I already noted that, after Judge Michael Nachmanoff issued an order setting Monday as the deadline for prosecutors to provide Jim Comey all the discovery in his case, prosecutors submitted what they fashion as a Motion for a Discovery Order.

I was going to leave the filing well enough alone. Either Pat Fitzgerald or Judge Nachmanoff will respond later today, when things will get interesting. But there are a number of stupid things about the filing I can’t shake.

1) First, the prosecutors (it was submitted by Gabriel Diaz) do not fashion this as a motion for reconsideration. They just … pretend that Nachmanoff’s order doesn’t exist, and pretend they’re submitting this for the first time. That seems like a spectacular way to infuriate a judge.

2) They’re asking for two deadlines — October 14 for the things pertaining to the vindictive prosecution motion and October 20 for everything else, a transparent attempt to keep things from Comey that might be pertinent to his vindictive prosecution motion.

Part of their justification for filing this is that the parties had not reached an agreement and so they were following Nachmanoff’s order to submit competing versions on Monday.

On October 8, 2025, the Court ordered “the parties immediately confer regarding the entry of a joint discovery order” and further ordered “that if after good faith discussions the parties are unable to agree on and file a joint discovery order by Friday, October 10, 2025, . . . the parties shall each submit a proposed discovery order by Monday, October 13, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. D.E. 24.

But then, in a high school debate-worthy footnote, they suggest that Monday couldn’t be the deadline because it’s not five business days before the first pretrial motion deadline, since it’s a holiday.

Following the Court’s orders regarding discovery at docket entries 28 and 29, the Government conferred with Defense as to what the discovery deadline is. The Defense position was that, per the Court’s Order, discovery could have technically been due on Friday, October 10, 2025. But the notion that discovery was due prior to the Court entering a discovery order is not plausible. Alternatively, the Defense identified October 13, 2025, as the due date. This date is a Federal Holiday and is also inconsistent with the discovery order from this Court that lists discovery as due five business days before the pretrial motion deadline.

You’re already treating Monday as a business day!! Your entire premise here — that Fitzgerald should have held off on filing until Monday — is that you’re working on Monday.

3) Elsewhere — apparently in an attempt to suggest they were being really nice by letting Comey submit a second set of pretrial motions on October 30 — they describe that the default pretrial motion deadline going into last week’s hearing would have been October 22.

The defendant requested, the government agreed, and the Court ordered two motions Deadlines, October 20, 2025, and October 30, 2025. Notably, EDVA Local Criminal Rule 12 states that pretrial motions should be filed within 14 days of the arraignment. Here, the 14 day deadline would have been October 22.

This amounts to a confession that the default deadline for discovery going into last week’s hearing would have been five business days before October 22, or October 17. Prosecutors provide no explanation why they need an extra three days simply because Comey has two sequential pretrial motions.

4) They describe that Comey wouldn’t discuss the discovery order on October 7 when — for the first time in the 12 days since Comey had been indicted — prosecutors first reached out, because Comey’s team first demanded to know who the people described in the indictment were.

At that time, the government discussed with the defendant the proposed standard EDVA discovery agreement and a discovery protective agreement. At the initial discussion the defendant would not agree until the government provided information on the U.S. Attorney’s appointment and the identities of PERSON 1 and PERSON 3 on the Indictment.

Remember: Pat Fitzgerald said three different times in the arraignment the next day that he still hadn’t been told who these people were. So Diaz is effectively confessing that prosecutors wouldn’t — perhaps couldn’t — describe who these people were.

5) The only justifiable reason they give for delay is that the two sides have yet to agree on a protective order, which they claim is really important because of “the sensitivities and exposure associated with this prosecution.”

Additionally, the parties have yet to agree on a discovery protective agreement. Considering the sensitivities and exposure associated with this prosecution, a discovery protective agreement is a vital part of the overall discovery plan.

[snip]

On the afternoon of October 9, 2025, the defendant emailed back the government’s proposed protective agreement with significant proposed edits.

