On the same day Adelita Grijalva will finally be sworn in and provide the 218th vote to force a vote to release the Epstein files, Oversight Dems have released three records from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate making it clear Trump is more implicated in Epstein’s crimes than he has let on.

There’s one email that will ensure that Melania Trump backs off her threat to sue Michael Wolff. He and the sex trafficker were discussing how to craft an answer Trump could give to CNN about their relationship during the 2015 election.

Effectively, Epstein was offering to provide Trump an answer to make things easy on Trump.

The most damning describes Epstein, discussing with Ghislaine Maxwell in 2011 one of the victims spending “hours at [Epstein’s] house with Trump.

That conversation transpired in April 2011, just a month before Trump dropped out of the presidential race.

The most intriguing was another email exchanged with Wolff, just six months before Epstein was arrested and then suicided, in which Epstein claimed Trump was lying when he “said he asked me to resign, never a member  ever.”

One of the first times this claim was aired was in a 2007 Page Six story that preceded many of the details becoming public.

Meanwhile, the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach last night confirmed a Web site report that Epstein has been banned there. “He would use the spa to try to procure girls. But one of them, a masseuse about 18 years old, he tried to get her to do things,” a source told us. “Her father found out about it and went absolutely ape-[bleep]. Epstein’s not allowed back.” Epstein denies he is banned from Mar-a-Lago and says, in fact, he was recently invited to an event there.

Trump has, at times, admitted he served as an anonymous source for Page Six.

Trump repeated this story, in two parts, in July.

First, days after Todd Blanche sat down with Ghislaine Maxwell, Trump described that Epstein “hired help” from Trump, and continued doing so even after Trump “said, don’t ever do that again,” implying that he told Epstein to stop.

What caused the breach with him? Very easy to explain. But I don’t want to waste your time by explaining it. But for years I wouldn’t talk to Jeffrey Epstein. I wouldn’t talk. Because he did something that was inappropriate. He hired help. And I said, don’t ever do that again. He stole people that worked for me. I said, don’t ever do that again. He did it again. And I threw him out of the place. Persona non grata. I threw him out. And that was it.

Then, the next day, Trump confessed that Virginia Giuffre was one of the “young women” that Epstein “stole.”

Reporter 1: I’m just curious. Were some of the workers that were taken from you — were some of them young women?

Trump: Were some of them?

Reporter 1: Were some of them young women?

Trump: Well, I don’t wanna say, but everyone knows the people that were taken. It was, the concept of taking people that work for me is bad. But that story’s been pretty well out there. And the answer is, yes, they were.

[inaudible]

Trump: In the spa. People that work in the spa. I have a great spa, one of the best spas in the world at Mar-a-Lago. And people were taken out of the spa. Hired. By him. In other words, gone. And um, other people would come and complain. This guy is taking people from the spa. I didn’t know that. And then when I heard about it I told him, I said, listen, we don’t want you taking our people, whether they were spa or not spa. I don’t want him taking people. And he was fine and then not too long after that he did it again and I said Out of here.

Reporter 2: Mr. President, did one of those stolen persons, did that include Virginia Giuffre?

Trump: Uh, I don’t know. I think she worked at the spa. I think so. I think that was one of the people, yeah. He stole her. And by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know. None whatsoever.

Both these limited hangouts, delivered in the wake of Blanche’s interviews with Maxwell, blame Epstein for stealing his girls.

But it wasn’t Epstein stealing the girls and he didn’t tell Epstein to stop.

He told Maxwell to stop.

And then he lied and claimed he had kicked Epstein out as a result.

And then Todd Blanche moved Epstein’s co-conspirator, who didn’t mention the girl Trump spent hours with or remind Blanche of Trump’s knowledge she was trafficking girls from his club, into comfier digs.

WSJ has a follow-up to the story Reuters published a week ago, on November 5 (which I wrote about here). The Reuters piece described that FHFA’s Inspector General had been fired as he was preparing to share information relevant to EDVA’s cases — so Letitia James — and also Congress.

The ouster of Joe Allen, FHFA’s acting inspector general, follows the agency’s director, Bill Pulte, becoming an outspoken voice in support of the Trump administration. Across the government, the Trump administration has so far fired or reassigned close to two dozen agency watchdogs, who police waste, fraud and abuse. It has also defunded the group that supervises those offices.

[snip]

Allen received notice of his termination from the White House after he made efforts to provide key information to prosecutors in that office, according to four sources. The information he turned over was constitutionally required, two of them said, while a third described it as being potentially relevant in discovery.

His ouster also came about as he was preparing to send a letter to Congress notifying lawmakers that the FHFA was not cooperating with the inspector general’s office, three of the sources said.

WSJ describes that Allen was investigating whether Bill Pulte ordered people to snoop in Trump’s adversaries’ records. It also confirms that Allen did share that information with EDVA (it doesn’t mention whether Allen had succeeded in sending off any letter to Congress).

Fannie Mae watchdogs who were removed from their jobs had been probing if Trump appointee Bill Pulte had improperly obtained mortgage records of key Democratic officials, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, according to people familiar with the matter.

Fannie’s ethics and investigations group had received internal complaints alleging senior officials had improperly directed staff to access the mortgage documents of James and others, according to the people. The Fannie investigators were probing to find out who had made the orders, whether Pulte had the authority to seek the documents and whether or not they had followed proper procedure, the people said.

That group elevated the probe about the James documents to the more senior Office of Inspector General for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that Pulte heads, the people said. The acting inspector general then passed the report to the U.S. attorney’s office in eastern Virginia, some of the people said.

[snip]

The FHFA acting inspector general sent the office the report at least in part because it could be considered material information for James’s defense in the case, one of the people said.

The very days this all happened, on November 4, the Loaner AUSA in the James case, Roger Keller, filed a notice saying DOJ was not going to comply with Judge Jamar Walker’s order to turn over vindictive and selective prosecution evidence, specifically pointing to the carve out in Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for “reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents” made by “other government agents in connection with the investigation,” language that would cover any FHFA reports into Bill Pulte’s corruption.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 does not require the Government to produce vindictive/selective prosecution-related evidence before a defendant files such a motion. The Rule permits a defendant to discover evidence material to her defense, FED. R. CRIM. P. 16(a)(1)(C), but “defense” means the “defense against the Government’s case in chief, . . . not to the preparation of selective prosecution claims.” Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 462 (citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 16(a)(1)(C))(emphasis added). FED. R. CRIM. P. 16(a)(2) underscores the limitation to “defense” as it “exempts from defense inspection ‘reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents made by the attorney for the government or other government agents in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case.’” Id. (quoting FED. R. CRIM. P. 16(a)(2)). “If a selective-prosecution claim is a ‘defense,’ Rule 16(a)(1)(C) gives the defendant the right to examine Government work product in every prosecution except his own.” Id. [my emphasis]

James did mention the earlier Reuters report in her vindictive and selective prosecution motion, submitted last Friday.

The retribution campaign against AG James had only just begun. Around the same time, another federal agency, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), led by Director William Pulte, was also looking for dirt to use against AG James. By April 14, they had concocted it. Mr. Pulte delivered a criminal referral “[b]ased on media reports” to DOJ against AG James, claiming she had “in multiple instances, falsified bank documents and property records to acquire government backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms.” Ex. F at 1. The criminal referral cherry-picked documents to claim fraud over three properties—one even going back to 1983—none of which was the Peronne Property at issue in the indictment.16 The referral asked DOJ to open a criminal investigation into AG James. See Ex. F at 1. Mr. Pulte also coordinated with Edward Martin—the self-described “captain” of DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group who is President Trump’s close confidante and would later also be named a Special Attorney.17

16 Mr. Pulte’s conduct demonstrates how far allies of the President would go to carry out his “get James” orders. Public reports indicate that Mr. Pulte “skipped over his agency’s inspector general when making criminal referrals” against President Trump’s political enemies. Reports also indicate he may have bypassed ethics rules in doing so. Marisa Taylor & Chris Prentice, Exclusive: Trump official bypassed ethics rules in criminal referrals of Fed governor and other foes, sources say, Reuters (Oct. 6, 2025), https://perma.cc/HK6Y-LJVR. The FHFA has no generalized crimefighting or anti-fraud authority. It does not even have an express authority to make criminal referrals besides those granted to the FHFA’s Inspector General under the Inspector General Act of 1978. In addition to violations of the act itself, Mr. Pulte may have failed to comply with the FHFA’s own Privacy Act regulations, which require FHFA to “ensure” that records containing personally identifiable information are “protected from public view.” Domenic Powell, Are Pulte’s “Mortgage Fraud” Investigations Legal?, Yale J. Reg.: Notice and Comment (Nov. 1, 2025), https://perma.cc/2U6G-S46X.

