LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal'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/
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."
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
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.
White House Tries to Defend Trump's 'Piggy' Insult
The White House is standing by an insult President Donald Trump hurled at a female reporter.
White House Tries to Defend Trump’s ‘Piggy’ Insult
— Roger Cook (@rogerc91.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T01:45:25.837Z
www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-defends-donald-trumps-piggy-comment/
Trump, 79, drew outrage when he snapped at Bloomberg White House correspondent Catherine Lucey for asking him a question about the notorious Jeffrey Epstein files on Friday.
“If there’s nothing incriminating in the files, sir, why not—” Lucey began to say as the president took questions aboard Air Force One.
Before she could finish, however, Trump pointed his finger at her and barked, “Quiet! Quiet, piggy.”
The remark was roundly blasted as “disgusting” in a torrent of criticism, including from CNN anchor Jake Tapper and former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson, but the White House seems unfazed.
“This reporter behaved in an inappropriate and unprofessional way toward her colleagues on the plane. If you’re going to give it, you have to be able to take,” a White House official told the Daily Beast.......
The testy exchanges are par for the course for Trump, who has a long history of hurling demeaning insults at women.
In 2017, The New York Times columnist Gail Collins recalled that Trump had sent her copies of her columns that he disliked, calling her a “dog and a liar” with “the face of a pig.”
In 2016, Latina beauty queen Alicia Machado, who won the Miss Universe title at age 19 when Trump co-owned the organization, recounted how he would call her “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeping.”
MaddowBlog-Speaker Mike Johnson's strategy on Epstein Files Transparency Act fails in spectacular fashion
As the dust settles on a tumultuous process, spare a thought for the House speaker, whose strategy flopped in multiple ways.
House Speaker Mike Johnson appeared to have a specific strategy on the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-11-19T14:27:41.282Z
It’s amazing just how spectacularly it flopped. www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/speaker-johnsons-strategy-epstein-files-transparency-act-fails-spectac-rcna244767
The legislation initially faced an uncertain fate in the Republican-led Senate, and it was far from clear when or whether the bill would reach the floor. But that’s when things got interesting. As MS NOW reported:
Hours after the House overwhelmingly passed a bill to force the release of files from the Justice Department’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the Senate moved to approve the legislation by unanimous consent — sending the measure to President Donald Trump’s desk and bringing the yearslong campaign to release some of America’s most scrutinized documents to its final stage.
.....Ahead of Tuesday afternoon’s vote, Johnson said he’d vote for the legislation he’d opposed, but there was a catch: The GOP leader said he was “very confident” that the Senate would “amend” the measure and send it back to the House.
In other words, Johnson believed the House vote would simply be the start of a larger process that would include a variety of Senate actions — followed by another House vote.
That didn’t happen. Maybe Johnson was confused; maybe Senate Majority Leader John Thune changed his mind; maybe Republican senators wanted to get it all over with and didn’t much care about the House speaker’s expectations.
Whatever the explanation, Johnson’s strategy flopped.
As work wrapped up on Tuesday night, the House speaker conceded to reporters that he was “deeply disappointed” in the outcome. The reaction wasn’t surprising: Senators from both parties treated Johnson and his concerns like an afterthought, adding to the Louisiana Republican’s list of failures.
Deadline Legal Blog-Trump loses defamation appeal over CNN's use of phrase 'Big Lie' in 2020 election coverage
The unanimous ruling came from a three-judge panel, which included two Trump appointees, and called the president’s arguments “meritless” and “untenable.”
Seems like the orange felon is having quite a day…
— Dr. Robert Karl (@drkarlauthor.bsky.social) 2025-11-18T23:24:38.795Z
Trump loses defamation appeal over CNN’s use of phrase ‘Big Lie’ in 2020 election coverage www.msnbc.com/deadline-whi...
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-defamation-cnn-big-lie-2020-appeal-rcna244649
U.S. District Judge Raag Singhal, also a Trump appointee, had dismissed the president’s suit in 2023 on the grounds that the statements Trump complained about were opinion, not factually false statements, and that he hadn’t shown CNN acted with “actual malice.”
“We agree that Trump did not adequately plead falsity,” the panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit said in affirming the Florida judge’s dismissal. The three judges on the panel were Obama appointee Adalberto Jordan and Trump appointees Kevin Newsom and Elizabeth Branch.
Trump argued that CNN’s use of the “Big Lie” phrase was intended to associate him with Hitler and Nazi propaganda. The panel deemed his claim “unpersuasive,” calling his assumption that the term is clear enough to be a factual statement “untenable.”
The panel called Trump’s other arguments “meritless.” Rejecting his claim that the district judge unfairly limited the analysis to the statements in his complaint, the panel reiterated that “Big Lie” isn’t a factual statement, so how often it was used is irrelevant.
Deadline Legal Blog-Letitia James asserts 'outrageous government conduct' in latest motion to dismiss her case
The New York attorney general’s lawyers write that Trump officials “set out to do what they had been ordered to do: indict AG James.”
https://x.com/SBethlenfalvay/status/1990864946138059174
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/letitia-james-outrageous-government-conduct-motion-dismiss-rcna244607
“Perhaps in no case before this Court has there been a more shocking course of government conduct,” James’ lawyers wrote in a motion filed on Monday. “The unprecedented, extensive, and outrageous misconduct in this case reached its apex when President Donald Trump, as part of his revenge campaign, decided that AG James needed to be indicted, no matter the cost,” they wrote, laying out the argument in a 22-page filing.
Arguing that the bank fraud indictment brought by the Trump-installed prosecutor Lindsey Halligan violates the New York attorney general’s due process rights, the motion calls out the “Trump-directed quartet” of Halligan, Attorney General Pam Bondi, “weaponization czar” Ed Martin and Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte. “Despite the overwhelming lack of evidence or support from career prosecutors,” the motion reads, those officials “set out to do what they had been ordered to do: indict AG James.”