[snip]

Consistent with the Court’s direction at arraignment, the parties have also conferred regarding a discovery protection agreement. The government provided a past template used in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Defense made substantial edits, and the government agreed to those edits in large part. However, the parties still lack agreement as to whether the discovery can be provided and retained by the Defendant.

But they don’t provide the protective order (AKA “protection agreement”) with this filing. By their logic, they’re refusing to turn over discovery until they have one. By not turning it over, they’re ensuring that they cannot meet the currently set deadline of Monday.

6) Finally, they spelled North Carolina wrong.

Update: Corrected (from five to three) how many more days prosecutors are trying to get off what would have been the original October 17 due date.

Update: Here was Comey’s response (which noted that the government was just trying to change the terms of the discovery order after Comey signed it). And here’s Nachmanoff’s order rejecting the government bid.

Now the government is dicking around with the protective order, trying to mandate that the former Director of the FBI have a babysitter while reviewing discovery.

Update: Here’s Comey’s response and his proposed protective order.

Every Manny for Himself

(Apologies for the delay, Macron ran out my work day, went into my Saturday, but damn it, this is still France)

After a mean girl spat, in which the leader of the ever-more-trending-hard-right Le Republicans, Retailleau, said he can’t be in a government with that bitch Bruno Le Maire, Lecornu  gave up on proposing a budget at all. He went for a good four day sulk. By the end of the week, he was summoned to an audience with Macron to work it out.

Friends, he did not work it out.

Macron and His Warrior Monk

Macron is not on speaking terms with either reality or France. He gave himself Friday to fix France’s government. It was mostly silence all day, because there was no rational way of resolving this political crisis without making compromises and talking to all the parties. Then, in the evening, instead of deciding anything at all, Macron doubled down on the fantasy he’s acting outright now. He re-appointed Sébastien Lecornu to the job that Lecornu had been forced to quit on Monday. All it needed was a chimney on the Elysee palace and a puff of shit-brown smoke, for this re-run of the most tragically useless ministerial episode in modern French history.

There was some talk that Macron might try to pull a PM from the center Left, after exhausting his centrist talent pool, but it was not to be. There was some thinking that he could even pull from the more moderate Right, and just admit the direction he’s been drifting since his days as a fresh-faced socialist. (Albeit with maybe just a few royal aspirations that he would mention from time to time in the early days of his presidency.)

Unsurprisingly the crisis spilled into his Saturday. But don’t worry about Macron, he will be on a plane Monday morning to Egypt. There he will be doing something or other on the Gaza Ceasefire deal, which France is not involved in. Probably some waving, maybe some getting his picture taken, perhaps even some talking to people, as long as they’re not French.

Lecornu doesn’t get to jet off to Egypt. Lecornu remains loyal to a fault. After chatting with his president behind closed doors he has declared publicly that he is Macron’s warrior monk, and doesn’t seem at all embarrassed by saying it. He’s going back to Parliament for a do-over. He won’t be changing much anything because the French are wrong, and Macron is always right.

“But, Wait, What if We Did nothing?!”

Next week he’s bringing mostly the same budget to the same Parliament that signaled they would slapped him down less than a week ago, forcing him to quit. If the definition of insanity really is doing the same thing over again and hoping for a different result, Lecornu, Macron, and France in general, is completely insane.

After he drops his budget turd on parliament, his next task will be trying to form a government. No one who wants any kind of political future will want to be in it. But Macron’s people are either all in or keeping quiet. Even the ones that hope to succeed him are standing there, trying to look normal. All the president’s men have lost their marbles.

What About Everyone Else?

Both the French Right and Left are largely out of the picture for the moment, despite having the second largest (The Right Lead by the convicted and ineligible Le Pen) and largest block (The Left lead by who even knows?)

