• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Predict Trump's first revenge prosecutions!

Andy_Ross said:
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
Click to expand...

Maybe even pump the brakes.
Proofread people. It makes you look a lot less incompetent. Maybe even like you thought before rage posting.
 
Segnosaur said:
Doesn't necessarily mean the Trump admin won't try though.

I suppose they could also try the appeals court.
Click to expand...
Since this may be a case of first impression, an appeal is ordinarily highly appropriate. It's unfortunate that this Justice Department is the one pursuing it.

The other problem is that dismissing the case on the grounds that the indictment is void moots all the pending actions that go more incisively at the malicious, irregular, and corrupt way the prosecution has proceeded. All the ineptitude before the grand jury goes away. All the evidentiary shenanigans go away. Those causes would possibly have resulted in a dismissal with prejudice.
 
Page 13 of Judge Currie's opinion might provide some clue to how the US Supreme Court might respond to Pam Bondi's interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 546:

Under the Government’s interpretation, Attorney General appointees can “serve indefinitely” “without Senate confirmation” as long as the Attorney General “revisit[ s ] her interim appointments every 120 days.” ECF No. 137 at 9. But if that were correct, the Attorney General could prevent interim appointments from ever “expir[ing] under subsection (c)(2),” which in turn would prevent the district court from ever exercising its appointment power under subsection (d). 28 U.S.C. § 546(d)....

The Government’s interpretation also conflicts with section 546’s statutory history....From 1986 to 2006, section 546 was identical to its current form.14
Click to expand...

Here is footnote 14, with my highlighting:
14Three days after Congress enacted the 1986 law, an Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) memorandum authored by then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General Samuel Alito concluded the statute does not allow “the Attorney General [to] make another appointment pursuant to [subsection (a)] after the expiration of the 120-day period.” Memorandum from Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Deputy Assistant Att’y Gen., Off. of Legal Couns., to William P. Tyson, Dir., Exec. Off. for U.S. Att’ys 3 (Nov. 13, 1986), available at https://perma.cc/SD5Q-7CPH. “The statutory plan,” Alito reasoned, “discloses a Congressional purpose that after the expiration of the 120-day period further interim appointments are to be made by the court rather than by the Attorney General.”

...Though not binding, OLC’s “contemporaneous[]” interpretation of section 546 further supports Mr. Comey’s position....
Click to expand...
 
Lindsay is a very talented lawyer

Reporter: This week we saw those cases against James Comey and Letitia James tossed out. Do you still have faith in Lindsay Halligan?

Trump: Oh, she’s great. I think she’s great. They got out on a technicality, and you’ll see what happens from here on. But if you look at the actual charges, I think anybody that looks at it very fairly would say, boy, are they guilty. So let’s see what happens over the next week. You know, the court didn’t say you couldn’t bring the case, re-bring the case, or appeal the case. So they have a lot of options. They’re going to call that shot. I’m not calling that shot. But Lindsay is a very talented lawyer

https://twitter.com/x/status/1993490630828531903
 
Jack by the hedge said:
The "technicality" was that Halligan technically made a pig's ear of the procedure, right?
Click to expand...
No, those were (some of) the technicalities (plural) that would have resulted in dismissal had it not first been dismissed because President Trump and AG Pam Bondi made a pig's ear of the procedure for appointing an interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The court that was given jurisdiction over that question (to avoid a potential conflict of interest) ruled (quoting both Aileen Cannon and Samuel Alito!) that Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed, and therefore lacked any legal status that would authorize her to supervise a grand jury or to sign an indictment.

That distinction is worth making because Trump and Bondi have said they intend to appeal the dismissal. If that appeal were to succeed (unlikely), the case might still be dismissed for a different reason: the pig's ears (plural) that Halligan made of several grand jury procedures (plural). Or it might be dismissed for yet another reason: selective and vindictive prosecution, for which all three of Trump, Bondi, and Halligan are responsible.

(Edited to add a missing "and".)
 
Last edited:
Suck it Trump.

Grand jury declines to indict N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James, less than two weeks after the first case was dismissed​

Federal officials failed to secure the new indictment against James, whom Trump has targeted, after a judge said the previous one was secured by an unlawfully appointed prosecutor.
The Justice Department on Thursday failed to secure an indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James, a person familiar with the matter told NBC News.

The presentation to the grand jury came less than two weeks after the original criminal case against her was dismissed.
Click to expand...
 
JayUtah said:
Dept. of Justice tried to refile the case against Letitia James and got no-billed by a Virginia federal grand jury.
Click to expand...
Yes. The last, faint hope of democracy is the fact that both regular and grand juries are rejecting prosecutions against Trump's "enemies". The one thing that Trump cannot bully or overrule.

Pushback against fascism isn't being provided by congress (GOP is complicit, democrats don't have power.) Its not provided by the cabinet. Its not provided by the courts (The supreme court is pro-fascist, and the Trump administration regularly ignores lower court rulings.)

The one bright spot is that these juries are taking a look at what Stubby McBonespurs is trying to do and is saying "nope".
 
Segnosaur said:
Yes. The last, faint hope of democracy is the fact that both regular and grand juries are rejecting prosecutions against Trump's "enemies". The one thing that Trump cannot bully or overrule.
Click to expand...
Yet.

I imagine it won't be too long before grand jury qualification forms start containing language asking about "anti-American" sentiments or activities in order to keep "woke ideology" out of jury pools.
 
Why not, right? The Trumpublicans want to pick who votes in elections, so picking who can be in juries is a lateral move.
 
JayUtah said:
Yet.

I imagine it won't be too long before grand jury qualification forms start containing language asking about "anti-American" sentiments or activities in order to keep "woke ideology" out of jury pools.
Click to expand...
See, I'm thinking more along the lines of loosening up the rules about what you can show a grand jury. You know how police are allowed to lie to a suspect during an interrogation? Let's just extend that to the next step in the process and let prosecutors lie to grand juries.

Under the current system, the DOJ may not be able to indict a suspect, even if the President has already said that the suspect is a bad person!
 
dasmiller said:
See, I'm thinking more along the lines of loosening up the rules about what you can show a grand jury. You know how police are allowed to lie to a suspect during an interrogation? Let's just extend that to the next step in the process and let prosecutors lie to grand juries.

Under the current system, the DOJ may not be able to indict a suspect, even if the President has already said that the suspect is a bad person!
Click to expand...

If Trump has said someone's guilty how dare anyone question it, he's a busy man and might not even have had time to decide what they're guilty of yet!
 
Reporter: Alina Habba says she’s stepping down after the court disqualified her

Trump: She’s not disqualified. You got a blue slip thing that’s horrible. The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves… If I put up George Washington and Abraham Lincoln to be U.S. Attorney in New Jersey or to be U.S. Attorney in Virginia, they will not approve them..

https://twitter.com/x/status/1998131001693004211
 
Andy_Ross said:
Trump: She’s not disqualified. You got a blue slip thing that’s horrible.
Click to expand...
No, this is not the informal "blue slip" process by which a state's senators are given the opportunity to approve candidates for judges.

Andy_Ross said:
[Trump con'td] The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves…
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom