dismiss reiterated Comey's argument (of 20 October) that his prosecution is both selective and vindictive.
Yesterday's motion says "the case should be dismissed because the grand jury never approved the operative indictment....the grand jury rejected the only indictment that the government presented to it." Furthermore, "dismissal is independently warranted because of the government’s misconduct before the grand jury." That misconduct included the government's reliance upon information obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and attorney-client privilege, and also include Lindsey Halligan's "serious misstatements of law to the grand jury."
Yesterday's motion to dismiss also refers to events of the two previous days, Wednesday (19 Nov) and Thursday (20 Nov). For context, it quotes from the transcript of 26 September's return of indictment proceedings before Judge Lindsey R Vaala. (That transcript is not yet available online, but should be available by the end of the month.) In the following quotation, "THE COURT" means Judge Vaala.
Halligan first said she never saw the three-count indictment. Then she said she prepared it, but didn't sign it. Then she said okay, she did sign it. Glad we could get that straight.
Addressing Thursday's "Notice Correcting the Record", submittted by Halligan et al., Comey's motion noticed the fact that Thursday's notice "contradicts numerous other representations that the government has made to this Court." Even if it were true that the two-count indictment was presented to the full grand jury (which would imply that several of the government's statements to the court on Wednesday were untrue), "that would only raise a host of additional problems for the government—not least of which is the apparent absence of any recording of that presentment."
The motion also reiterated Comey's argument that the indictment should be dismissed because it was signed only by "an improperly appointed interim U.S. Attorney." That matter is now before a different court, which (on 28 October) ordered the government to submit "all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts." (Note that Judge Currie (the presiding judge in that court) has been careful to refer to Lindsey Halligan as "the indictment signer", not as the interim US attorney.) On 3 November, the government pretended to comply with that order. On the very next day, Judge Currie noted that the transcript was incomplete and "contains no records or transcripts regarding the presentation of the three-count indictment".
On 31 October, the US Attorney General (Pam Bondi) stepped in to "ratify" Halligan's conduct despite its irregularities. On 13 November, Judge Currie "observed that [Bondi's] purported ratification could not pertain to the entirety of Ms. Halligan’s conduct before the grand jury because the complete transcript had not been prepared until after the purported ratification." Judge Currie also noted that the transcript was incomplete because it ended at 4:28pm. Halligan responded by saying she "had no interaction whatsoever with any members of the grand jury" between 4:28pm and the return proceeding in front of Judge Vaala at 6:40pm. Which means Halligan could not possibly have shown the two-count version of the indictment to the entire grand jury during that time, nor could she have shown it to the grand jury's foreperson during that time.
Yesterday's motion to dismiss reiterated Comey's argument (of 20 October) that his prosecution is both selective and vindictive.
Yesterday's motion says "the case should be dismissed because the grand jury never approved the operative indictment....the grand jury rejected the only indictment that the government presented to it." Furthermore, "dismissal is independently warranted because of the government’s misconduct before the grand jury." That misconduct included the government's reliance upon information obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and attorney-client privilege, and also include Lindsey Halligan's "serious misstatements of law to the grand jury."
Yesterday's motion to dismiss also refers to events of the two previous days, Wednesday (19 Nov) and Thursday (20 Nov). For context, it quotes from the transcript of 26 September's return of indictment proceedings before Judge Lindsey R Vaala. (That transcript is not yet available online, but should be available by the end of the month.) In the following quotation, "THE COURT" means Judge Vaala.
THE COURT: So this has never happened before. I’ve been handed two
documents that are in the Mr. Comey case that are inconsistent with one another.
There seems to be a discrepancy. They’re both signed by the foreperson. The
one that says it’s a failure to concur in an indictment, it doesn’t say with respect
to one count. It looks like they failed to concur across all three counts, so I’m a
little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that
are inconsistent.
MS. HALLIGAN: So I only reviewed the one with the two counts that our office
redrafted when we found out about the two -- two counts that were true billed, and
I signed that one. I did not see the other one. I don’t know where that came from.
THE COURT: You didn’t see it?
MS. HALLIGAN: I did not see that one.