17 Alan Feuer et al., Trump Demands That Bondi Move ‘Now’ to Prosecute Foes, N.Y. Times (Sept. 20, 2025), https://perma.cc/FC9R-U8TK. [link added]

This story may provide opportunity to submit a follow-up (or at least revisit the issue in a reply memo due in two weeks).

By then, of course, we may have more visibility into who got Allen fired, and whether simply the referral to Lindsey Halligan did the trick.

Particularly if Allen did succeed in getting that letter sent to Congress.

All this is happening at a curious time. First, just yesterday Politico claimed someone in Trump’s immediate orbit was furious at the way Pulte sold Trump on an insanely stupid 50-year mortgage plan.

White House officials are furious with Bill Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency director, who talked the president into suggesting a 50-year mortgage plan.

The White House was blindsided by the idea, according to two people familiar with the situation granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking, and is now dealing with a furious backlash from conservative allies, business leaders and lawmakers.

On Saturday evening, Pulte arrived at President Donald Trump’s Palm Beach Golf Club with a roughly 3-by-5 posterboard in hand. A graphic of former President Franklin Roosevelt appeared below “30-year mortgage” and one of Trump below “50-year mortgage.” The headline was “Great American Presidents.”

Roughly 10 minutes later, Trump posted the image to Truth Social, according to one of the people familiar, who was with the president at the time.

Almost immediately, aides were fielding angry phone calls from those who thought the idea – which would endorse a 50 year payback period for a mortgage – was both bad politics and bad policy, a move that could raise housing costs in the long run, the person said.

After describing fury about how Pulte did this — hitting Trump up with visuals at the golf club — Politico spends 11 paragraphs describing a range of people panning the idea before describing the last time Pulte did this: when pitching a plan to bring Fannie and Freddie public, another insanely stupid idea.

“Anything that goes before POTUS needs to be vetted,” said the person present for Pulte’s poster presentation. “And a lot of times with Pulte they’re not. He just goes straight up to POTUS.”

[11 ¶¶ of influencers and experts panning the idea]

This is not the first time Pulte’s policy proposals have caused headaches. He was also behind the idea Trump floated earlier this year to take Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public, which also resulted in significant pushback from industry.

Which brings us to the very last paragraph of the WSJ story, a story mostly focused on Pulte’s investigation-related corruption. It suggests Pulte’s corruption may make it harder to bring Fannie and Freddie public, that prior idea he floated by cornering Trump with unvetted ideas.

The Trump administration is considering an initial public offering for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, one of the biggest IPOs in history at a crucial moment for the mortgage market. That process will require convincing potential investors, and the broader mortgage-bond market, the management of the companies is stable.

As I read both James’ and Comey’s motions to dismiss for vindictive prosecution, there’s part of me that selfishly wants this process to be one step harder than it needs to be: rather than simply dismissing on the abundant evidence of vindictive prosecution laid out (or, even more likely, because Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer is only playacting as US Attorney, about which there is a hearing tomorrow), I want them to get discovery so we can unpack all this process and bring down the corrupt enablers like Pulte, Eagle Ed Martin, on up to Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche.

Still, there’s something that may force this to go even more public than it otherwise would: Lisa Cook, into whose private records Pulte was likely also snooping, who will have a hearing about whether Trump attempted to fire her “for cause,” or because Pulte snooped in her private records looking for cause.

Corruption is all fun and games until it gets fast-tracked to SCOTUS (where, admittedly, Justices have been all too happy to legalize corruption). It’s all fun and games, Trump’s team seems to believe, until it poses a risk to the housing market.

For whatever reason, Bill Pulte seems to be getting fast-tracked in Trump world, from a useful corrupt flunky to a dangerous liability.

Trump is lying about his tariffs again (or rather, still), in fact telling similar lies that he did in a letter that backfired before SCOTUS, because he boasted about how much revenue he was making.

But, perhaps because people are just tuning in, they’re treating Trump’s false claims as if they’re somehow less false than every other thing he says.

First, Trump promised he’d give all the non-rich $2000 rebates from his unlawful tariffs.

Then, he claimed there’d still be money leftover after he had sent people “free” money.

Then, he accused Democrats of making numbers up.

Then, he said it would create a national security crisis if the Supreme Court made him give back money he raised unlawfully.

But there are three ways you can tell Trump is just as full of shit as he always is.

First, because because Kevin Hassett invoked the Laffer Curve when trying to claim we could afford it.

Next, because — as Dean Baker laid out — the numbers don’t add up.

Doing the simple arithmetic, the country has 340 million people. If 10 percent of these people fit Trump’s definition of high-income, and therefore don’t get the rebate, roughly 300 million people would get the checks.

At $2,000 a piece it would come to $600 billion, more than twice what Trump is collecting from us with his import taxes. Since he’s already $330 billion short, how can Trump think he has money to pay down the national debt? Also, he seems not to know that our deficit this year is projected to be $1.8 trillion, so he is actually adding considerably to the debt and would be adding even more with his $600 billion tariff “rebate.”

Most importantly — the the likely reason he’s telling these particular lies right now — because when Trump got a stay from the first ruling that his tariffs were illegal, he promised to pay the tariffs back, at least for the plaintiffs, even while insisting it could not replace the revenue raised from the tariffs.

And a stay would not harm plaintiffs, who can be made whole through a refund, including interest, if tariffs paid during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful.

[snip]

And, absent a stay, the government will receive reduced revenue that it will be unable to recoup if the tariffs are ultimately upheld—another irreparable harm. See Department of Educ. v. California, 145 S. Ct. 966, 968-969 (2025) (per curiam).

2. Conversely, a stay would not cognizably harm plaintiffs. If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any postjudgment interest that accrues. See Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 2017 WL 65421, at *5 (C.I.T. Jan. 5, 2017) (“there is virtually no risk to Plaintiff that it would not be made whole should it prevail”). The balance of harms is not close.

Trump’s advisors have told him he’s going to lose at SCOTUS on this. And like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he’s trying to claim (simultaenously) that the cookies have already been eaten, but here, would you like some? in an effort to stave off an order to give the cookies back.

You could already tell in last week’s hearing that the Justices are struggling with the prospect of making Trump pay the money back.

JUSTICE BARRETT: And then if you win, tell me how the reimbursement process would work. Would it be a complete mess? I mean, you’re saying before the government promised reimbursement. And — and now you’re saying, you know, well, that’s rich, but how would this work? It seems to me like it could be a mess.

MR. KATYAL: So the first thing I would say is that just underscores how major a question this is, the very fact that you are dealing with this with quotas, there’s no refund process of — to the tunes of billions of dollars or embargoes, but there is here. But for our case, the way it would work is, in this case the government’s stipulated for the five plaintiffs that they would get their refunds. So for us that’s how it would work.

Your question, I take it, is about everyone else. We don’t have a class action or anything like that.

With respect to everyone else, there’s a whole specialized body of trade law. And 19 U.S.C. 1514 outlines all these administrative procedures. It’s a very complicated thing. There’s got to be an administrative protest. There was a Harbor Management case earlier that this Court was involved with in United States Shoe in which, you know, the refund process took a long time. There were any number of claims and equitable relief and —

JUSTICE BARRETT: So a mess.

