Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
November 20, 2025
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/lindsey-halligan-reveals-her-dream
The Borowitz Report-Lindsey Halligan Reveals Her Dream is to Someday Go to Law School
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/lindsey-halligan-reveals-her-dream
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan revealed on Wednesday that her lifelong dream is to someday go to law school.
“Some people grow up dreaming of being a doctor or a teacher or a firefighter,” she told reporters. “Ever since I was a little kid I’ve always dreamed of being a lawyer.”
Imagining what life would be like if she went to law school, Halligan said, “I wouldn’t make so many mistakes in court and judges wouldn’t always be yelling at me.”
Halligan indicated she had her “fingers crossed” that she would get into law school someday, but added, “I hope screwing up the Comey case won’t hurt my chances.”
“Some people grow up dreaming of being a doctor or a teacher or a firefighter,” she told reporters. “Ever since I was a little kid I’ve always dreamed of being a lawyer.”
Imagining what life would be like if she went to law school, Halligan said, “I wouldn’t make so many mistakes in court and judges wouldn’t always be yelling at me.”
Halligan indicated she had her “fingers crossed” that she would get into law school someday, but added, “I hope screwing up the Comey case won’t hurt my chances.”
November 20, 2025
MaddowBlog-Trump's 'piggy' comment extends his lengthy record of routine misogyny
When it comes to mistreating women, the president is who he appears to be.
https://x.com/EThompsonWV/status/1991302255405080961
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-piggy-comment-extends-lengthy-record-routine-misogyny-rcna244852
A year later, the carnival continues. My MS NOW colleague Clarissa-Jan Lim reported on what happened when a female reporter pressed the president on his Jeffrey Epstein ties. From the report:
The White House made no effort to deny the accuracy of the quote, which was captured on video, telling MS NOW in a statement that the president’s target deserved the rebuke after engaging in “inappropriate and unprofessional” conduct......
Complicating matters, however, is the familiarity of the circumstances. Meidas News’ Ron Filipkowski put together a video montage that highlights examples of Trump insulting, berating, demeaning and attacking female reporters — just over the past few months.
There were so many examples that Filipkowski soon after released a sequel.
Trump is, in other words, exactly who he appears to be. He’s the man in the E. Jean Carroll case. He’s the one on the “Access Hollywood” recording. He’s the Republican who suggested some of the women who’ve accused him of sexual misconduct weren’t attractive enough to attack. He’s the politician who vowed to “protect” women from the White House “whether the women like it or not.”
He’s also the one who didn’t hesitate to shut down a reporter asking a reasonable question by calling her “piggy.”
During a press gaggle on Air Force One on Friday, the reporter asked the president about one of the emails Epstein wrote about him that Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released last week. When she tried to follow up with a question about potentially incriminating details in the Epstein files, Trump pointed and said, “Quiet. Quiet, Piggy.”
The White House made no effort to deny the accuracy of the quote, which was captured on video, telling MS NOW in a statement that the president’s target deserved the rebuke after engaging in “inappropriate and unprofessional” conduct......
Complicating matters, however, is the familiarity of the circumstances. Meidas News’ Ron Filipkowski put together a video montage that highlights examples of Trump insulting, berating, demeaning and attacking female reporters — just over the past few months.
Montage of 19 clips of Trump insulting, berating, demeaning and attacking female reporters over the past few months. Part 1.
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T13:13:48.210Z
There were so many examples that Filipkowski soon after released a sequel.
Part 2
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T13:15:47.452Z
Trump is, in other words, exactly who he appears to be. He’s the man in the E. Jean Carroll case. He’s the one on the “Access Hollywood” recording. He’s the Republican who suggested some of the women who’ve accused him of sexual misconduct weren’t attractive enough to attack. He’s the politician who vowed to “protect” women from the White House “whether the women like it or not.”
He’s also the one who didn’t hesitate to shut down a reporter asking a reasonable question by calling her “piggy.”
November 20, 2025
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pardoned-jan-6-rioter-arrested-child-molestation-charges-adding-patter-rcna244802
Maddowblog-Pardoned Jan. 6 rioter arrested on child molestation charges, adding to pattern
Donald Trump has tried to downplay the number of accused Jan. 6 criminals who’ve ended up in legal trouble again, but the list is long and growing.
