Lindsey Halligan, and the dog that ate the transcript.

Say it aint so · Thursday at 6:05 PM

Judge appears skeptical of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim US attorney

At a James Comey / Leticia Jame motion hearing at federal court today, the Judge in anticipating of receiving the Grand Jury transcript that Lindsey Halligan neglected to provide the first time it was requested, came up at today's motion. The Judge noted despite the second request the transcript is still not there. In response the DOJ with Halilgan at the helm responded, one doesn't exist. And the reason why it didn't exist was because there was no court reporter there. I kid you not. In their motion defense the DOJ lawyer argued that DOJ Pam Bondi had reviewed the transcript in a signed statement.

""Justice Department attorney Henry Whitaker urged Currie to treat questions about Halligan’s appointment as, at most, a “paperwork error” and emphasized that Bondi had reviewed the grand jury materials and agreed to retroactively “ratify” Halligan’s actions, even if her initial appointment is deemed invalid.

But Currie said the missing component of the grand jury transcript called into question the sufficiency of Bondi’s review.

“It became obvious to me that the attorney general could not have reviewed those portions of the transcript presented by Ms. Halligan,” Currie said. The judge also questioned why Bondi signed a statement saying she had reviewed Halligan’s actions before the grand jury when transcripts of some of that presentation “did not exist.”

“She couldn’t have,” Currie said.""

I mean either someone or all of them are lying to the judge. Under any other presidency or congress these folks would have been hauled into congress to answer questions of incompetancy and/or fired. But this is the Trump admin where competence takes a back seat to loyalty.

durangodawood · Thursday at 7:16 PM

Say it aint so said:
....I mean either someone or all of them are lying to the judge. Under any other presidency or congress these folks would have been hauled into congress to answer questions of incompetancy and/or fired. But this is the Trump admin where incompetance takes a back seat to loyalty.

I think you mean incompetence drives the bus. (Because, generally, competence has a lot to lose signing on to this corrupt clown show.)

Richard T · Friday at 4:56 AM

Say it aint so said:
Judge appears skeptical of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim US attorney

At a James Comey / Leticia Jame motion hearing at federal court today, the Judge in anticipating of receiving the Grand Jury transcript that Lindsey Halligan neglected to provide the first time it was requested, came up at today's motion. The Judge noted despite the second request the transcript is still not there. In response the DOJ with Halilgan at the helm responded, one doesn't exist. And the reason why it didn't exist was because there was no court reporter there. I kid you not. In their motion defense the DOJ lawyer argued that DOJ Pam Bondi had reviewed the transcript in a signed statement.

""Justice Department attorney Henry Whitaker urged Currie to treat questions about Halligan’s appointment as, at most, a “paperwork error” and emphasized that Bondi had reviewed the grand jury materials and agreed to retroactively “ratify” Halligan’s actions, even if her initial appointment is deemed invalid.

But Currie said the missing component of the grand jury transcript called into question the sufficiency of Bondi’s review.

“It became obvious to me that the attorney general could not have reviewed those portions of the transcript presented by Ms. Halligan,” Currie said. The judge also questioned why Bondi signed a statement saying she had reviewed Halligan’s actions before the grand jury when transcripts of some of that presentation “did not exist.”

“She couldn’t have,” Currie said.""

I mean either someone or all of them are lying to the judge. Under any other presidency or congress these folks would have been hauled into congress to answer questions of incompetancy and/or fired. But this is the Trump admin where incompetance takes a back seat to loyalty.

I remember some prophecies that basically said God was going to basically call out corruption in America. Most ran with that thinking that many of the democrats would be shamed. It appears that this is happening but there will be a reckoning too I think for those on the right. It is almost as if two corrupt sides are destroying themselves. It also is a great lesson in discernment for the average American. Putting politicians on a pedestal is never a good idea. Let's get down to working on problems without the bickering. I think things will get bad enough that Americans will wake up and hold politicians more accountable. Perhaps I am too optimistic but I do pray God purges all those that are self serving from government.

Say it aint so · Friday at 7:00 AM

durangodawood said:
I think you mean incompetence drives the bus. (Because, generally, competence has a lot to lose signing on to this corrupt clown show.)