MR. KATYAL: So it’s difficult, absolutely

JUSTICE BARRETT: Okay.

MR. KATYAL: We don’t — we don’t deny that it’s difficult, but I think what this Court has said in — in — in the McKesson case in 1990, a serious economic dislocation isn’t a reason to do something.

Northern Pipeline, you guys stayed your decision for a while in order to let the congressional process unfold. There may be a congressional process here as well.

You know, your — you know, you may be able to also — be that this Court could limit its decision to prospective relief under the John Q. Hammons case. There’s lots of possibilities.

Neal Katyal, in a rush to ensure that the payback question doesn’t given the Justices cause to make a really bad decision, quickly offered a bunch of terrible options for all the other people who’ve been paying Trump’s illegal taxes because Judges didn’t impose a stay. Trump may think the mere prospect of paying the money back might yet persuade his captive court to rule for him.

But more likely, Trump is just applying political pressure — on the Justices, with false claims about what the real numbers are, on his mob, in hopes they’ll provide another kind of pressure if denied money he claims is free but which in reality they’ve actually already paid out of pock themselves — to avoid being ordered to pay the money back to everyone.

If and when SCOTUS rules against Trump on the tariff issue, it will be a very significant loss, the first time right and left joined together to force Trump to stop doing something unlawful.

But if SCOTUS rules Trump has to pay the money back, to everyone, it will create the kind of fiscal challenge that could turn his current political woes into a crisis, not least because right wing members of Congress have been treating this tariff revenue as “free” money they could point to to pretend they were addressing the deficit.

And that’s why Trump is ranting about tariffs.

Not because he wants to give out “free” — in reality, unlawfully seized money that American consumers already paid — money. But because he doesn’t want to pay any consequences for his unlawful actions.

And he definitely wants to avoid the default reality: that Trump will be forced to pay back importers, but consumers will get nothing.

One of the most scathing passages in Jim Comey’s reply brief on his vindictive prosecution claim repeats something Media Matters does persistently to understand how Donald Trump’s brain works.

It’s a reply to this passage of the government response, which is the cornerstone to their claim that Donald Trump’s years of attacks on Comey weren’t animus, they reflected, instead, a sound concern about crime.

The defendant argues that he’s being prosecuted to punish him for being a “[v]ocal [c]ritic of President Trump.” Def. Mem., Dkt. No. 59 at 11. Yet according to his own version of events, the earliest that he “spoke out on public and political issues” was June 8, 2017. Id.; see Def. Mem., Dkt. No. 59-4 at 2 (pinning the earliest exercise of the defendant’s First Amendment rights to criticize the Trump Administration to a New York Times article published on June 8, 2017). By that point, however, the President had already accused him of committing a crime. On May 21, [sic] 2017, less than three weeks after the defendant first testified that he never “authorized anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation,” Def. Mem., Dkt. No. 59-2 at 4, the President publicly accused him of giving “false or misleading testimony,” Def. Mem., Dkt. No. 59-4 at 2. That accusation of criminal conduct was mounted before the defendant first stepped into his self-described role as a vocal critic of the President. And that “sequence of public events” should disabuse any notion that the defendant is being punished for exercising his First Amendment rights. See Wilson, 262 F.3d at 317 (reasoning that a defendant’s “theory on proving causation” will be “belied by the record” if the government’s “efforts to prosecute [him] preceded” his exercise of a protected right).

I focused closely on this passage — on other problems with this passage — here, noting that prosecutors had kicked off a fight about chickens and eggs.

I didn’t note that Lindsey’s Loaner AUSAs got the date wrong, May 21 instead of May 31 (Comey was generous enough not to note it), a date correctly recorded in both Comey’s appendices collecting these things (one, two).

[Note my screen cap is +5.]

But I missed the even bigger problem with this argument.

Lindsey’s Loaner AUSAs didn’t check what Trump was watching on Fox and Friends that day.

On May 19, 2017, in the uproar that followed, the Senate Intelligence Committee announced that Mr. Comey would testify before the Committee about his dismissal and the investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election. Former FBI Director Comey Agrees to Testify in Open Session at Senate Intel Committee, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (May 19, 2017), https://perma.cc/HC5K-KYUV.

That announcement was followed on May 31, 2017, by the first of the President’s allusions to “false or misleading” testimony by Mr. Comey. The government suggests that this tweet shows that the President’s prosecutorial motive arose from Mr. Comey’s May 3, 2017 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony and that he voiced it before Mr. Comey entered into public debate. ECF No. 138 at 28. The tweet shows nothing of the kind.

To begin, the tweet does not reflect the President’s opinion about Mr. Comey, nor does it refer to Mr. Comey’s May 3 testimony as the government misleadingly implies. Instead, the tweet quotes a report based on a conversation on Fox and Friends describing a letter written by former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page stating Page’s view of Mr. Comey’s March 20, 2017 testimony about links between the Trump campaign and the Russia government.5 This tweet can hardly qualify as expressing the President’s legitimate prosecutorial motive—as opposed to relaying hearsay from a television program with no factual basis. In fact, it is the type of unfounded accusation that displays animus rather than a genuine interest in justice. And despite the government’s reliance on it as preceding Mr. Comey’s public statements, the tweet came after the news broke about Mr. Comey’s imminent testimony, i.e., after the President knew that Mr. Comey intended to exercise his First Amendment rights to speak publicly about Mr. Trump’s conduct in office. The President’s preemptive effort to discredit Mr. Comey reflects his animus triggered by Mr. Comey’s anticipated protected speech.

Finally, and most damaging to the government’s theory of the President’s longstanding prosecutorial motive to bring this case, the tweet has nothing to do with this prosecution: it was issued years before the testimony that forms the basis for the charges against Mr. Comey.

5 The tweet (issued in two parts) says: “So now it is reported that the Democrats who have excoriated Carter Page about Russia, don’t want him to testify. He blows away their….” “…case against him & now wants to clear his name by showing ‘the false or misleading testimony by James Comey, John Brennan…’ Witch Hunt!” Appendix at 1. The tweet was issued thirty minutes after Fox and Friends broke the same story. Id. And Mr. Comey had testified publicly before the House Intelligence Committee on March 20, 2017, to confirm the Trump-campaign and Russian-interference investigation. See Mueller Report, supra n.4 at 52-53

Trump was parroting Carter Page complaining about Comey’s March 20 testimony, not commenting on Comey’s May 3 testimony, testimony that prosecutors want to make relevant to this case.

Donald Trump was parroting Carter Page and that’s what prosecutors claimed was the genesis of Trump’s purported good faith prosecutorial concern about Comey’s leaking.

Oops.

There is, to be clear, a fair amount of chicken and egg in Comey’s reply, too, some not entirely persuasive (though that pertains to their representation of the evidence prosecutors presented, not the legal argument, and so could be mooted if some of this gets suppressed). But it reads with the confidence of people who, now, have the exhibits with which prosecutors hope to prove their case, as well as a sense of whether and if so which exhibits will be thrown out as unlawfully obtained.

And in the process, Comey has demonstrated to the Loaner AUSAs how little they know about this whole story and the man whose batshit rants they’re treating as credible.

As I noted here, in a telephone hearing yesterday, Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick ordered the government to provide him with the grand jury transcripts in the Jim Comey case, which he will review after reading an ex parte filing from Comey’s team laying out the unlawful evidence they suspect got presented to the grand jury.

Loaner AUSA Gabriel Diaz may have helped them write that memo by confirming there were 14 exhibits presented to the grand jury.

His claim — that there were 14 exhibits — may not be entirely true.