The list of Jan. 6 criminals who ended up getting arrested again after receiving Trump pardons is long and growing.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-11-19T16:44:26.468Z
The Andrew Johnson case out of Florida, however, is especially galling. www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pardoned-jan-6-rioter-arrested-child-molestation-charges-adding-patter-rcna244802
At a White House event last month, a reporter asked Donald Trump for his reaction to the arrest of a pardoned Jan. 6 rioter after he allegedly threatened to assassinate a congressional leader. “You have thousands of people that we’re dealing with and, you know, if one goes haywire,” the president said, before changing the subject midsentence.
If he were right, and just one of the Jan. 6 criminals he pardoned had ended up in legal trouble again, Trump’s reaction might have been defensible. But the growing list has many more than one name on it. NBC News reported:
....A recent New York Times report noted a variety of other examples, including Brent Holdridge, a pardoned Jan. 6 criminal who was arrested again in May in connection with a string of alleged thefts of industrial copper, and Matthew W. Huttle, who was fatally shot by a sheriff’s deputy in January after he resisted arrest during a traffic stop, shortly after receiving a presidential pardon.
What’s more, this growing list doesn’t include John Banuelos, a Jan. 6 rioter who was arrested last month on kidnapping and sexual assault charges. Banuelos wasn’t pardoned, but he saw his Jan. 6 criminal case dropped by Trump’s Justice Department the day after the Republican’s second inauguration.
The president has also begun repardoning some Jan. 6 rioters, shielding them from accountability for other crimes, unrelated to their insurrectionist assault on the U.S. Capitol; but in most of the aforementioned cases, the accused are facing state and local charges, not federal charges.
In other words, if they’re waiting for another presidential rescue, they’re going to be disappointed.
If he were right, and just one of the Jan. 6 criminals he pardoned had ended up in legal trouble again, Trump’s reaction might have been defensible. But the growing list has many more than one name on it. NBC News reported:
A man pardoned by President Donald Trump for storming the Capitol was arrested on child molestation charges, according to Florida officials, who said he tried to use an anticipated Jan. 6 payout to silence the victim. Andrew Paul Johnson, 44, was arrested in Tennessee in August and extradited to Florida on charges of lewd/lascivious molestation, lewd/lascivious exhibition and transmission of material harmful to a minor.
....A recent New York Times report noted a variety of other examples, including Brent Holdridge, a pardoned Jan. 6 criminal who was arrested again in May in connection with a string of alleged thefts of industrial copper, and Matthew W. Huttle, who was fatally shot by a sheriff’s deputy in January after he resisted arrest during a traffic stop, shortly after receiving a presidential pardon.
What’s more, this growing list doesn’t include John Banuelos, a Jan. 6 rioter who was arrested last month on kidnapping and sexual assault charges. Banuelos wasn’t pardoned, but he saw his Jan. 6 criminal case dropped by Trump’s Justice Department the day after the Republican’s second inauguration.
The president has also begun repardoning some Jan. 6 rioters, shielding them from accountability for other crimes, unrelated to their insurrectionist assault on the U.S. Capitol; but in most of the aforementioned cases, the accused are facing state and local charges, not federal charges.
In other words, if they’re waiting for another presidential rescue, they’re going to be disappointed.
November 20, 2025
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/failure-trumps-case-cnn-offers-lessons-media-outlets-rcna244847
MaddowBlog-The failure of Trump's case against CNN offers lessons for other media outlets
The demise of the president’s case is a demonstration of the benefits of fighting back — and of the folly of appeasement.
The failure of Trump’s case against CNN offers lessons for other media outlets
— Redeem the soul America (@rneagle.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T22:50:46.208Z
The demise of the president’s case is a demonstration of the benefits of fighting back — and of the folly of appeasement.
apple.news/AkNg-guVwTpe...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/failure-trumps-case-cnn-offers-lessons-media-outlets-rcna244847
In 2022, roughly two years after Donald Trump lost his reelection bid, the Republican apparently thought it’d be a good idea to sue CNN for $475 million, alleging that the news network had defamed him and taken actions aimed at “defeating him politically.” My MS NOW colleague Hayes Brown took a closer look at the specific claims raised by Trump’s lawyers and concluded, “All told, this is less a case of defamation and more a case of crying ‘they were mean to me.’”