The motion was filed on the same day that a federal magistrate judge issued a scathing assessment of Halligan’s conduct in Comey’s case and took the rare step of ordering the disclosure of all the grand jury materials to the defense. That order is temporarily on hold while Halligan challenges it.
Likewise seeking grand jury disclosures, James on Monday filed her own such motion, in which she raised questions about, among other things, whether the grand jury was properly instructed. The answer could be especially illuminating in light of Comey’s judge observing Monday that Halligan, who hadn’t prosecuted a case before, appeared to make “fundamental misstatements of the law” to the grand jury that indicted the former FBI director. Both he and James have pleaded not guilty to their respective indictments in the Eastern District of Virginia.
MaddowBlog-Trump scrambles to defend Saudi crown prince in an embarrassing display
It’s occasionally tempting to think Trump has hit rock bottom, but then he finds a way to drill a hole in the bottom of the barrel and fall even lower.
Trump scrambles to defend Saudi crown prince in an embarrassing display.
— TheBlackPage (Woke, DEI forever against fascism) (@theblackpage.bsky.social) 2025-11-18T23:31:11.397Z
It’s occasionally tempting to think Trump has hit rock bottom, but then he finds a way to drill a hole in the bottom of the barrel and fall even lower.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-things-happen-saudi-crown-prince-mbs-khashoggi-rcna244681
President Trump brushed aside a reporter’s question about the role Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, played in the death and dismemberment of a Washington Post journalist in 2018, praising the kingdom’s de facto ruler in a joint Oval Office appearance that was heavy on flattery. Mr. Trump strongly defended Prince Mohammed, who U.S. intelligence has said ordered the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, the journalist who was killed by Saudi agents. Prince Mohammed has denied involvement.
Almost immediately after the joint event began, Trump praised the Saudi leader for “the job he’s done in terms of human rights and everything else.” Given the horrific human rights record Saudi Arabia has cultivated over the course of many years, the American president’s commendation was appalling.....
But things deteriorated further soon after.
Q: Is it appropriate for your family to be doing business in Saudi Arabia while you're president. Is that a conflict of interest? And your royal highness, the US intel community concluded you orchestrated the brutal murder of a journali---
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-11-18T17:44:41.681Z
TRUMP: Who are you with?
Q: ABC News
TRUMP: Fake news
When a reporter pressed Trump on his obvious conflicts of interest, and the crown prince on intelligence pointing to his role in orchestrating the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the Republican interrupted to dismiss ABC News’ correspondent as “fake news.”
Moments later, Trump suggested that Khashoggi had it coming.
Trump suggests Khashoggi had it coming: "You're mentioning someone that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about. Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happen. But he knew nothing about it. You don't have to embarrass our guest."
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-11-18T17:46:32.144Z
......As for the idea that the reporter’s question might “embarrass” Trump’s “guest,” it’s not the job of the free press to protect the feelings of foreign authoritarians.
Trump soon after whined about a reporter asking the Saudi leader “an insubordinate question,” as if members of the free press were somehow the crown prince’s employees.
As the event continued, the American president horsed around with the crown prince as if they were a pair of kids having a good time. Grabbing his guest’s hand, Trump specifically said: “I don’t care where that hand’s been.”
It’s occasionally tempting to think the Republican has hit rock bottom, but then he finds a way to drill a hole in the bottom of the barrel and fall even lower.
The federal judge who really smacked down the new Texas Congressional map today clerked for Greg Abbott
https://x.com/scottbraddock/status/1990910664764998098
What happens to California's Prop 50 maps if Texas redistricting efforts are blocked?
The appeal of the Texas redistricting case will NOT affect California's Prop 50
https://www.kcra.com/article/california-prop-50-whats-next-texas-ruling/69474344
Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders earlier this year announced Proposition 50 as a way to offset Texas' plans to try to send five more Republicans to Congress. The voter-approved measure redrew California's district maps to try to send five more Democrats to the Lower House.
When Prop 50 was initially introduced, there was language in the measure that stated California would only move forward with its redistricting — also known as gerrymandering — efforts if Texas proceeded with its plans. That language was removed from the measure before it reached Newsom's desk for him to sign into law.
The Texas redistricting ruling is going to affect a good number of upcoming Texas races.
May we live in interesting times. Currently the filing deadline for the Texas March Primary is December 8
Al Green is one of the plaintiffs in this case and was one of the main targets of this redistricting scam. I have known Al for 20 or so years and has work on voter protection efforts with Al. Al represents CD 9 but was redistricted so that much of his district is now in CD 18. Al is currently going to run in CD 18 which was Sylvester Turner's district. Abbott has been an asshole and has kept this seat open for 11 months. There will be a runoff on January 31 between two great young democrats, Christen Menefee and Amanda Edwards. The winner and loser of that runoff would then have to run against Al Green in the March primary.
https://x.com/CDMenefee/status/1990863126800027906
Jasime Crockett was also targeted and there were rumors that she may run for Texas Senate. If this ruling stand, Jasime will not have to change offices.
https://x.com/bluhue123/status/1990882279615299640
In another race, Lloyd Doggett's and another younger democrat's district were in effect merged and Lloyd was going to retire. If this ruling stand, Lloyd does not have to retire
https://x.com/RepLloydDoggett/status/1990862123044393416
Finally, Al's old district was redrawn to be a very white district and an asshole name Briscoe Cain was going to run in that district. Cain is a real asshole and I would hate to see him in Congress. Here what Cain posted about this ruling
https://x.com/bradj_TX/status/1990859181901963355
I am really hoping that this ruling stands
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 172,866