Also, no commingling. But yes, DO NOT LIE TO THE COURT. Just don't. |
Indeed, their cult leader is a big fat liar. Everyone in NY was aware of this. |
|
Direct link to Comey's response today to the governments ridiculousness.
This will be like the NHL playing hockey using DoJ attorneys as the puck. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135.55.0.pdf |
I think any attorneys monitoring these cases should be referring them to the bar association and disciplinary authorities. I'm no attorney but doesnt ABA Rule of Conduct 8.3 require attorneys to report that kind of misconduct? |
|
Well, here comes the first real slap shot from Fitzgerald. The motion to quash and dismiss the indictment due to Halligan's improper appointment. For me, the kicker is how they use US v. TRUMP to show Halligan is unqualified,
"Similarly, in United States v. Trump, 740 F. Supp. 3d 1245 (S.D. Fla. 2024), the court applied these principles when dismissing an indictment on Appointments Clause grounds because of a defect in the appointment of the prosecutor who secured the charges. The court concluded that “[b]ecause Special Counsel Smith’s exercise of prosecutorial power has not been authorized by law,” there was “no way forward aside from dismissal of the Superseding Indictment.” Id. at 1302. Indeed, the government there did not even “propose an alternative course.” Id. The court reasoned that “[i]nvalidation follows directly from the government actor’s lack of authority to take the challenged action in the first place.” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.60.0.pdf |
Poor Lyndsey kicked in the face already.
"To the extent the government expresses concern about adhering to the schedule set by the Court at arraignment, the Court notes that the government has had the materials at issue in its possession for several years and apparently failed to seek any guidance with respect to a filter protocol at any time before October 13, 2025. Moreover, the government was fully aware of Mr. Fitzgerald’s participation in this case as early as September 25, 2025 (ECF 4), and the report that forms the basis of the claim that “[D]efendant used lead defense counsel to improperly disclose classified information” has been public knowledge since its 2019 publication. And yet, the government failed to raise any concern with lead counsel’s representation until the filing of the government’s motion to expedite on October 19, 2025."" https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135.61.0.pdf |