I say that because that number — 14 — matches the number of exhibits included in last week’s response to Comey’s vindictive prosecution claim (the reply to which Comey submitted yesterday, which I’ll return to). The exhibits posted to docket last week, which all include exhibit tags, consist of the following:

• Exhibit 1: DOJ IG Investigation into Comey’s Memos
• Exhibit 2: Comey letter reopening investigation
• Exhibit 3: January 2, 2015: Letter stating that Richman would not comment on matters he “work[s] on for the Bureau”[1st Columbia email]
• Exhibit 4: October 29, 2016: Text saying, “The country can’t seem to handle your finding stuff” [2nd Columbia email]
• Exhibit 5: October 30, 2016: Richman offering to write an op-ed for NYT [2nd Columbia email]
• Exhibit 6: November 1-2, 2016: Comey suggests perhaps Richman can make Mike Schmidt smarter [2nd Columbia email]
• Exhibit 7: November 2, 2016: Richman noting story about Hillary [2nd Columbia email]
• Exhibit 8: April 23, 2017: Email to Richman thanking him [Columbia email]
• Exhibit 9: February 11, 2017: Richman recruiting Chuck Rosenberg for article [1st Columbia email]
• Exhibit 10: May 2017: Texts between Schmidt and Richman [Dan Richman’s phone]
• Exhibit 11: DOJ IG Investigation into Comey’s Memos
• Exhibit 12: July, 27, 2025: 18 USC 2071 Opening memo
• Exhibit 13: September 26, 2016: Notes on Russian investigation briefing
• Exhibit 14: Transcript of Lindsey Graham question about the CIOL

This order would suggest they laid out the evidence that Comey lied, focusing heavily on the 2016 exchange (the only one from when Richman was at the FBI), and presenting Comey’s April 23, 2017 thank you email to Richman ahead of Richman’s February 11, 2017 recruitment of Chuck Rosenberg, possibly creating the misimpression that Comey asked for Richman to weigh in on what became the April 2017 story.

Then they presented the Comey memo exchange (Exhibits 10 and 11), and the “Clinton Plan” (Exhibits 12-14). As presented, they did not present the “Clinton plan” referral itself to the grand jury (which might have made it even more apparent that Lindsey was not asking about what Comey’s notes laid out).

There must be at least one more exhibit as presented for the indictment the grand jury approved. As laid out here, the grand jury was not shown how Comey responded to Ted Cruz’ question (to say nothing of Chuck Grassley’s question on which Cruz’ question was based). That is, as laid out here, prosecutors did not include the exhibit that laid out the one lie actually charged.

There must be a video or something — though I find it interesting that they didn’t provide a transcript of Cruz’ question (if they didn’t), since he garbled it about ten different ways.

There are three other questions this exhibit list raises for me.

First, one concern Comey’s attorneys have is the treatment of the materials obtained with a second warrant for Dan Richman’s Columbia emails  — presumably the source of Exhibits 4-9.

What’s interesting is the Bates stamps for those are inconsistent. The earlier set are marked with a Richman Bates stamp.

The two later ones, including the one from the same Jim Comey ReinholdNiebuhr7 alias Gmail, have COLUM Bates stamps.

That suggests those two sets of communications were treated differently. Possibly, the earlier one was part of Richman’s privilege log.

The Bates stamps on the texts between Richman and Mike Schmidt also raise questions, because there’s no source of any kind noted (or if there is, it is redacted), just a series starting with 4801.

Given some of the other details we’ve learned: that all the Feebs involved in this report directly to Kash Patel, that the agent who read the attorney-client privileged text was reading the entire Cellebrite extraction of Richman’s phone — that is, without privileged texts removed — it raises real questions about whether some other team provided them, a team with its own (obscured) Bates stamp.

Worse still, the one of the two agents who read the privileged text attested that he only handed Miles Starr two pages of texts, all dated May 11.

SA Warren provided the indictment preparation team a two-page document containing limited text message content only from May 11, 2017, predating the reference to potential future legal representation.

But the exhibit is eight pages long!

Having been told there was privileged communication there and shielded from it, someone went back to those texts to get more of them, to present them to the grand jury. And that same someone led the Loaner AUSAs to believe that sharing the Comey memos after consulting with attorneys was a crime.

Effectively, SA Warren has reported a crime committed by his superiors, the willful violation of Jim Comey’s privilege.

Which is undoubtedly why James Hayes is so intent on letting the FBI lead a privilege review.

Finally, one more thing. Remember how weird the no-billed indictment is, which I laid out here?

The indictment the grand jury approved charged Comey with lying to Ted Cruz (as Diaz would have it, without being shown what that lie is), and obstructing a Congressional proceeding, “by making false and misleading statements before that committee.”

The exhibit list makes clear that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer did shoehorn the no-billed charge into the obstruction charge, presumably treating questions about the Comey memos and “Clinton plan” — the only things in the indictment that were material to the scope of the hearing — as “misleading” rather than “false” statements. Last week, Pat Fitzgerald had said they were going to raise concerns about that this week, but they may be waiting to get that grand jury transcript.

Now go back and look at how that obstruction charges looks in the no-billed (top) and approved (bottom) indictment.

Update: As Amicus12 points out below, sometime within a day or so of the indictment, this error got fixed. Here’s what the fixed document looks like:

It is increasingly clear that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer literally replaced what would have been Count Three of the no-billed indictment with Count Two of the approved indictment. That explains why that page has:

• Staple and scan marks matching the real indictment
• The numbering from the second indictment (these paragraphs should be numbered 7 and 8 in the no-billed indictment)
• Both the signature of the foreperson (note the part of a signature that crosses into the “U” of the True Bill line) and Lindsey herself on that page

She simply swapped the page.

There’s good reason to ask whether she wasn’t just being dumb and inexperienced (which is what it looked like in the 7-minute hearing with the judge), but was also being deceitful.

For example, it’s possible that the original indictment charged Comey with obstructing the Senate’s investigation only by making false statements, but in a bid to get the material things in there pertinent to the larger investigation, the “Clinton plan” and the Comey memos, Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer added the word “misleading” to lower the bar to get a vote from the grand jurors.

It’s unclear whether Fitzpatrick will or can review some of these issues. He’s scrutinizing the indictment for unlawful and privileged exhibits. That also might explain why Diaz tried hard to prevent Comey from providing a list of things to look for.

The unlawful exhibits are bad enough. But there seems to be worse still.

The two sides have submitted additional filings in advance of a hearing about the attorney-client and Fourth Amendment violations in the Jim Comey case:

• • Comey filing
  • Government filing (once again, authored by James Hayes)
    • Affidavit from Agent who read privileged comms
    • Affidavit describing how grand jury witness Miles Starr was verbally briefed on them

The government claims that Comey hasn’t demonstrated a need to see what happened in the grand jury because there’s no way any privileged or Fourth Amendment violative material was presented, and even if it were, that would be insufficient to dismiss the indictment, which is the standard.

Even assuming the defendant could prove that the government violated the Fourth Amendment or attorney-client privilege in its grand jury presentation (and to be clear, he cannot), the remedy would be to suppress that evidence at trial—not to dismiss the indictment. So, the defendant has not shown that “a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). He is not entitled to access grand jury material.

There are problems with both these claims.

First, Miles Starr was briefed orally on the comms between Dan Richman and Mike Schmidt and Jim Comey the morning of the grand jury presentment. Then, the FBI Agent who was tainted provided a written document that only covered stuff on May 11.

On the morning of September 25, 2025, the team was preparing for an indictment of James Comey, to occur later that afternoon. SA Warren provided case agent SA Miles Starr and an FBI Office of General Counsel (OGC) attorney a limited overview of the text message communications to and from “Michael Garcia” (now understood to be Daniel Richman). SA Warren advised SA Starr and the FBI OGC attorney that some of the messages appeared to reference potential future legal representation. The FBI OGC attorney immediately advised that any of the text message communications referencing potential future legal representation should not be part of the indictment preparation. SA Warren provided the indictment preparation team a two-page document containing limited text message content only from May 11, 2017, predating the reference to potential future legal representation.

But DOJ itself recognizes that anything after May 9, the day Comey was fired, may be privileged.