Right now the right is still nominally lead by Marine Le Pen, despite the fact that she’s currently a convicted felon who can’t hold office for years to come. Le Pen is in politics for the good of Le Pen, and she would tear her whole party down if it was standing in the wrong place. She’s unlikely to use her resources to promote someone else to be the vanguard of the Right and take her place as the RN’s presidential candidate. There’s always her meat puppet, Jordan Bardella, but he is too afraid of girls to realistically run for the presidency.

The French Left has a fair bit of political talent, but Mélenchon, who is now well into his 70s, still has energy for one thing: getting in the way of anyone trying to unify the patchwork of leftist parties and accomplish something. He’s still the one ordained French leftist for the media, both in the US and France. It is absolutely a crime against humanity that he still has power over the French mainly by being in journalist’s rolodex, and always returning calls. He recently scored an interview with the New York Times. At no point did the journalist ask what his role is in his former party, which was convenient because he doesn’t have one.

Thierry Breton, former European Commissioner made a point of saying there’s something deeply wrong with the the French. He was articulating something we’re all becoming aware of, but no one knows how to fix. (Breton is a proponent of austerity, which we should all remember Literally Never Works.) But he is right that the politics of this country, like so many right now, is fundamentally broken.

There are a lot of reasons, but it’s important to remember that the 5th republic was engineered to work for exactly one man: Charles de Gaulle. De Gaulle used the tools built into the 5th Republic to rebuild France in the post war period, that’s the task it was designed for. He died in 1970.

He never saw the Berlin Wall fall, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Iranian Revolution, the internet, The fall of Nixon, the rise of the Dungeons and Dragons media empire, or Labubus. Much like the American system, France’s hardest problem is being trapped in the amber of past ages. Unlike the American system, France is not set up to ignore its problems forever while it falls apart.

What comes next? Probably stasis and political entropy. But things that aren’t sustainable don’t sustain, a lesson that France, like America, has decided to learn the hard way.

In this post, I noted a paragraph of a recent ABC story that had escaped much notice: one reason prosecutors didn’t think they would succeed in prosecuting Jim Comey was because there would be too much discovery.

Prosecutors further expressed concerns about the department’s ability to take the case to trial quickly due to problems identifying all the relevant materials that would need to be handed over to Comey’s lawyers, sources said.

I speculated that one reason the prosecutors borrowed from Raleigh — Tyler Lemons and Gabriel Diaz — claimed there would be extensive classified information was to stall for time.

Such efforts are already failing. At the arraignment, Judge Michael Nachmanoff ordered the two sides to come up with a discovery order by Friday or submit their competing sides Monday. Yesterday, Comey’s lawyers submitted this filing, explaining that they had immediately signed the standard discovery order, but had yet to receive a signed copy back. As described, the two sides disagreed about one issue, what pretrial motion date would govern: the deadline for his Vindictive and Selective Prosecution claim (so five business days before October 20 — which is Monday), or the one ten days later for his other claims (October 23).

In the course of the parties’ meet and confer, the government sent the defense the standard discovery order attached and the defense signed it with no changes to the government’s proposal and returned it for government signatures on Thursday afternoon, October 9, 2025. To-date, however, the government has not returned a signed copy. While the parties agree to the terms of the standard discovery order, the parties disagree as to an interpretation of one term of the order—specifically, which of the two pretrial motions deadlines prompts the government’s Rule 16(a) production described in paragraph 1, requiring the government to produce certain discovery “no later than 5 business days before the deadline for pretrial motions.” See Exhibit 1 at 1 (emphasis added).

Mr. Comey asserts that the first set of pretrial motions due on October 20, 2025, which the Court ordered at the arraignment hearing, demands that discovery be produced on Monday, October 13, 2025. Naturally, at least some of this discovery will inform the bases for the vindictive and selective prosecution motion that is to be filed on October 20, 2025. As of the date of this filing, the defense has received one page of discovery. The government contends that the term “deadline for pretrial motions” refers to the deadline for the second tranche of pretrial motions, October 30, 2025.

