Lindsey Halligan, Trump's Prosecutor, acts like Internet Blowhards... to a Reporter

[Majin Gojira]

I stumbled across this via Legal Eagle on YouTube, where reporter Anna Bower of Lawfare talks about what happened.

And I couldn't help but think that Halligan is acting like a lot of the people we've mocked on this site over the years. I guess you could call her a pure "Internet Blowhard" or even "Internet Karen" with this behavior. Stupid, knee-jerking, and in bad faith.

The reporter was flabbergasted by this. But thanks to all of you, I got the cold feeling in my spine of having seen it all before.

(other sources: https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-hallig ... n-10942865 )

[bilateralrope]

I haven't watch the video yet.

I've posted a few articles about her in the Reign of Trump thread. Starting with the James Comey indictment where she managed to make a mistake the judge had never seen before.

Oh and that case is her first criminal case. The question is not if she will get the James Comey or Letitia James cases to trial. She won't. The question is which grounds the judge will use to throw them out.

The Bolton cases looks stronger. As in, career prosecutors signed their name to it and the indictment sounds plausible from what we know. Though it's still possible for Halligan to blow that up.

[Raw Shark]

Whatever kompromat Daddy Vlad has on Donny Jingles, it's some epically fantastic and damning shit. It would be some trivial child's play for Russia to just get a pretty teenage girl hired to clean up at Epstein's house years ago on a total fishing expedition, and plant cameras all over the place, not to mention right out of their classic playlist.

[bilateralrope]

James Comey has made some amusing claims in his motions to dismiss:

- Ted Cruz asked Comey if he had authorised any release about the Clinton administration. Everyone knew he meant the Clinton investigation. But since the answer Comey gave was no, it was literally true. Literally true statements, even those intended to mislead, can not be prosecuted due to Bronston v. United States.

- Another statement Comey is being accused over is when he said that he stands by his previous testimony. Which is another thing that can be held as literally true, even if the previous testimony was a lie.

- Halligan kept the grand jury late. Comey's lawyers want the grand jury transcripts released because they suspect that she said something to make them think that they weren't going to be allowed to leave until they returned an indictment.

- One FBI agent had declared that he might have seen a privileged communication between Comey and his lawyer. Before that agent testified to the grand jury. Which means Comey's lawyers want the grand jury transcripts to see if that agent shared any of that with the grand jury.

Normally there is a presumption of regularity with grand juries that would prevent those last two motions from going anywhere. Comey's lawyers argue that the incompetence they and the judge have already seen from Halligan are enough to lift that presumption so they can check if everything was done correctly.

Comey's lawyers also filed for a bill of particulars because the indictment was too vague.

[bilateralrope]

Judge says DOJ failed to give full transcripts of Halligan’s Comey grand jury proceedings

A federal judge considering the legality of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment gave the government until Wednesday at 5 p.m. to comply with her order.

Nov. 5, 2025, 9:42 AM GMT+13
By Jordan Rubin

The federal judge considering whether Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully installed by the Trump administration had ordered the Department of Justice to provide the “complete grand jury transcripts” in James Comey’s case for the judge to review. The DOJ failed to do so, and now it has a deadline of 5 p.m. Wednesday to comply.

On Oct. 28, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie issued an order that said she needs to “determine the extent of the indictment signer’s involvement in the grand jury proceedings.” Halligan, a former personal lawyer for President Donald Trump who lacks prior prosecutorial experience, presented the Comey case to the grand jury herself, over the objection of career prosecutors.

Currie had ordered that by Monday, Nov. 3, the DOJ was to provide her with “all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts.”

But on Tuesday, Currie issued a new order that said the material she received “fails to include remarks made by the indictment signer both before and after the testimony of the sole witness, which remarks were referenced by the indictment signer during the witness’s testimony.” The judge gave the government until Wednesday to comply.

Comey was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Halligan purports to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office after the previous head was forced out for refusing to prosecute Trump’s political opponents. Currie, a Bill Clinton appointee, is a South Carolina federal judge, but she is handling this issue because it requires an out-of-district judge to oversee. (Federal district judges are potentially involved in the appointment of a replacement U.S. attorney for their district when there is a vacancy.)

Currie is simultaneously overseeing the challenge against Halligan’s appointment brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, another of Trump’s political opponents. Trump demanded her prosecution, and it was secured by Halligan in Virginia. Both Comey and James have pleaded not guilty and are pressing several motions to dismiss their indictments on top of their argument that Halligan was unlawfully appointed.

Lawyers temporarily installed by the Trump administration to lead U.S. attorney’s offices across the country have had their tenures deemed unlawful by federal judges. Currie may well deem Halligan’s appointment unlawful, too, but she has yet to rule. The judge had also ordered the government to provide her with grand jury information for James’ proceedings, but as of the time she issued the order for more information in Comey’s case, she hadn’t issued a similar order in James’ case.

Halligan found another way to make herself look worse to the courts.

[Raw Shark]

You pay with peanuts, you get monkeys.

[bilateralrope]

Judge Sees ‘Profound Investigative Missteps’ in Trump’s Comey Prosecution

I'm just going to quote the errors Halligan made:

Fitzpatrick Monday said it appeared Halligan made two “fundamental misstatements of the law” while presented before the grand jury, though the judge redacted her specific statements.

First, Halligan appeared to tell the jury that Comey would not have a Fifth Amendment right to not testify at trial, which, the judge wrote, “ignores the foundational rule of law that if Mr. Comey exercised his right not to testify the jury could draw no negative inference from that decision.”

Second, Fitzpatrick said Halligan appeared to tell the jury that it did not have to rely on the evidence before it to approve an indictment.

“That statement clearly suggested to the grand jury that they did not have to rely only on the record before them to determine probable cause but could be assured the government had more evidence–perhaps better evidence–that would be presented at trial,” the judge wrote.

The magistrate judge also raised concern about the sourcing of the evidence Halligan presented to the jury, which derived from four FBI search warrants against Daniel Richman, one of Comey’s former personal attorneys. The warrants, executed in 2019 and 2020, related to a separate investigation against Comey initiated during Trump’s first term.

Fitzpatrick said it appeared that Halligan and the DOJ used evidence gathered during the previous investigation in their new probe against Comey without seeking a new search warrant.

“Under long-standing Fourth Amendment precedent, the government may search for and seize only those materials expressly authorized by the terms of a search warrant issued in connection with specific predicate offenses,” the judge noted.

Halligan’s presentation before the grand jury relied on testimony from one FBI agent who may have reviewed material subject to attorney-client privilege between Comey and Richman, Fitzpatrick said.

“The government’s decision to allow an agent who was exposed to potentially privileged information to testify before a grand jury is highly irregular and a radical departure from past DOJ practice,” the judge stated.

It sounds like the case might be thrown out before we get a ruling on if Halligan's appointment is valid.

[Solauren]

IF this gets tossed out, could it be used to justify why her appointment is ruled invalid?

[bilateralrope]

This discussion brings up an interesting detail about the missing 120+ minutes from the grand jury records. Early in the case, Halligan made a mistake and gave the judge two different documents from the grand jury. A 3 count indictment that they had rejected, and a 2 count indictment they had approved. Both signed by the grand jury foreperson.

But the transcript the judge looked at only has her presenting one of them to the grand jury.

IF this gets tossed out, could it be used to justify why her appointment is ruled invalid?

Unlikely. I don't think there is any competency requirement written into law.