4 The defendant was removed as FBI Director on May 9, 2017. He told the Office of Inspector General that “the day after his removal, or ‘very shortly thereafter,’ he retained attorneys Patrick Fitzgerald, David Kelley, and Daniel Richman.” Dkt. No. 138-11 at 33 (Aug. 2019 Office of the Inspector General Report). Any claim of privilege involving those attorneys would necessarily arise after May 9, 2017.

So they took insufficient steps to prevent taint of the grand jury, because materials between Richman and Comey from May 9 and 10 may well be privileged.

Even if that were sufficient, there’s no reason why communications between Comey and Richman in May could be deemed relevant to the grand jury. That’s because he admitted sharing information with Richman back in 2017. He didn’t hide it from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Meanwhile, the government has no fucking clue whether it presented other Fourth Amendment violative content to the Grand Jury. They confessed last night, days after telling Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick they had complied with his order to provide this information, that they had no fucking clue whether they were looking at data that included both scoped and unscoped content (though this passage suggests that the materials obtained from Columbia, which includes the only material that remotely matches the first charge, with the second warrant were scoped).

5 The Order also required the government to provide, in writing, by the same deadline: “Confirmation of whether the Government has divided the materials searched pursuant to the four 2019 and 2020 warrants at issue into materials that are responsive and non-responsive to those warrants, and, if so, a detailed explanation of the methodology used to make that determination; A detailed explanation of whether, and for what period of time, the Government has preserved any materials identified as non-responsive to the four search warrants; A description identifying which materials have been identified as responsive, if any; and A description identifying which materials have previously been designated as privileged.” ECF No. 161 at 1-2.

Despite certifying on November 6 that it had complied with the Court’s Order, ECF No. 163, the government did not provide this information until the evening of November 9, 2025, in response to a defense inquiry. The government told the defense that it “does not know” whether there are responsive sets for the first, third, and fourth warrants, or whether it has produced those to the defense, and said that in that regard, “we are still pulling prior emails” and the “agent reviewed the filtered material through relativity but there appears to be a loss of data that we are currently trying to restore.”

Remember, this entire investigation started when Kash discovered documents that had been handled improperly. And now, because these documents have been handled improperly, his own team has been violating Jim Comey’s Fourth Amendment rights.

There are several more alarming details in today’s filings. First, both FBI agents exposed to tainted information (in addition to Miles Starr, from whom DOJ didn’t bother to obtain an affidavit, and who has not been withdrawn from this or any other investigative teams) are part of the Director’s Advisory Team, meaning they work directly for Kash Patel.

The agent who first saw the privileged material claims:

• They didn’t know who Michael Garcia was (a pseudonym Richman used for these communications), but nevertheless reviewed them as part of a search for communications between Comey and Richman
• They were handed the entire extraction of Dan Richman’s devices, suggesting it did not extract the privilege reviewed content

Indeed, the materials DOJ provided Comey — the ones they had been accessing — had not been filtered for privilege or responsiveness.

4 On November 6, 2025, the government produced various copies of what appear to be the raw returns for the search warrants at issue, unscoped for responsiveness and filtered for Mr. Richman’s privileges. But the government provided incorrect passwords to large subsets of those materials. The defense engaged a vendor who worked throughout the weekend to load and process those materials; the government provided the correct passwords on November 9, 2025.

Effectively, Kash has been investigating Comey using a general warrant on his friend Dan Richman.

It’s not just Kash and his personal squad of Jim Comey hunters who’ve violated Comey’s Fourth Amendment rights, Comey’s filing suggests.

Pam Bondi’s imagined “ratification” of the grand jury proceedings — the ones based on incomplete records — would have exposed her, too, to unlawful material.

2 Concerns about taint arising from the improper use of potentially privileged and unconstitutionally-obtained materials are heightened because of the government’s continued use of the materials obtained pursuant to the warrants and grand jury transcripts. On October 31, 2025, the Attorney General purported to ratify the indictment based on her review of the grand jury proceedings. ECF No. 137-1 at 2-3. If that review entailed further improper use of privileged or unconstitutionally-obtained materials insofar as they were presented to the grand jury, it casts further doubt on the propriety of the government’s conduct of this case. The government produced the grand jury materials on November 5, 2025 to Judge Currie for in camera review, and thus could quickly produce the same materials to the defense. See ECF No. 158.

The Loaner AUSAs are trying to cut their losses, by asking Fitzpatrick to conduct a review of the grand jury materials himself — no doubt to prevent Comey from using grand jury material in his challenge of these warrants, which is currently due on November 19.

But there’s virtually no way he would be able to figure out if Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer presented material that violated Comey’s Fourth Amendment rights.

This should all be sorted out at a hearing at 4PM ET.

Update: Fitzpatrick came in ready to accept the government’s request he review this in camera. But after it became clear he would not budge on that, Rebekah Donaleski asked to submit something ex parte tomorrow to lay out where they believe the violations are.

I agree with those who complain that the eight Democrats who voted for a deal to reopen the government caved, and they caved too early. Catherine Cortez Masto, Dick Durbin, John Fetterman, Maggie Hassan, Angus King, Tim Kaine, Jackie Rosen, and Jeanne Shaheen voted for cloture (Shaheen was the leader of the capitulating Democrats).

Jon Ossoff (who is the most vulnerable incumbent in next year’s election) and Chuck Schumer did not.

Start with the timing part. The shutdown was just entering a phase where two things were beginning to cause a lot more pain: airport slowdowns and food stamp cuts.

On the flights, Katie Porter had just cornered Sean Duffy on letting private jets fly while commercial flights were being canceled. He claimed that he had not done that. But at least per WSJ, he has now imposed flight restrictions for private flights.

The Federal Aviation Administration is slated to limit business jets and other private flights to some of the country’s largest airports to ease strains on air-traffic personnel during the government shutdown.

The restrictions are due to begin Monday and will affect private jet flights at a dozen airports, including Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver and Chicago’s O’Hare, according to the National Business Aviation Association trade group.

The FAA’s plan effectively halts business aviation operations at those airports, the trade group said.

“Safety is the cornerstone of business aviation, and NBAA is fully committed to ensuring the safety of the NAS,” Ed Bolen, the trade group’s chief executive, said in a statement Sunday. He added that the group will ensure that business aviation operators understand the restrictions and their implications.

The FAA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

U.S. transportation officials have said that efforts to curb air traffic are designed to alleviate workload on controllers who are increasingly stressed and fatigued after going weeks without pay. Controllers are calling in sick while working second jobs, prompting sharp reductions in air travel with fewer FAA employees to oversee air traffic.

One way or another Porter’s success at magnifying this issue would have shifted (and will, if the deal takes a week to pass, as is predicted) the responsibility for this pain solidly onto Trump. Either Trump’s rich buddies will be prioritized, which will be a pitchfork moment. Or they won’t, which will create the kind of political pressure that works on Trump.

All that said, Duffy says it’ll be some time before flights are back to normal; the shutdown led to increased Air Traffic Controller retirements, so this problem will linger even if government reopens.

Then there’s the matter of SNAP. Trump and courts gave conflicting instructions over the last two weeks about what will happen to SNAP funding for November. It would be provided, then only half would, two judges ruled it had to be delivered, but then Trump appealed, ultimately to the Supreme Court (see Steve Vladeck for an explanation of what Ketanji Brown Jackson was likely thinking when she grated Trump a stay to allow that appeal).

SNAP payments went out to some Dem states — including at least Oregon and Wisconsin — and those states got them out the door right away.

I think far too many people complaining about the cave aren’t considering how SNAP funding offsets the healthcare cave. Millions of Americans were and are going to really struggle to feed their families.

But with a few more days, the fact that Trump chose to do — the fact that Trump is bullying states for sending out food stamp benefits that Trump’s own administration sent out — that would have become more clear.

If you were going to cave, you should have waited a week for all this to play out.

But cave they did.