To be able to fully articulate all bases for the first tranche of pretrial motions including the vindictive and selective nature of this case; to be able to effectively defend Mr. Comey; and because it is the plain language of the standard discovery order, Mr. Comey respectfully requests that the Court enter the additional proposed order making clear that “the deadline for pretrial motions” referenced in the standard discovery order is the first pretrial motions deadline of October 20, 2025. [my emphasis]

The part of this that is unmanageable is the requirement that prosecutors provide any statements the former FBI Director made about the matters at issue, which must be epic.

ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a), no later than 5 business days before the deadline for pretrial motions, the government shall provide to the defense or make available for inspection and copying materials listed below that are in the possession of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

[snip]

any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant, or copies thereof, within the possession, custody, or control of the government, the existence ofwhich is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known

But the real reason prosecutors attempted this ploy is the requirement that prosecutors provide everything material to Comey’s defense (to say nothing of Brady obligations).

3. The government shall permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the government, and which are material to the preparation of his defense

The rest of the ABC piece makes clear some of what that will include:

There’s Dan Richman’s testimony that, contrary to the claim in the charges, Comey had specifically ordered him not to serve as an anonymous source for the press.

Daniel Richman — a law professor who prosecutors allege Comey authorized to leak information to the press — told investigators that the former FBI director instructed him not to engage with the media on at least two occasions and unequivocally said Comey never authorized him to provide information to a reporter anonymously ahead of the 2016 election, the sources said.

[snip]

When prosecutors met with Richman in September, he told them that he never served as an anonymous source for Comey or acted at Comey’s direction while he was FBI director, sources familiar with his interview told ABC News. In at least two cases when Richman asked if he should speak with the press, Comey advised him not to do so, sources said.

As an earlier ABC story reported, it will also include John Durham’s testimony that, in four years of trying, he never found evidence that Jim Comey lied.

John Durham, the former special counsel who spent nearly four years examining the origins of the FBI investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and its alleged ties to Russia, told federal prosecutors investigating James Comey that he was unable to uncover evidence that would support false statements or obstruction charges against the former FBI director, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

And it’ll also include the testimony of other prosecutors who spent years investigating Comey that they also did not find any evidence he committed a crime.

The prosecutors also met with a team of lawyers at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., who had investigated Comey for years — including calling him to testify before a grand jury in 2021 — but were unable to identify any chargeable offenses committed by Comey, sources familiar with the meeting said.

It might even include the declination recommendation submitted to Erik Siebert just days before Trump started demanding prosecutions anyway.

Whether or not Comey’s Vindictive and Selective Prosecution succeeds (as Lawfare has laid out, the legal standard for those is a bit inapt for his case), this testimony would nevertheless provide an opportunity to lay out proof of something that right wingers and NYT reporters continue to deny: Donald Trump did investigate precisely the same people he demands be prosecuted now.

For years.

But some very determined prosecutors concluded that there was no probable cause to charge him.

Without waiting to hear from prosecutors, Nachmanoff filed the discovery order — signed by just Comey’s attorneys — to the docket, and issued an order stating that the earlier deadline applies.

The first pretrial motions deadline in this matter is October 20, 2025. This is the pretrial motions deadline to which the discovery order refers and the date that prompts the government’s Rule 16(a) discovery production.

By Monday, Lemons and Diaz are going to have to decide how badly they want to risk their own law license.

They could move to dismiss the prosecution, the ethical thing to do, but one that will get them fired. And even then, now there’s a matter before Nachmanoff that could force the disclosure of all that anyway.

They could admit that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer was not lawfully appointed (the one piece of discovery they did provide is likely her appointment order, which will be enough to prove that she was not lawfully appointed), and therefore the indictment is invalid.

They could turn over evidence to Jim Comey that shows prosecutors knew there was no probable cause to charge him but did anyway.

Or they could stall, putting their own careers at risk in a different way.