A lower court agreed and rejected the case in 2023. As my MS NOW colleague Jordan Rubin reported, an appellate court came to the same conclusion this week.
......In the weeks and months that followed, Trump has repeatedly pointed to these controversial settlement agreements as evidence of his targets’ guilt, even as those networks denied any wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, news organizations that stood up for themselves and pushed back against the ridiculous attempts at intimidation have prevailed.
Let this be a lesson to the larger political world: The only way to lose in a fight against Trump is to pursue a course rooted in appeasement. It’s true when it comes to law firms; it’s true when it comes to higher education; and it’s true in his court fights against news organizations.
A lower court agreed and rejected the case in 2023. As my MS NOW colleague Jordan Rubin reported, an appellate court came to the same conclusion this week.
President Donald Trump lost his bid to revive his defamation lawsuit against CNN for the network’s use of the phrase ‘Big Lie,’ regarding his claims about the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden. The unanimous ruling came from a three-judge appellate panel on Tuesday, with two of the judges being Trump appointees.
......In the weeks and months that followed, Trump has repeatedly pointed to these controversial settlement agreements as evidence of his targets’ guilt, even as those networks denied any wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, news organizations that stood up for themselves and pushed back against the ridiculous attempts at intimidation have prevailed.
Let this be a lesson to the larger political world: The only way to lose in a fight against Trump is to pursue a course rooted in appeasement. It’s true when it comes to law firms; it’s true when it comes to higher education; and it’s true in his court fights against news organizations.
November 20, 2025
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-epstein-files-release-bill-pam-bondi-exceptions-rcna244810
Deadline Legal Blog-How the Trump administration can keep some Epstein files secret under the new bill
The Justice Department could cling to exceptions for withholding or redacting information related to Jeffrey Epstein and his associates.
How the Trump administration can keep some Epstein files secret under the new bill - MS NOW
— (@oc88.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T19:41:25.783Z
apple.news/AfSITt9A9S2u...
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-epstein-files-release-bill-pam-bondi-exceptions-rcna244810
But a closer look at the bill reveals that “all” doesn’t really mean “all.”
In fact, the administration has much to work with in the bill’s exceptions to the rule requiring disclosure.
Even as Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested at a press conference on Wednesday that the government had “new information, additional information” and promised to “investigate any leads” and “provide maximum transparency under the law,” the bill says that the attorney general “may withhold or redact” records across several categories listed in the bill. That includes material that “would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution,” which is notable in light of Trump’s recent command to investigate Democrats tied to Epstein. The bill says that any withholding of information on grounds of active investigations or ongoing cases must be “narrowly tailored and temporary,” but the bill seems to leave that determination to the attorney general herself. A broad investigation by the Justice Department could have far-reaching implications for keeping records secret.
Another potential exception to what can be released is information related to “national defense or foreign policy.” The bill says that such information would need to be classified pursuant to executive order.
The bill also says that records can’t be withheld or redacted for reasons of “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.” But that section could conflict with exceptions for disclosure, depending on what exactly is in the files.,,,,,,
The bill says all redactions “must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.” And it adds that all decisions “to classify any covered information after July 1, 2025 shall be published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress, including the date of classification, the identity of the classifying authority, and an unclassified summary of the justification.”
So if Trump signs the bill, we will be looking at what information is released within a month. But we’ll also want to keep a close eye on the explanations the administration gives for what it has deemed fit to keep secret.
In fact, the administration has much to work with in the bill’s exceptions to the rule requiring disclosure.
Even as Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested at a press conference on Wednesday that the government had “new information, additional information” and promised to “investigate any leads” and “provide maximum transparency under the law,” the bill says that the attorney general “may withhold or redact” records across several categories listed in the bill. That includes material that “would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution,” which is notable in light of Trump’s recent command to investigate Democrats tied to Epstein. The bill says that any withholding of information on grounds of active investigations or ongoing cases must be “narrowly tailored and temporary,” but the bill seems to leave that determination to the attorney general herself. A broad investigation by the Justice Department could have far-reaching implications for keeping records secret.