On the primary asks for this shutdown — health insurance subsidies — they got nothing that hasn’t been on the table for weeks, an agreed on vote at a 60-vote margin, which will fail.

That said, several details about the cave provide means for Dems to regain some leverage about how this cave happened.

If John Thune honors his end of the deal, this cave does add a minibus appropriation funding Ag, DOD, and Congress. The Ag bill fully funds SNAP. Congressional funding restores all the reductions in force that Russ Vought unlawfully imposed during this shutdown. It also fully funds GAO. It does not, however, reverse Vought’s rescissions, thereby effectively ceding the power of the purse to Vought and inviting him to do more of it.

Some of those details — the fully funded SNAP and GAO — are things House Republicans hate. So there’s a non-zero chance they’ll kill the CR based on the inclusion of the minibus, in which case the eight Dems’ attempt to cave will have failed and the onus for the shutdown would shift even more onto the House Republicans than it currently is.

Then there’s the question of ACA subsidies. One thing the eight capitulators did do with the timing of their cave was wait until after all ACA subsidy recipients got their new rates, which will double costs, that start in January. The promised unsuccessful vote for ACA subsidies will happen between those rate hikes and the imposition of those new rates in January. While the vote for ACA is virtually certain to fail, the timing of it will make it more clear to ACA recipients that Republicans are responsible for the pain — either in the form of giving up health insurance, or crippling price increases — they’ll be feeling in January.

And that will happen just before this CR expires at the end of January.

There’s a non-zero chance that the government will be back in shutdown then, though with a few of the hostages — most notably, 40 million SNAP recipients — now protected by these minibus appropriations.

And that will happen in the wake of one and possibly two more politically fraught developments.

When Mike Johnson brings back the House — after their two month paid vacation — to vote on this, he will presumably finally swear Adelita Grijalva in, meaning we’ll also finally see a vote on the Epstein files (which, rumor has it, are worse than we imagine).

It’s also likely that Trump will be dealing with the aftermath of the SCOTUS decision on his tariffs, which is likely to rule that Trump unlawfully and unilaterally taxed importers. The revenue from tariffs that John Sauer falsely argued weren’t about generating revenue has served as cover for the tax cuts right wingers gave billionaires last summer, and if they’re overturned it’ll make the fiscal recklessness of the Big Ugly Bill (also the source of the cut ACA subsidies) more apparent. Still worse for Trump, if he loses, he’ll be faced with the prospect of paying back around $200 billion in revenues raised, starting with the five named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and then likely moving onto those who sued in advance of any SCOTUS decision. Last week, Neal Katyal suggested that maybe Congress could help Trump out of the problem he caused, which is laughable — but if he tried it, it would change leverage calculations around the next CR expiration in less than 60 days.

And that’s all before any crash in AI stocks, which some are predicting. That could cause a major financial catastrophe.

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

I mentioned in comments beneath my first Lapsed Catholic’s Bible Study post that I had other biblical material I was chewing on.

Funny enough, the chapter and verses I was referring to are absolutely appropriate to the Trump administration’s ethical and moral failures as well as that of the GOP’s congressional caucus.

It’s one of the most popular portions of the Bible. It may be familiar to you even if you’re not a church-going Christian as you may have heard as a reading at Christian weddings. It’s frequently used as an exhortation to the newlyweds and their future lives together.

1 Corinthians 13:1-13
13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant
5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.
7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Nice, huh? You can imagine the newlyweds before the altar, glowing with happiness, feeling all the wonderful attributes of love described in these verses.

Except that’s not what appears in every Bible published. In the King James version, this is 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 —

13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

I don’t ever recall this selection being read at Christian weddings, do you?

But even this version in which the word charity is used to describe the greatest of three virtues still doesn’t fully convey the intended meaning.

The English words love and charity are rough approximations of a Greek word ἀγάπη, agape — the love of humanity. Agape is both love and charity; it is the emotion of love combined with action of charity, felt for and offered to fellow humans who are God’s creations.

Trump and his minions, particularly Russell Vought, wanted to reshape the U.S. by way of Project 2025:

An influential think tank close to Donald Trump is developing plans to infuse Christian nationalist ideas in his administration should the former president return to power, according to documents obtained by POLITICO.

…

Christian nationalists in America believe that the country was founded as a Christian nation and that Christian values should be prioritized throughout government and public life. As the country has become less religious and more diverse, Vought has embraced the idea that Christians are under assault and has spoken of policies he might pursue in response.

One document drafted by CRA staff and fellows includes a list of top priorities for CRA in a second Trump term. “Christian nationalism” is one of the bullet points. Others include invoking the Insurrection Act on Day One to quash protests and refusing to spend authorized congressional funds on unwanted projects, a practice banned by lawmakers in the Nixon era.

Emphasis mine. Source: Trump allies prepare to infuse ‘Christian nationalism’ in second administration, Politico, Feb 20, 2024.

By actively choosing to starve or bankrupt Americans by refusing to extend healthcare subsidies and fully fund SNAP, thereby endangering human lives, Trump and his administration are doing the furthest thing from establishing a Christian nation. They are not acting with charity, and in this sense the demonstration of agape. They are treating persons who are marginalized by circumstances with more than disrespect but malignant disregard.

It is yet another mortal sin, on top of other mortal sins committed by knowingly seeking individuals to murder in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean, by turning over individuals for abuse and torture abroad as part of deportations, by encouraging cruel and unusual punishments in painful forms of execution of inviduals on death row. I’m sure there are more examples in this profile of Chicago under occupation by Trump’s ICE.

Being the lapsed Catholic that I am, I don’t ordinarily ask this kind of question, however I feel I need to ask as Trump and his Christian nationalist purveyors clearly haven’t asked either. What would Jesus do if confronted with this level of hate for fellow humans? What would Christ say about consciously choosing to deny food and healthcare to those most in need, including persons who are needy because they serve now or have served in the military? This level of hate for fellow humans is creating a national security threat; we can’t expect strong defense of our nation from people who haven’t eaten, or who are worried about feeding their family.

Ed Walker examined Trumpist Moral Choice in his most recent post as part of his excellent series on Simone de Beauvoir’s The Ethics of Ambiguity. I’m beyond the eeny-meeny-miney-moe of moral choice; our fellow Americans’ urgent needs call for more than mental exercise by the Trumpists who appear unable to consider consequences in advance of decisions.

Nor are platitudes enough; they don’t pay healthcare premiums and medical bills, make the rent, or put food on the table.

We need deeds not words. Genuine, immediate demonstrations of agape, the greatest of Christian virtues.

Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
— 1 John 3:18

Vindictive and selective prosecution cases are always nearly impossible to win, because of how narrowly the precedent draws the analysis. To prove vindictive prosecution, the defendant has to prove that the prosecutor who made a charging decision harbored animus to the defendant.

But of course, in Jim Comey and Letitia James’ case, the playacting prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, is just doing what her boss installed her to do. She didn’t act out of animus towards Comey and James, except insofar as such animus is a litmus test for belonging in Trump’s tribe (though her brief stint at the Smithsonian also exposed her as a dumb bigot, which could be relevant in James’ case). She acted out of a corrupt willingness to do anything her boss tells her to do.

Here’s how Lindsey’s Loaner AUSAs argued that Comey had not met that standard in their response to his vindictive and selective prosecution motion.

To start, the relevant analysis is whether the “prosecutor charging” the offense “harbored vindictive animus.” Wilson, 262 F.3d at 316; see United States v. Gomez-Lopez, 62 F.3d 304, 306 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that the focus “is on the ultimate decision-maker”). Here, that prosecutor is the U.S. Attorney. Yet the defendant doesn’t present any evidence that she harbors animus against him. Instead, he says that he doesn’t need any such evidence because his claim “turns on the animus harbored by the official who prompted the prosecution.” See Def. Mem., Dkt. No. 59 at 21. And, according to him, that is the President. See id. As discussed below, the President does not harbor vindictive animus against the defendant in the relevant sense. Before reaching that issue, however, the Court should determine whether the defendant has offered sufficient evidence to find that the President displaced the U.S. Attorney as “the ultimate decision-maker” in bringing this prosecution. See Gomez-Lopez, 62 F.3d at 304. The only “direct evidence” on the issue says otherwise. See Wilson, 262 F.3d at 314.