This dilemma makes it clear why Comey was all smiles last week. It makes it clear why Pat Fitzgerald, and not Lemons and Diaz, appeared to be the one directing a prosecution Wednesday.

It even makes his two-phase approach clear. Comey’s case is inapt to existing Vindictive and Selective Prosecution precedents. But what Fitzgerald has done is force an immediate disclosure of this stuff, which he can then use to make arguments that effectively put Lindsey Halligan’s — and through her, Trump’s — behavior on trial, what Fitz described as “a grand jury abuse motion, and outrageous government conduct motion.”

Unless prosecutors find a way to make this problem go away, in nine days, we’ll get details (in the Vindictive and Selective Prosecution motion) of how badly Trump has tried to prosecute Jim Comey, and how those efforts failed, until the moment he unlawfully installed his own defense attorney as US Attorney at EDVA.

Update: The government has submitted a fairly contemptuous motion (because it does not recognize Nachmanoff’s order), partly hiding behind protective orders.

Index to posts in this series. Please read this post, especially the discussion of ambiguity. This post makes more sense if you read the previous post.

This series discusses The Ethics Of Ambiguity by Simone de Beauvoir. In the last post we saw that de Beauvoir thinks that people’s response to their existential situation, especially to their freedom, is heavily influenced by their childhood experiences. I discussed several types of response to existentialist ambiguity: infantilism, the sub-man, and the serious person. In this post I discuss other possible responses.

I think de Beauvoir is saying that as children we think the structures given by adults are immutable facts of existence. The discovery that they are not creates the need to respond. For many this requires finding a way to deal with the slowly dawning fact that there is no meaning in the universe other that that provided by people, and we have to choose a response ourselves.

Her categories are not phases of development, that is, we do not progress from one to another. They are not permanent, so people can change. And they do share some some qualities.

As you read about these categories, try to think of people who fit into them, whether real people or people in novels or other media.

Serious people. As we saw in the previous post, serious people merely cling tightly to the structures that made them feel safe as children. This is a choice of sorts, but serious people hide themselves from the fact that they have made a free choice. They feel themselves bound by the structures they’ve been given and accept all instructions from those empowered by those structures. For this reason they easily become allies of tyranny.

Nihilists. Nihilists realize that the structures handed to them by others are arbitrary. They deny the possibility that they themselves can create meaningful responses. They deny the possibility of any justification for existence. In rejecting their freedom to create justifications, they deny the essence of their own existence. They refuse to strive towards being. In doing so they become nothing. There is no meaning, so anything is allowable.

Nihilists might further decide that the world and the justifications created by other humans are both contemptible, and respond with scorn. Alternatively they might see the mere existence of others as repulsive, and wish for the annihilation of the world and themselves.

Nihilists realize that they are free, but they see that freedom as a negative thing, leaving them oppressed and confused. They do not see that freedom can be a positive thing, opening up the future to infinite possible human futures. Both serious people and nihilists are unwilling to use their freedom positively, to choose a future for themselves.

Nihilists either scorn or actively hate others. As a result they are naturally allies of tyranny. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt says that this was the position of the intellectual elites before and during the Nazi takeover. They despised bourgeois culture and were willing to participate in its destruction.

Adventurers. Adventurer, like nihilists, see no meaning in life. But unlike nihilists, adventurers enjoy life, and revel in what it has to offer. They seek no justification for their actions beyond self-satisfaction. And, again unlike nihilists, they accept their subjectivity, their ability to make choices. They throw themselves into action, seeking challenges and conquests, moving from one to the next. But there is no transcendent purpose, no goal, for all their activity. Perhaps they are motivated by the thrill of accomplishment, or the satisfaction of trying; or maybe by the wealth, or power, or glory they can gain.

