James Comey Indictment

[Anonymous]

Rut Ruh... court transcripts dont lie but go ahead and keep on thinking this will be dismissed. It wont!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rut Ruh... court transcripts dont lie but go ahead and keep on thinking this will be dismissed. It wont!

Then Halligan lied yesterday.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Rut Ruh... court transcripts dont lie but go ahead and keep on thinking this will be dismissed. It wont!

Transcripts don't lie, but people do. Or they simply makes mistakes. The foreperson's testimony is incorrect. Halligan herself testified that by the time she drafted the two-count indictment, the grand jury had been dismissed and only the foreperson and the backup foreperson were there. That makes it impossible for the grand jury to have voted on it.

The same foreperson who testified that the grand jury voted on the two-count endorsement also signed the original indictment but said that no true bills were returned. That was an error that was correct by the magistrate asking him to write in that only one count was dismissed. If the foreperson can make one such obvious error, a second could also easily be made.

See my blog post on this today:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/weblog/2025/11/20/update112025

[jsteele]

It's even worse than I thought. Here is Halligan's submission:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf

She does not at any point in that document say that she presented the redrafted two-count indictment to the grand jury. She is relying on the foreperson's testimony. If she actually presented the redrafted document, she would know about and could state conclusively that she had presented it. She does not say that because to do so would be perjury. Comey's lawyers, assuming they don't all choke on laughter, are going to have a field day with this.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:It's even worse than I thought. Here is Halligan's submission:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf

She does not at any point in that document say that she presented the redrafted two-count indictment to the grand jury. She is relying on the foreperson's testimony. If she actually presented the redrafted document, she would know about and could state conclusively that she had presented it. She does not say that because to do so would be perjury. Comey's lawyers, assuming they don't all choke on laughter, are going to have a field day with this.

The only person to hang will be Halligan (metaphorically of course). Maybe Bondi since she ratified everything. Blanche since he told his minions to obfuscate. It won't be Democrats advising people to be law abiding soldiers and citizens.

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe Hooligan went to the tabloids and excoriated a federal judge. Hooligan is either colossally stupid or devoid of ethics and common sense. She must really want to never be respected by her peers in the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe Hooligan went to the tabloids and excoriated a federal judge. Hooligan is either colossally stupid or devoid of ethics and common sense. She must really want to never be respected by her peers in the law.

She has a BA from Regis University and a law degree from U Miami. Neither of which fall into the category of highly respected institutions. She is a former Miss Colorado and was hired by Trump after she met him at his golf club. None of this is screaming "highly respected lawyer" to me, and while I abhor this waste of taxpayer dollars, it is entertaining to watch her and her team be exposed for the incompetent professionals that they are.

Any chance she can be disbarred for this level of incompetence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's even worse than I thought. Here is Halligan's submission:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf

She does not at any point in that document say that she presented the redrafted two-count indictment to the grand jury. She is relying on the foreperson's testimony. If she actually presented the redrafted document, she would know about and could state conclusively that she had presented it. She does not say that because to do so would be perjury. Comey's lawyers, assuming they don't all choke on laughter, are going to have a field day with this.

The only person to hang will be Halligan (metaphorically of course). Maybe Bondi since she ratified everything. Blanche since he told his minions to obfuscate. It won't be Democrats advising people to be law abiding soldiers and citizens.

But who will punish her and who will enforce the punishment? Not the DOJ certainly...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's even worse than I thought. Here is Halligan's submission:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf

She does not at any point in that document say that she presented the redrafted two-count indictment to the grand jury. She is relying on the foreperson's testimony. If she actually presented the redrafted document, she would know about and could state conclusively that she had presented it. She does not say that because to do so would be perjury. Comey's lawyers, assuming they don't all choke on laughter, are going to have a field day with this.

The only person to hang will be Halligan (metaphorically of course). Maybe Bondi since she ratified everything. Blanche since he told his minions to obfuscate. It won't be Democrats advising people to be law abiding soldiers and citizens.

But who will punish her and who will enforce the punishment? Not the DOJ certainly...