Another potential exception to what can be released is information related to “national defense or foreign policy.” The bill says that such information would need to be classified pursuant to executive order.
The bill also says that records can’t be withheld or redacted for reasons of “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.” But that section could conflict with exceptions for disclosure, depending on what exactly is in the files.,,,,,,
The bill says all redactions “must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.” And it adds that all decisions “to classify any covered information after July 1, 2025 shall be published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress, including the date of classification, the identity of the classifying authority, and an unclassified summary of the justification.”
So if Trump signs the bill, we will be looking at what information is released within a month. But we’ll also want to keep a close eye on the explanations the administration gives for what it has deemed fit to keep secret.
November 19, 2025
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/court-rejects-texas-law-requiring-display-ten-commandments-public-scho-rcna244778
Maddowblog-Court rejects Texas law requiring display of Ten Commandments in public schools
The Supreme Court already ruled against the Ten Commandments in classrooms. That’s why lawsuits against new Republican-imposed displays keep winning.
Republicans in several states keep trying to impose Ten Commandments displays on public school kids.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-11-19T19:12:20.750Z
Judges keep telling them, “You can't do that.â€
Take the latest case out of Texas, for example. www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/court-rejects-texas-law-requiring-display-ten-commandments-public-scho-rcna244778
For Republican officials eager to impose the Ten Commandments on public school students, it’s been a difficult year. In June, for example, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a Louisiana law from taking effect, unanimously ruling that the state-sponsored religion law was “facially unconstitutional.”
In early August, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against a similar Arkansas law on Ten Commandments displays in schools.
Now Texas has joined the club. The New York Times reported:
In his ruling, Garcia wrote that “it is impracticable, if not impossible, to prevent plaintiffs from being subjected to unwelcome religious displays” without stopping school districts from enforcing that law.
The ruling comes roughly three months after a different federal court reached the same conclusion in a related case filed by several Dallas-area families and faith leaders.......
So why would Republicans in several states take a step that the Supreme Court has already rejected? It’s likely because they’re confident that the newly politicized high court and its dominant far-right majority will simply overturn the Stone precedent, doing fresh harm to the wall that’s supposed to separate church and state in this country.
These GOP officials are almost certainly aware of the First Amendment, just as they’re almost certainly aware of the Supreme Court precedent that says they cannot legally do what they’re trying to do. But since the court has moved sharply to the right in the course of the last 45 years, GOP officials in Texas and others are counting on Republican-appointed justices to clear the way for more government-imposed religion in public schools.
That hasn’t happened — at least not yet — which is why these state measures keep losing in court in the meantime.
In early August, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against a similar Arkansas law on Ten Commandments displays in schools.
Now Texas has joined the club. The New York Times reported:
A federal judge ordered some public school districts in Texas on Tuesday to remove Ten Commandment displays from their classroom walls by next month, a victory for families who had argued that the posters infringed on their religious freedom. The ruling from Judge Orlando L. Garcia … applies to 14 public school districts, including ones in Fort Worth, Arlington and Conroe.
In his ruling, Garcia wrote that “it is impracticable, if not impossible, to prevent plaintiffs from being subjected to unwelcome religious displays” without stopping school districts from enforcing that law.
The ruling comes roughly three months after a different federal court reached the same conclusion in a related case filed by several Dallas-area families and faith leaders.......
So why would Republicans in several states take a step that the Supreme Court has already rejected? It’s likely because they’re confident that the newly politicized high court and its dominant far-right majority will simply overturn the Stone precedent, doing fresh harm to the wall that’s supposed to separate church and state in this country.
These GOP officials are almost certainly aware of the First Amendment, just as they’re almost certainly aware of the Supreme Court precedent that says they cannot legally do what they’re trying to do. But since the court has moved sharply to the right in the course of the last 45 years, GOP officials in Texas and others are counting on Republican-appointed justices to clear the way for more government-imposed religion in public schools.
That hasn’t happened — at least not yet — which is why these state measures keep losing in court in the meantime.
November 19, 2025
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=153106
See also
https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1991248488064036945
I tried to read this dissent but is very disjointed and poorly written.