They proclaim their scepticism in regard to recognized values. They do not take politics seriously. They thereby allow themselves to be collaborationists in ‘41 and communists in ‘45, and it is true they don’t give a hang about the interests of the French people or the proletariat…. P 59

Adventurers have no regard for others except as a means to accomplishing their personal goals. They may treat others as comrades in pursuing a specific goal or they may see others as obstacles. This lack of connection makes them plausible allies for tyranny. By aligning themselves with tyrants they can satisfy their personal goals without regard to others.

Alternatively, adventurers may become aware that satisfaction of their own goals involves other people who have projects of their own. They may realize that helping others become fully free is a value itself. At least adventurers may realize that working positively with others helps them achieve their own goals. This is a step closer to becoming fully free.

Passionate people. Like adventurers, passionate people recognize their freedom and use it to create projects with goals and purposes of their own devising. But these goals can easily become ends in themselves, and passionate people lose their own subjectivity in pursuit of those goals. Passionate people see their projects as ends in themselves, and they may well lose their subjectivity in the struggle to attain them, they lose themselves, becoming tools useful only to attain the end.

“The passionate man seeks possession, he desires to attain being.” P. 65. For Existentialists this is bad. The essence of existence is to create in ourselves a lack of being so that we have an open future. Passionate people want full being, which they think will come from the completion of their project, from the attainment of their goal. It won’t. As with adventurers, the goal does nothing to create being. But the drive of passionate people consumes their own subjectivity, leaving them nothing but the end itself, which is absurd facticity, meaningless.

Passionate people are so involved with their project that they are indifferent to others. They live in a kind of solitude. They may be able to impose their will on others by force of personality or by the vitality with which drives them. But they are equally likely to bend to a tyranny that gives them the ability to force others to do their will, regardless of their own projects. In either case they are an obstacle to the freedom of others.

Critics. Critics respond to their freedom by trying to transcend existence, says de Beauvoir. Critics set up “,,, a superior, universal, and timeless value, objective truth.” P. 68. Serious people also do this, but critics claim to have discovered this universal themselves. They see themselves as the singular independent minds that recognize this truth. In this way they surmount the limits of human existence, at least in their own minds.

In doing so, critics ignore the ambiguity which is at the heart of human existence. They do not see a need to justify themselves to others, because they have the Truth. They cannot be fully free or fully human. De Beauvoir says we are all part of the world. We cannot transcend it.

Conclusion

The nub of this chapter is that to be fully free is to recognize our own freedom in the freedom of others. We know freedom in ourselves because we see it displayed by other people. To the extent that others are not free we are not fully free, and we are  responsible to assist them in becoming free. Both for ourselves and others, we are free insofar as we are able to work towards a project while remaining open to the world and to others.

Discussion

1. I think De Beauvoir sees the failure to grasp the nature of freedom as a key element of fascism. A truly free person will reject totalitarianism in all its forms as ridiculous limits on the freedom which is our essential nature. Does this seem plausible in today’s world?

2. De Beauvoir gives examples of some of these categories. For example, she describes Don Juan, the legendary predator, as an adventurer. He seeks the sexual conquest of women, not out of love or even lust, but for the thrill of overcoming the will of the target. In Verdi’s Don Giovanni   the Don Juan character doesn’t care about Dona Elvira and her father. He doesn’t care about Zerlina, the virginal bride, or her husband, Masetto. In Verdi’s gripping story Don Juan’s drive for conquest leads to his doom.

In my next post I will look at examples of each of these categories. If you have ideas for such examples, or any other aspect of these categories, put them in the comments.

Listen on spotify (transcripts available)

Listen on Apple (transcripts available)

Donald Trump indicted Jim Comey (and Tish James, and probably John Bolton next) not just because he is wracked by a compulsion to humiliate the people who have the temerity to suggest the justice system should apply to him, too. His fascist project also requires him to completely replace rule of law with corruption, as part of a tool to enforce loyalty.

But as he betrayed in the Truth Social post to Pam Bondi that he accidentally posted publicly, he also did so because his rubes are growing impatient.

I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, “same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done.