Yes. fixed. thanks

durangodawood · Friday at 8:49 AM

This DoJ nosedive will be consequential for victims of serious crimes, I think. In a bad way.

essentialsaltes · Friday at 3:34 PM

[Ex-prosecutor Joyce] Vance further added, "And, while every attorney general would likely have loved to possess a magic wand that would permit them to fix errors after the fact, that’s not how any of this works."

wing2000 · 2025-11-17T16:55:47-0600

A federal judge on Monday offered a blistering assessment of the Justice Department’s case against former FBI Director James B. Comey, detailing what he described as a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” and possible misconduct that could imperil the prosecution.
.....
After reviewing the grand jury transcripts, the judge said he came away with deep concerns about the process leading to that indictment.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick criticized authorities for their “cavalier” attitude toward the rights of Comey and others. Lindsey Halligan, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney overseeing the case, appeared to have made “fundamental misstatements of the law” to the grand jury that indicted Comey on charges of lying to Congress, he wrote.

“Here, the procedural and substantive irregularities that occurred before the grand jury, and the manner in which evidence presented to the grand jury was collected and used, may rise to the level of government misconduct resulting in prejudice to Mr. Comey,” Fitzpatrick wrote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/17/comey-james-cook-trump-prosecutions-misconduct/

“The court is finding that the government’s actions in this case — whether purposeful, reckless or negligent — raise genuine issues of misconduct, are inextricably linked to the government’s grand jury presentation and deserve to be fully explored by the defense,” Judge Fitzpatrick wrote.

gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.191.0.pdf

Say it aint so · 2025-11-17T19:18:51-0600

wing2000 said:
A federal judge on Monday offered a blistering assessment of the Justice Department’s case against former FBI Director James B. Comey, detailing what he described as a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” and possible misconduct that could imperil the prosecution.
.....
After reviewing the grand jury transcripts, the judge said he came away with deep concerns about the process leading to that indictment.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick criticized authorities for their “cavalier” attitude toward the rights of Comey and others. Lindsey Halligan, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney overseeing the case, appeared to have made “fundamental misstatements of the law” to the grand jury that indicted Comey on charges of lying to Congress, he wrote.

“Here, the procedural and substantive irregularities that occurred before the grand jury, and the manner in which evidence presented to the grand jury was collected and used, may rise to the level of government misconduct resulting in prejudice to Mr. Comey,” Fitzpatrick wrote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/17/comey-james-cook-trump-prosecutions-misconduct/

“The court is finding that the government’s actions in this case — whether purposeful, reckless or negligent — raise genuine issues of misconduct, are inextricably linked to the government’s grand jury presentation and deserve to be fully explored by the defense,” Judge Fitzpatrick wrote.

gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.191.0.pdf

Lindsey Halligan is the next Trump lawyer on the Bingo card to be sanctioned and disbarred.

JSRG · 2025-11-17T20:01:43-0600

Say it aint so said:
Judge appears skeptical of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim US attorney

At a James Comey / Leticia Jame motion hearing at federal court today, the Judge in anticipating of receiving the Grand Jury transcript that Lindsey Halligan neglected to provide the first time it was requested, came up at today's motion. The Judge noted despite the second request the transcript is still not there. In response the DOJ with Halilgan at the helm responded, one doesn't exist. And the reason why it didn't exist was because there was no court reporter there. I kid you not. In their motion defense the DOJ lawyer argued that DOJ Pam Bondi had reviewed the transcript in a signed statement.

""Justice Department attorney Henry Whitaker urged Currie to treat questions about Halligan’s appointment as, at most, a “paperwork error” and emphasized that Bondi had reviewed the grand jury materials and agreed to retroactively “ratify” Halligan’s actions, even if her initial appointment is deemed invalid.

But Currie said the missing component of the grand jury transcript called into question the sufficiency of Bondi’s review.

“It became obvious to me that the attorney general could not have reviewed those portions of the transcript presented by Ms. Halligan,” Currie said. The judge also questioned why Bondi signed a statement saying she had reviewed Halligan’s actions before the grand jury when transcripts of some of that presentation “did not exist.”

“She couldn’t have,” Currie said.""

I mean either someone or all of them are lying to the judge. Under any other presidency or congress these folks would have been hauled into congress to answer questions of incompetancy and/or fired. But this is the Trump admin where competence takes a back seat to loyalty.