I am curious to see if any of the other lawyers on this board have seen a dissent this strange
Texas Redistricting opinion-There is a crazed dissent that is really strange
I have read a ton of opinions over the years and this is the strangest dissent that I have ever seen. I have been volunteering on election law/voting rights matters since 2004 and Prof. Hasen is a great source of information in this area. This dissent is nuts
Judge Jerry Smith Issues His 104-Page Dissent to Yesterday’s 3-Judge District Court Holding that Texas’s Re-Redistricting is Likely an Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander. Along the Way He Calls Out the “Pernicious†& “Outrageous†Behavior of Judge Brown in the Majority electionlawblog.org?p=153106
— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T20:44:24.987Z
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=153106
It begins with a remarkable attack on Judge Brown (a Trump appointee) explaining that Smith was not responsible for any delay in issuing the decision:
And then turning to the merits:
[This post is in progress]
In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved.
In summary, Judge Brown has issued a 160-page opinion without giving me any reasonable opportunity to respond. I will set forth the details. The readers can judge for themselves.
And then turning to the merits:
The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros andmGavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law. I dissent.
In the interest of time, this dissent is, admittedly, disjointed. Usually, in dissenting from an opinion of this length, I would spend more days refining and reorganizing the dissent for purposes of impact and readability. But that approach is not reasonably possible here because these two judges have not allowed it.
The resulting dissent is far from a literary masterpiece. If, however, there were a Nobel Prize for Fiction, Judge Brown’s opinion would be a prime candidate.
[This post is in progress]
See also
https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1991248488064036945
I tried to read this dissent but is very disjointed and poorly written.
I am curious to see if any of the other lawyers on this board have seen a dissent this strange
November 19, 2025
https://www.lawdork.com/p/breaking-judge-boasberg-says-justice
Breaking: Judge Boasberg says "justice requires" him to continue contempt inquiry into Trump admin
The DOJ ignored Judge Boasberg's ruling and sent people out of the country. After some fun litigation and hearings, Judge Boasberg has been given the clearance to pursue contempt of court proceeding against the trump DOJ. This will be fun to watch. This is a pissed off judge
Boasberg is now proceeding with the preliminary injunction hearing in the remaining case before him about the people now-previously sent to CECOT.
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T19:14:51.707Z
I will not be live-posting about this portion because I am going to write.
More to come at Law Dork: www.lawdork.com
https://www.lawdork.com/p/breaking-judge-boasberg-says-justice
Chief Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. District Court announced that he will be continuing with contempt proceedings against the Trump administration, planning to hold hearings beginning the Monday after Thanksgiving over the March 15 flights that took people to El Salvador’s CECOT prison.
“I certainly intend to find out what happened on that day,” Boasberg, who heard the original case brought on March 15 against President Donald Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation and is still hearing an amended challenge related to those sent to, and now released from, CECOT.
The flights — which were in the air when Boasberg issued a classwide temporary restraining order blocking deportation of anyone under Trump’s AEA proclamation — have been the subject of significant questions and damning revelations since before Boasberg had even issued his order.
The brief discussion was added on November 17 to a previously scheduled Wednesday hearing in the case following the November 14 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that had the effect of sending jurisdiction over the contempt proceedings back to Boasberg’s district court.
“Justice requires me to move promptly on this,” Boasberg announced minutes into Wednesday’s hearing.
“I certainly intend to find out what happened on that day,” Boasberg, who heard the original case brought on March 15 against President Donald Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation and is still hearing an amended challenge related to those sent to, and now released from, CECOT.
The flights — which were in the air when Boasberg issued a classwide temporary restraining order blocking deportation of anyone under Trump’s AEA proclamation — have been the subject of significant questions and damning revelations since before Boasberg had even issued his order.
The brief discussion was added on November 17 to a previously scheduled Wednesday hearing in the case following the November 14 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that had the effect of sending jurisdiction over the contempt proceedings back to Boasberg’s district court.
“Justice requires me to move promptly on this,” Boasberg announced minutes into Wednesday’s hearing.
November 19, 2025
https://www.rawstory.com/lindsay-halligan-grand-jury-comey/
'Unreal incompetence': Lindsey Halligan makes stunning 'admission' about James Comey case
Halligan needs to be sanctioned and this indictment dismissed
'Unreal incompetence': Lindsey Halligan makes stunning 'admission' about James Comey case
— #TuckFrump (@realtuckfrumper.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T17:23:53.000Z
https://www.rawstory.com/lindsay-halligan-grand-jury-comey/
President Donald Trump's hand-picked interim U.S. attorney delivered bombshell testimony that may have destroyed her case against former FBI Director James Comey.