States’ rights!
Lawyers must be admitted to the bar of the state in which they practice. So guessing it will be in the hands of the Florida state bar and Virginia, possibly DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe Hooligan went to the tabloids and excoriated a federal judge. Hooligan is either colossally stupid or devoid of ethics and common sense. She must really want to never be respected by her peers in the law.

She has a BA from Regis University and a law degree from U Miami. Neither of which fall into the category of highly respected institutions. She is a former Miss Colorado and was hired by Trump after she met him at his golf club. None of this is screaming "highly respected lawyer" to me, and while I abhor this waste of taxpayer dollars, it is entertaining to watch her and her team be exposed for the incompetent professionals that they are.

Any chance she can be disbarred for this level of incompetence?

If evidence exists that she flat out lied to the court then yes, absolutely, that is an act for which she could be disbarred. It’s a core ethical mandate that attorneys act always with candor to the court.

That said I have seen more than once in my career attorneys lying to the court and getting away with it. If the court doesn’t know then it rests with opposing counsel who does to make the Bar complaint and for various reasons that can be like opening Pandora's box and many would rather not blow up their life by getting involved in trying to hold a peer accountable to professional discipline.

In this case I think there are probably plenty of people who’d jump at the chance to put this Hooligan’s feet to the fire, and Eva Blondi’s too. It’s so much a matter of open, notorious behavior that the cases would not be hard to make and it is a matter of restoring public confidence in the DOJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe Hooligan went to the tabloids and excoriated a federal judge. Hooligan is either colossally stupid or devoid of ethics and common sense. She must really want to never be respected by her peers in the law.

I don't think she has much of a future in the legal future. trump is the only PO person who considers her competent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rut Ruh... court transcripts dont lie but go ahead and keep on thinking this will be dismissed. It wont!

Lindsay really didn’t think this through. Does she really think the judge is just going to accept her saying the opposite of what she did yesterday? And taking a position that is impossible under the established timeline? Obviously he’s now going to grant comeys motion for the grand jury transcripts and he’s very likely will also get testimony from some of grand jurors. She’s just guaranteed even more scrutiny!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe Hooligan went to the tabloids and excoriated a federal judge. Hooligan is either colossally stupid or devoid of ethics and common sense. She must really want to never be respected by her peers in the law.

I don't think she has much of a future in the legal future. trump is the only PO person who considers her competent.

She'll probably have Bondi's job in a few years. Failing up is a thing in TrumpWorld.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe Hooligan went to the tabloids and excoriated a federal judge. Hooligan is either colossally stupid or devoid of ethics and common sense. She must really want to never be respected by her peers in the law.

She has a BA from Regis University and a law degree from U Miami. Neither of which fall into the category of highly respected institutions. She is a former Miss Colorado and was hired by Trump after she met him at his golf club. None of this is screaming "highly respected lawyer" to me, and while I abhor this waste of taxpayer dollars, it is entertaining to watch her and her team be exposed for the incompetent professionals that they are.

Any chance she can be disbarred for this level of incompetence?

If evidence exists that she flat out lied to the court then yes, absolutely, that is an act for which she could be disbarred. It’s a core ethical mandate that attorneys act always with candor to the court.

That said I have seen more than once in my career attorneys lying to the court and getting away with it. If the court doesn’t know then it rests with opposing counsel who does to make the Bar complaint and for various reasons that can be like opening Pandora's box and many would rather not blow up their life by getting involved in trying to hold a peer accountable to professional discipline.

In this case I think there are probably plenty of people who’d jump at the chance to put this Hooligan’s feet to the fire, and Eva Blondi’s too. It’s so much a matter of open, notorious behavior that the cases would not be hard to make and it is a matter of restoring public confidence in the DOJ.

There is currently a complaint pending as a result of her handling this. It was filed November 11 so I imagine it will be amended.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26222400-cfa-fl-va-bar-complaint-lindsey-halligan/

[Anonymous]

If she somehow manages to navigate the gauntlet she's created for herself to get this to TRIAL, she still has to argue what's considered a completely sh#t case to begin with.