The defendant’s argument relies on the imputed-animus theory. The Fourth Circuit has never adopted that theory. In fact, when a defendant asked the Fourth Circuit to impute animus from investigating law-enforcement agents, the Fourth Circuit categorically rejected the theory. See United States v. Hastings, 126 F.3d 310, 314 (4th Cir. 1997) (“We will not impute the unlawful biases of the investigating agents to the persons ultimately responsible for the prosecution.”); see also United States v. Cooper, 617 F. App’x 249, 251 (4th Cir. 2015). That is consistent with other circuits’ application of the theory in that context. See, e.g., United States v. Gilbert, 266 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001) (“In all but the most extreme cases, it is only the biases and motivations of the prosecutor that are relevant.”); United States v. Spears, 159 F.3d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1998).

When courts have entertained the imputed-animus theory in other contexts, they have required a significant evidentiary showing: there must be “evidence that the federal prosecutor did not make the ultimate decision to bring the indictment.” Spears, 159 F.3d at 1087.

It is true that Comey and James (in a filing submitted Friday) both did ultimately say Trump ordered up their prosecutions, relying heavily on his tweet ordering Pam Bondi to install Lindsey Halligan to do so.

But they took a different approach in laying out the weaponization of DOJ. Comey, relying on a 60-page exhibit of Trump tweets to demonstrate the President’s animus, focused relentlessly on Trump. He didn’t even mention the now-FBI Director’s equally rabid animus.

Tish James had her exhibit showing how obsessively Trump hates her too; it includes not just tweets, but also speeches, and at 113 pages is almost twice as long as Comey’s exhibit.

But James also focused on the way the Trump Administration, more generally, has been (literally) stalking her, notably in the form of Eagle Ed Martin, as well as Pam Bondi, Stephen Miller, and Bill Pulte (this section is where James includes the Reuters report about firing the FHFA IG to prevent him from sharing information with prosecutors; that footnote and others are at the bottom of this page).

AG Bondi took the President’s mission to heart, and on the first day of her appointment, established DOJ’s “Weaponization Working Group,” with the stated objective to examine “[f]ederal cooperation with the weaponization” by “New York Attorney General Letitia James” to “target President Trump, his family and his businesses,” among other top priorities. 15 Ex. C. The goal was to retaliate against the President’s perceived political enemies, including AG James.

In March, President Trump also issued a Presidential Memorandum, “Rescinding Security Clearances and Access to Classified Information from Specified Individuals,” specifically calling out AG James, claiming “it is no longer in the national interest” for her, along with fourteen of his other perceived political opponents, to have a security clearance or access classified information. Ex. D.

The retribution campaign against AG James had only just begun. Around the same time, another federal agency, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), led by Director William Pulte, was also looking for dirt to use against AG James. By April 14, they had concocted it. Mr. Pulte delivered a criminal referral “[b]ased on media reports” to DOJ against AG James, claiming she had “in multiple instances, falsified bank documents and property records to acquire government backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms.” Ex. F at 1. The criminal referral cherry-picked documents to claim fraud over three properties—one even going back to 1983—none of which was the Peronne Property at issue in the indictment.16 The referral asked DOJ to open a criminal investigation into AG James. See Ex. F at 1. Mr. Pulte also coordinated with Edward Martin—the self-described “captain” of DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group who is President Trump’s close confidante and would later also be named a Special Attorney.17 Reporting even indicates that President Trump had been bypassing his senior DOJ lead regularly telephoning Martin for updates on his work, leaving [DAG Todd] Blanche ‘frustrated and annoyed,’” according to sources.18

Standing outside the White House on the day the referral was released, one of the President’s aides, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, told reporters AG James “is one of the most corrupt, shameless individuals ever to hold public office” and “is guilty of multiple, significant, serial criminal violations” for having “persecute[d] an innocent man,” referring to President Trump.19 President Trump also did not withhold his views about FHFA’s criminal referral to DOJ, attacking AG James directly in several social media posts discussing the referral:

Turns out you can’t have your principal residence in Virginia and be AG of New York. You can’t say your dad’s your husband. Or claim a five-unit is a four. But that’s what Letitia James did—while going after Trump for the same thing. You’ve got to be kidding me

Ex. A. at No. 334;

Letitia James, a totally corrupt politician, should resign from her position as New York State Attorney General, IMMEDIATELY. Everyone is trying to MAKE NEW YORK GREAT AGAIN, and it can never be done with this wacky crook in office.

Id. at No. 333.

On the heels of the referral to DOJ, in May, Mr. Martin admitted that he planned to use his authority to expose and discredit opponents of the President whom he believes to be guilty. 20 He made plain that it did not matter if there were no facts to back up President Trump’s accusations or even if a charge had no merit: “If they can be charged, we’ll charge them. But if they can’t be charged, we will name them. And we will name them, and in a culture that respects shame, there should be people that are shamed.”21 Discussing targets for criminal investigation, Martin stated that the Weaponization Working Group’s prerogative included “Letitia James.”22

And to support this additional prong of animus, James included a second, 12-page exhibit, which includes (among other things), all the creepy pictures Eagle Ed has posted of himself stalking James, including pictures showing him reviewing files with Halligan just before she indicted James or just randomly chatting up someone at FHFA.

It also documents Eagle Ed’s juvenile trolling on Xitter.

It may be an awkward time, for Eagle Ed, to have such a focus on his trollish obsessions.

That’s because he is currently involved in equally pathetic troll campaign targeting a woman that right wing nutjobs have decided must be the Pipe Bomber based off gait analysis — I guess they’ll get around to using phrenology? — and their dislike of how she testified against Guy Reffitt, the first Jan6er to go to trial.

Anna Bower has been spending her weekend documenting how Eagle Ed first posts, then deletes, tweets trying to gin up the frothy mob. In the first such instance, someone — maybe Todd Blanche — made Eagle Ed affirmatively deny the gait-analysis claims as a “fake.”

These tweets show not just that a key cog in the James prosecution — the guy who accepted allegations from Bill Pulte and then ferried them to the woman playacting as US Attorney — is a wild conspiracy theorist happy to magnify any kind of bullshit he gets from frothy right wingers, but also that some babysitter at DOJ knows he is, and is attempting to rein him in.

I’m not sure whether Comey’s more focused approach or James’ wholistic one works better. Given that prosecutors dismissed Comey’s comparators because none had precisely the same role he once did, he certainly has an opportunity to use the opening memo that Tyler Lemons submitted last week which led to these charges to show that the current FBI Director lied his ass off to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he told Mazie Hirono that he had no intention of revisiting history to prosecute Comey.

Senator Hirono (02:18:49):

Do you plan to investigate James Comey, who’s on your list?

Kash Patel (02:18:54):

I have no intentions of going backwards-

The opening memo shows that Kash wasted no time in doing just that — not just chasing the John Durham prosecution predicated of Russian disinformation, but putting Durham’s wildly-conflicted lead investigator in charge, literally finding a lame excuse to revisit the Durham investigation.

The broad or narrow scope may not matter. Indeed, unless the cases get dismissed because Lindsey was just playacting as US Attorney, there’s a non-zero chance these arguments will be appealed through the Fourth Circuit together, which is presumably why Comey had loaded his team with appellate lawyers and scores of people are submitting amicus briefs.

These vindictive and selective prosecution arguments may make new precedent, about whether the President can repurpose the Department of Justice to prioritize jailing his political adversaries.

But Eagle Ed has now made clear that one element of that repurposed DOJ is seizing and stoking baseless conspiracy theories to rile up the base.