I don't think there's reason to believe they were lying to the judge. As noted here:

Bondi’s Retroactive Ratificiation of Her Retroactive Ratification of the Comey Grand Jury Presentation | National Review

The attorney general tries for a second time to shore up Lindsey Halligan’s troubled appointment as prosecutor in the Comey and James cases.

www.nationalreview.com

I assume the AG was not trying to mislead the court. She had no doubt reviewed the portion of the proceeding that had been transcribed earlier — the testimony of the sole witness presented. What was missing was the colloquy between the prosecutor and the grand jury, including legal instructions. Those are often not transcribed. The witness testimony is routinely transcribed because it is often turned over to the defense under discovery rules; the prosecutor’s interaction with the grand jury is recorded but often not transcribed — it’s not discoverable unless there is some colorable allegation of impropriety in the grand jury proceeding.

and

I am not implying that Halligan did something nefarious; I think she’s just inexperienced in the practice of criminal law. As I’ve explained, grand jury proceedings can get chaotic. That’s why most U.S. attorneys’ offices require new prosecutors to observe a few grand jury presentations, then do a few presentations of seemingly simple cases under the watchful eye of an experienced supervisor, before flying solo.

All of this seems to be more likely Halligan having never done a grand jury presentation before (or having prosecuted a case) and messing things up due to the inexperience than anyone actually trying to lie.

wing2000 · 2025-11-18T05:15:32-0600

JSRG said:
All of this seems to be more likely Halligan having never done a grand jury presentation before (or having prosecuted a case) and messing things up due to the inexperience than anyone actually trying to lie.

....it's astounding that an attorney who has no prosecutorial experience whatsoever is attempting to prosecute a former FBI Director.

Larniavc · 2025-11-18T08:49:13-0600

wing2000 said:
“The court is finding that the government’s actions in this case — whether purposeful, reckless or negligent — raise genuine issues of misconduct, are inextricably linked to the government’s grand jury presentation and deserve to be fully explored by the defense,” Judge Fitzpatrick wrote.

The best people.

I think the lesson I have learnt over the last nine or so years about Trump is that his underlings cannot be too competent. Or too honest. They can be honest and incompetent or dishonest and competent but not both honest and competent (at least not for very long).

That’s why I think Trump will not have built anything of long term societal value (apart from accidentally) before he dies.

Say it aint so · 2025-11-18T11:19:34-0600

JSRG said:
I don't think there's reason to believe they were lying to the judge. As noted here:

Bondi’s Retroactive Ratificiation of Her Retroactive Ratification of the Comey Grand Jury Presentation | National Review

The attorney general tries for a second time to shore up Lindsey Halligan’s troubled appointment as prosecutor in the Comey and James cases.

www.nationalreview.com

I assume the AG was not trying to mislead the court. She had no doubt reviewed the portion of the proceeding that had been transcribed earlier — the testimony of the sole witness presented. What was missing was the colloquy between the prosecutor and the grand jury, including legal instructions. Those are often not transcribed. The witness testimony is routinely transcribed because it is often turned over to the defense under discovery rules; the prosecutor’s interaction with the grand jury is recorded but often not transcribed — it’s not discoverable unless there is some colorable allegation of impropriety in the grand jury proceeding.

and

I am not implying that Halligan did something nefarious; I think she’s just inexperienced in the practice of criminal law. As I’ve explained, grand jury proceedings can get chaotic. That’s why most U.S. attorneys’ offices require new prosecutors to observe a few grand jury presentations, then do a few presentations of seemingly simple cases under the watchful eye of an experienced supervisor, before flying solo.

All of this seems to be more likely Halligan having never done a grand jury presentation before (or having prosecuted a case) and messing things up due to the inexperience than anyone actually trying to lie.

“The prosecutor’s statement ... may have reasonably set an expectation in the minds of the grand jurors that rather than the government bear the burden to prove Mr. Comey’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the burden shifts to Mr. Comey to explain away the government’s evidence,” Fitzpatrick wrote.

The judge said Halligan then made a second error behind closed doors by nudging grand jurors into indicting Comey by referencing evidence that she didn’t even present to them.' --NOTUS

I think it's a forgone conclusion that the case and Halligan are toast.

Lindsey Halligan, and the dog that ate the transcript.

Well-Known Member

Judge appears skeptical of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim US attorney​

re Member

Well-Known Member

Judge appears skeptical of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim US attorney​

Well-Known Member

re Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

E pluribus unum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Judge appears skeptical of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim US attorney​

E pluribus unum

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Judge appears skeptical of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim US attorney

Judge appears skeptical of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim US attorney

Judge appears skeptical of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim US attorney