Lindsay Halligan, who was tapped as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, admitted during brief testimony Wednesday that the indictment in the case against the Trump foe was never shown to or voted on by a full grand jury before it was presented in open court, reported CNN.
"HUGE development IN hearing for Comey selective prosecution motion," posted former federal prosecutor Harry Litman. "It turns out that the grand jury NEVER saw the operative indictment. Whole separate basis for dismissal."
Comey's defense team argued that development should prevent further prosecution in the case, saying "there is no indictment," and Judge Michael Nachmanoff gave the Department of Justice until 5 p.m. to respond to the revelations.
"This is almost unreal incompetence," posted Chris Geidner, author of the "Lawdork" blog.
Defense attorney Michael Dreeben argued in the hearing the case was brought at Trump's direction and based on his animosity to the former FBI director, and federal prosecutor Tyler Lemons responded by arguing that Halligan was “not a puppet."
Lindsay Halligan, who was tapped as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, admitted during brief testimony Wednesday that the indictment in the case against the Trump foe was never shown to or voted on by a full grand jury before it was presented in open court, reported CNN.
"HUGE development IN hearing for Comey selective prosecution motion," posted former federal prosecutor Harry Litman. "It turns out that the grand jury NEVER saw the operative indictment. Whole separate basis for dismissal."
Comey's defense team argued that development should prevent further prosecution in the case, saying "there is no indictment," and Judge Michael Nachmanoff gave the Department of Justice until 5 p.m. to respond to the revelations.
"This is almost unreal incompetence," posted Chris Geidner, author of the "Lawdork" blog.
Defense attorney Michael Dreeben argued in the hearing the case was brought at Trump's direction and based on his animosity to the former FBI director, and federal prosecutor Tyler Lemons responded by arguing that Halligan was “not a puppet."
November 19, 2025
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/james-comey-doj-case-hearing-11-19-25
Lindsey Halligan says full grand jury never saw final indictment it handed up against Comey
This is a fraud on the court. This indictment will be dismissed and Halligan should be sanctioned/disbarred
University of Miami School of Law: Lindsey Halligan says Full Grand Jury Never saw Final Indictment It Handed Up against Comey www.cnn.com/politics/liv...
— ljconrad (@ljconrad.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T17:04:31.920Z
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/james-comey-doj-case-hearing-11-19-25
The full grand jury never reviewed the indictment it handed up against former FBI Director James Comey, interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan conceded Wednesday.
In a shocking back and forth, prosecutors said that instead of presenting a new indictment to the grand jury after it declined to approve one of the counts, Halligan simply brought an altered version to the magistrate’s courtroom for the grand jury’s foreperson to sign.
“The new indictment wasn’t a new indictment,” prosecutor Tyler Lemons said, attempting to justify that it was only reviewed by the foreperson.
Judge Michael Nachmanoff quickly called Halligan, who was the only prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, to the lectern, asking her to confirm that the entire grand jury was never presented the altered indictment.....
Comey’s attorney Michael Dreeben then argued to the judge that, given the testimony of the prosecutor, “no indictment was returned.”
“There is no indictment,” he said, adding that the statute of limitations has now elapsed against Comey on charges of lying to Congress.
In a shocking back and forth, prosecutors said that instead of presenting a new indictment to the grand jury after it declined to approve one of the counts, Halligan simply brought an altered version to the magistrate’s courtroom for the grand jury’s foreperson to sign.
“The new indictment wasn’t a new indictment,” prosecutor Tyler Lemons said, attempting to justify that it was only reviewed by the foreperson.
Judge Michael Nachmanoff quickly called Halligan, who was the only prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, to the lectern, asking her to confirm that the entire grand jury was never presented the altered indictment.....
Comey’s attorney Michael Dreeben then argued to the judge that, given the testimony of the prosecutor, “no indictment was returned.”
“There is no indictment,” he said, adding that the statute of limitations has now elapsed against Comey on charges of lying to Congress.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 172,904