Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot comprehend why these people would risk everything to lie for trump.

Different people likely have different reasons, but in Lindsay’s case I think it’s safe to say she’s just dumb as a rock

+1

This is a case of stupidity, not malice. She gained absolutely nothing from not presenting the 2 count draft indictment to the GJ.

She gained a (purported) indictment. If she did it the right way, they might have voted no on the two count or she might have run out of time. We don't really know the full story of what exactly they did and didn't vote for. We're just getting bits and pieces, most of them filtered through Lindsay herself.

I disagree. The grand jury had already taken a preliminary vote in which it voted to indict on counts two and three.

According to Lindsay. There was some testimony from the foreperson when the indictment was presented to the judge, but it's totally garbled and can be read multiple ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot comprehend why these people would risk everything to lie for trump.

Different people likely have different reasons, but in Lindsay’s case I think it’s safe to say she’s just dumb as a rock

+1

This is a case of stupidity, not malice. She gained absolutely nothing from not presenting the 2 count draft indictment to the GJ.

She gained a (purported) indictment. If she did it the right way, they might have voted no on the two count or she might have run out of time. We don't really know the full story of what exactly they did and didn't vote for. We're just getting bits and pieces, most of them filtered through Lindsay herself.

I disagree. The grand jury had already taken a preliminary vote in which it voted to indict on counts two and three.

Preliminary.

Until they took a final vote, they could change their minds. Moreover, maybe some thought they no billed one count but not another and vice versa. That is why the details are important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot comprehend why these people would risk everything to lie for trump.

Different people likely have different reasons, but in Lindsay’s case I think it’s safe to say she’s just dumb as a rock

+1

This is a case of stupidity, not malice. She gained absolutely nothing from not presenting the 2 count draft indictment to the GJ.

She gained a (purported) indictment. If she did it the right way, they might have voted no on the two count or she might have run out of time. We don't really know the full story of what exactly they did and didn't vote for. We're just getting bits and pieces, most of them filtered through Lindsay herself.

I disagree. The grand jury had already taken a preliminary vote in which it voted to indict on counts two and three.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot comprehend why these people would risk everything to lie for trump.

Different people likely have different reasons, but in Lindsay’s case I think it’s safe to say she’s just dumb as a rock

+1

This is a case of stupidity, not malice. She gained absolutely nothing from not presenting the 2 count draft indictment to the GJ.

She gained a (purported) indictment. If she did it the right way, they might have voted no on the two count or she might have run out of time. We don't really know the full story of what exactly they did and didn't vote for. We're just getting bits and pieces, most of them filtered through Lindsay herself.

There have been complaints files against Halligan in both Florida and Virginia. I guess they will amend them after today.

https://apple.news/AOTWkR5WFSx2rteSu1f_vsw

A legal watchdog group is pushing the state bars of Florida and Virginia to investigate Lindsey Halligan, a Trump appointee who is leading the prosecutions of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The complaint from the Campaign for Accountability, which was submitted to the state bars on Tuesday, accuses Halligan of violating the Virginia State Bar's ethical rules for lawyers in her handling of the criminal charges against Comey and James, two longtime foes of President Trump.
"Ms. Halligan's actions appear to constitute an abuse of power and serve to undermine the integrity of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and erode public confidence in the legal profession and the fair administration of justice," the 17-page complaint reads.

Is there any chance the case survives this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot comprehend why these people would risk everything to lie for trump.

Different people likely have different reasons, but in Lindsay’s case I think it’s safe to say she’s just dumb as a rock

+1

This is a case of stupidity, not malice. She gained absolutely nothing from not presenting the 2 count draft indictment to the GJ.

Anonymous wrote:I cannot comprehend why these people would risk everything to lie for trump.

Different people likely have different reasons, but in Lindsay’s case I think it’s safe to say she’s just dumb as a rock

I know this mess with Halligan was hinky, but I had no idea it would be this bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former AUSA here.

I understand exactly how this happened. I don't think she intended to misrepresent anything; I think she truly had no idea what she was doing and made a mistake that, if she had even a few weeks of experience, she would not have made.

This isn't a defense of her at all. It is indicative of gross incompetence.

You’re being generous. Even without experience any 1L knows the prosecutor must be honest with the judge. And any manager knows to get input from the team. And any civil servant knows that you scrupulously dot your i’s and cross your t’s on a POTUS tasked.

I wasn't clear. I meant I understand the issue with the signing of the indictment. I agree the representations in court were totally inappropriate.

Anonymous wrote:Former AUSA here.

I understand exactly how this happened. I don't think she intended to misrepresent anything; I think she truly had no idea what she was doing and made a mistake that, if she had even a few weeks of experience, she would not have made.

This isn't a defense of her at all. It is indicative of gross incompetence.

You’re being generous. Even without experience any 1L knows the prosecutor must be honest with the judge. And any manager knows to get input from the team. And any civil servant knows that you scrupulously dot your i’s and cross your t’s on a POTUS tasked.

Anonymous wrote:Halligan better get an ethics attorney fast. This is disbar level bad.

This should be prison bad not just disbar bad. It's a gross abuse of power and extremely unconstitutional.

Former AUSA here.

I understand exactly how this happened. I don't think she intended to misrepresent anything; I think she truly had no idea what she was doing and made a mistake that, if she had even a few weeks of experience, she would not have made.

This isn't a defense of her at all. It is indicative of gross incompetence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot comprehend why these people would risk everything to lie for trump.

Because they saw that the law breaking j6 insurrectionists got pardoned, so they will, too.

They are too dumb to know that Trump cannot pardon someone at the state level.

Trump also can’t bring back a law license that’s suspended or revoked.

Anonymous wrote:I cannot comprehend why these people would risk everything to lie for trump.

Because they saw that the law breaking j6 insurrectionists got pardoned, so they will, too.

They are too dumb to know that Trump cannot pardon someone at the state level.