THE COURT: So your office didn’t prepare the indictment that they --
MS. HALLIGAN: No, no, no -- I -- no, I prepared three counts. I only signed the
one -- the two-count. I don’t know which one with three counts you have in your
hands.
THE COURT: Okay. It has your signature on it.
MS. HALLIGAN: Okay. Well...
Halligan first said she never saw the three-count indictment. Then she said she prepared it, but didn't sign it. Then she said okay, she did sign it. Glad we could get that straight.
Addressing Thursday's "Notice Correcting the Record", submittted by Halligan et al., Comey's motion noticed the fact that Thursday's notice "contradicts numerous other representations that the government has made to this Court." Even if it were true that the two-count indictment was presented to the full grand jury (which would imply that several of the government's statements to the court on Wednesday were untrue), "that would only raise a host of additional problems for the government—not least of which is the apparent absence of any recording of that presentment."
The motion also reiterated Comey's argument that the indictment should be dismissed because it was signed only by "an improperly appointed interim U.S. Attorney." That matter is now before a different court, which (on 28 October) ordered the government to submit "all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts." (Note that Judge Currie (the presiding judge in that court) has been careful to refer to Lindsey Halligan as "the indictment signer", not as the interim US attorney.) On 3 November, the government pretended to comply with that order. On the very next day, Judge Currie noted that the transcript was incomplete and "contains no records or transcripts regarding the presentation of the three-count indictment".
On 31 October, the US Attorney General (Pam Bondi) stepped in to "ratify" Halligan's conduct despite its irregularities. On 13 November, Judge Currie "observed that [Bondi's] purported ratification could not pertain to the entirety of Ms. Halligan’s conduct before the grand jury because the complete transcript had not been prepared until after the purported ratification." Judge Currie also noted that the transcript was incomplete because it ended at 4:28pm. Halligan responded by saying she "had no interaction whatsoever with any members of the grand jury" between 4:28pm and the return proceeding in front of Judge Vaala at 6:40pm. Which means Halligan could not possibly have shown the two-count version of the indictment to the entire grand jury during that time, nor could she have shown it to the grand jury's foreperson during that time.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
I am not sure if they can refile against Comey.
Supposedly there was a statute of limitations for the supposed "crimes" he committed, and the first indictment came in just before the deadline. I am not sure if they can refile or if it is too late for them to do so.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
That's excellent news! Ordinarily I would detest having to defend James Comey or a prosecutor, but here the charges were clearly malicious and ill-intended.
We're in uncharted legal territory now. Ordinarily when an indictment is dismissed without prejudice, the (federal) statute of limitations extends another six months. However we may be in a situation where there was never a valid indictment, so that statute may not apply.
Almost certainly the Trump regime will try again to indict Comey, because the goal is to harass him even if there's scant legal justification to do so.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,017
Charges dismissed against Comey and James
A judge has dismissed charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The judge ruled that the appointment of the Justice Department's lawyer, Lindsey Halligan, as interim US Attorney was unlawful and violated the Appointments Clause in the US Constitution.
www.bbc.co.uk
A judge has dismissed charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The judge ruled that the appointment of the Justice Department's lawyer, Lindsey Halligan, as interim US Attorney was unlawful and violated the Appointments Clause in the US Constitution.
Judge dismisses cases against James Comey and Letitia James
A judge rules the US attorney, who brought the case against Trump's political foes, was improperly appointed.
www.bbc.co.uk
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
The judge seems to think that the government cannot re-file against Comey for the reason you mentioned...
From: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/24/james-comey-letitia-james-cases-lindsey-halligan-00666896
Currie dismissed the cases “without prejudice.” .... But the judge suggested that the likelihood of re-indicting Comey remained slim. That’s because the Sept. 30 deadline had elapsed without a “valid” indictment and “there is no legitimate peg” to extend it further.
Doesn't necessarily mean the Trump admin won't try though.
I suppose they could also try the appeals court.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,017
Leavitt: Everybody knows that Comey lied to congress. This judge took an unprecedented action to throw these cases out to shield James Comey and Letitia James of accountability based on a technical ruling. And we believe the attorney in this case Lindsay Halligan is not only extremely qualified but she was in fact legally appointed and I know the department of justice will be appealing this in very short order. So maybe James Comey should pump the breaks on his victory lap