15 Ryan Lucas, New attorney general moves to align Justice Department with Trump’s priorities, NPR (Feb. 5, 2025), https://perma.cc/WLU8-FPBL.

16 Mr. Pulte’s conduct demonstrates how far allies of the President would go to carry out his “get James” orders. Public reports indicate that Mr. Pulte “skipped over his agency’s inspector general when making criminal referrals” against President Trump’s political enemies. Reports also indicate he may have bypassed ethics rules in doing so. Marisa Taylor & Chris Prentice, Exclusive: Trump official bypassed ethics rules in criminal referrals of Fed governor and other foes, sources say, Reuters (Oct. 6, 2025), https://perma.cc/HK6Y-LJVR. The FHFA has no generalized crimefighting or anti-fraud authority. It does not even have an express authority to make criminal referrals besides those granted to the FHFA’s Inspector General under the Inspector General Act of 1978. In addition to violations of the act itself, Mr. Pulte may have failed to comply with the FHFA’s own Privacy Act regulations, which require FHFA to “ensure” that records containing personally identifiable information are “protected from public view.” Domenic Powell, Are Pulte’s “Mortgage Fraud” Investigations Legal?, Yale J. Reg.: Notice and Comment (Nov. 1, 2025), https://perma.cc/2U6G-S46X.

17 Alan Feuer et al., Trump Demands That Bondi Move ‘Now’ to Prosecute Foes, N.Y. Times (Sept. 20, 2025), https://perma.cc/FC9R-U8TK.

18 Andrew Feinberg, Trump ally probing rivals’ ‘mortgage fraud’ speaks directly with the president – and skips typical DOJ hierarchy, The Independent (Aug. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/4LXUUUAC.

19 Statement of Stephen Miller, White House Homeland Security Adviser and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, to Reporters outside the White House (Apr. 18, 2025), https://perma.cc/9X5GX7YB (emphasis added).

20 U.S. Attorney Ed Martin Holds News Conference, C-SPAN (May 13, 2025), https://www.cspan.org/program/news-conference/us-attorney-ed-martin-holds-news-conference/659817.

Index to posts in this series

My last post and Rayne’s excellent post A Lapsed Catholic’s Sunday Bible Study raise a question: how does a person claim to be both a Christian and a Trumpist? These two things seem utterly incompatible. In this post I look at this question using a formulation from Lecture 3 of Christine Korsgaard’s book The Sources Of Normativity, augmented by Simone de Beauvoir’s book The Ethics Of Ambiguity.

Identities

Normativity is a neutral word for moral principles. The point of Korsgaard’s book is to show how ethics can be formulated and justified without recourse to external sources, like sacred books.

Korsgaard begins with a description of the individual. She says we adult humans are reflective creatures. We are able to examine our behavior and evaluate it against standards we choose. This is the same ability we use to decide on plans of action. She says that when we are deciding how to act we require reasons. For example, when we experience hunger mid-afternoon, we have to decide whether to grab a snack or not. We give ourselves reasons for each and decide.

Korsgaard says we have different identities. We are spouses, parents, members of a tribe, residents of a city, workers, followers of religions, citizens of a nation. We are also human beings, members of an entire species. Each identity carries with it a set of behaviors, norms, and obligations.

For example, I was a lawyer. I operated under norms set by the ethical requirements of Tennessee. I practiced in the Bankruptcy Courts of Nashville and was bound by an unwritten set of norms established and enforced by my colleagues and the courts. Those norms were reasons to act in particular ways, even when other actions would be easier or more rewarding.

I think these two ideas, reflection and identity, fit nicely with other books I’ve discussed here. We looked at Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus in the discussion of Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Habitus is much like identities. The notion of reflection is very close to Michael Tomasello’s description of decision-making in The Evolution of Agency.

Korsgaard says that the demands of our identities can clash, and that is what gives rise to moral dilemmas. Here’s an overly simplified example. The father of the guy who murdered Charlie Kirk is apparently a Mormon, a father, and a citizen of Utah, and of course a human being. When confronted with the act of his son, he has to make a moral choice. His identities give rise to reasons for actions, and his internal arbiter has to choose. He chose to act on the norms of a good citizen and a good Mormon, and encourage his own son to turn himself in, despite the fact that Utah is a death penalty state.

It seems that in effect he has to stand away from his identities and examine their claims. It is as if there is another identity, not a social role, but something that is personal to him. Korsgaard refers to this as his internal arbiter. This is the source of his own normativity and in fact, the source of his identity. As Korsgaard puts it:

… [W]e require reasons for action, a conception of the right and the good. To act from such a conception is in turn to have a practical conception of your identity, a conception under which you value yourself and find your life to be worth living and your actions to be worth undertaking. That conception is normative for you and in certain cases it can obligate you, for if you do not allow yourself to be governed by any conception of your identity then you will have no reason to act and to live. P. 122.

The Christian Trumpist

It appears that there is a conflict between the moral teachings of Christianity and the actions of the Trump administration’s program of attacking immigrants and anyone who gets near them. The conflicts with The Parable of the Good Samaritan and the verses cited by Rayne are obvious.

I can think of three ways Trumpist Christians might explain their support for these atrocities. First, they may refuse to see the conflict. For example, if the Trumpist is a serious person in de Beauvoir’s sense, they may have internalized each of their identities so deeply that they only need to identify the situation in order to respond. If the person sees the question purely as a political question, only the Trumpist identity is in action and there is no conflict.

So, if the libtard asks Trumpist Uncle his opinion about the vile treatment of ICE detainees, Trumpist Uncle sees it as political and never ever sees it as a question about Christian values. In such a case Trumpist Uncle can regard himself under both identities without any recourse to an internal moral arbiter.

But worse, I’ve often wondered if Trumpists have an internal arbiter of any kind. Korsgaard and de Beauvoir both say that humans are reflective creatures, able to step back from their behavior and judge it. I don’t see that happening in the Trumpists I see in the media.

Here’s another possibility: a) the Christian and Trumpist identities must both submit to the internal arbiter of the individual to determine the one which will dictate action; or b) the identity as a Christian is the fundamental to the internal arbiter, the one by which all others are judged.

In either of these cases, if the Trumpist identity controls, it’s fair to ask the person in what sense are they actually Christians. If it means I’m a Christian except when Trump makes a demand, are you truly a Christian?

There’s at least one more possibility. Maybe the Christian leaders that the person follows has explained everything in advance. For example, apparently many preachers assert that Trump is the imperfect tool used by the Almighty for good ends, followed by the claim that in this Trump is like King David. 1 Samuel 17 – 1 Kings 2:10.

I wonder how many Christians have read this story themselves. I have, and I reread it for this post. There is no way in which Trump is like King David. First, Trump is a draft-dodging coward who gets other people to do his dirty work (except around Epstein?). David was a powerful warrior, who spent much of his life fighting in actual wars to protect and expand the lands of the Chosen People.

Second, David did in fact sin, again and again. But in each case he repented, and in each case he was punished by the Almighty even after he repented. His biggest crime was the abuse of Bathsheba (the front page art is Rembrandt’s Bathsheba at the Bath, at the Louvre).

2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (Now she was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness.) Then she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, “I am pregnant.”

David first tried to get Uriah to sleep with her to cover his adultery, and when that didn’t work he had his top general put Uriah in the heat of the battle where he was killed.

The Almighty sent the prophet Nathan to tell David he would be punished for this heinous evil. David repents, as he does whenever he realizes he has sinned against the Almighty. But he is punished nevertheless by the treason and death of his beloved son Absalom, and by a life of war.

Trump has never repented any of his terrible sins, and has only rarely been held accountable for anything.

Actual Christians have at least some familiarity with the Bible, especially the important stories. How could anyone see anything of Trump in King David? How is this story a plausible justification for voting for Trump? If a Trumpist Christian bothered to read the story of David would they grasp this? Or is this a bit of evidence that they do not judge moral issues for themselves?