Donald Trump has sold his rubes on a promise of “justice:” that those he has demonized will be be branded criminals not just in Trump’s propaganda, but by the legal system as well. The nativists were getting restless that he had yet to deliver and so Trump was under pressure and that’s part of why he pressured Bondi in turn.

It’s not just Trump’s pathologies that demanded these indictments; it’s also the impatience of a very dangerous mob.

With the impatience of Trump’s mob in mind, I want to look at what the Comey arraignment suggests the rhythm of this particular prosecution will go.

EDVA’s rocket docket

EDVA has what’s called a “rocket docket,” an expectation that cases go to trial as quickly as possible and that the trial be as short as possible. On its face, a rocket docket could disrupt Trump’s need to feed his rubes, because it would hasten the moment when the whole thing is exposed as a fraud.

But it also poses a problem because the professionals who will take over this prosecution from Lindsey Halligan — Raleigh AUSAs Tyler Lemons (who took the lead at the arraignment) and Gabriel Diaz — only filed their notices of appearance on October 7, the day before arraignment, and when Patrick Fitzgerald reached out to them, they were completely unprepared to describe even the most basic aspects of the charges against Comey.

Unsurprisingly, the first thing Judge Michael Nachmanoff asked — after Fitzgerald entered a plea of not guilty for Comey — was to ask what date speedy trial would require a trial, which both Fitzgerald and Nachmanoff agreed would work out to be December 17.

When Nachmanoff asked if the case could go to trial by then, Fitzgerald skipped a step, immediately describing that he had sent a letter to prosecutors laying out his theory of defense and a two-phased set of motions he planned to file. He described the first — a Selective and Vindictive prosecution challenge and a challenge to Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s appointment — to be submitted on October 20. As Fitzgerald described, “our view is that this prosecution was brought at the direction of President Trump to silence a constant critic of him and, “we think [Halligan’s appointment] is an unlawful appointment.” He was less sure about what he would file ten days later, on October 30, but suggested a Bronston literal truth defense motion (the basis for which Anthony Trenga threw out one charge against Igor Danchenko in this same district), a grand jury abuse motion, and an outrageous government conduct motion.

Selling a Lemons CIPA dodge

Lemons used Fitzgerald’s explanation that he would like to exclude 31 days of time from Speedy Trial to insinuate Fitzgerald had suggested Comey needed time to prepare for trial, only to then confess he was not prepared to prosecute the case. “Part of it is obviously honoring the defense’s request for the later trial date and understanding and wanting them to be — have the time adequate to prepare for trial, but also in — it’s no discredit to Mr. Fitzgerald. He’s not — and we’re just getting our hands around the discovery as well.” But he also pointed to “a large amount of discovery which also includes classified information” for the request for more time.

Let me interrupt and note that the most recent ABC piece disclosing concerns the EDVA prosecutors had about the case included the amount of information the government would have to share with Comey.

Prosecutors further expressed concerns about the department’s ability to take the case to trial quickly due to problems identifying all the relevant materials that would need to be handed over to Comey’s lawyers, sources said.

As described, this is not about classified information (though I don’t doubt there’s a fair amount of materials on the SVR files believed to be at the heart of Dan Richman’s involvement). So it seems likely that Lemons is leaning on classified information as a way to stall.

Nevertheless, my sense is this is when things began to get a bit tense in the hearing, not least because it made it important for Fitzgerald to put on the record how unprepared the prosecution team was, but also because it raised the hackles of an EDVA judge about an interloper coming in and refusing to comply with rocket docket considerations.

Fitzgerald used it as an invitation to repeat that prosecutors had not yet told him who the people described in the indictment were (a complaint he made in different form at least three times). But — as a guy who has presided over some of the most difficult CIPA processes in history — he also scolded prosecutors for putting the cart before the horse, charging before making sure spooks would be willing to declassify intelligence to make a criminal case (not coincidentally, something John Durham did too).

We would have thought in the normal course when the government brings a case, they address the classified information issues ahead of time, coordinate within the national security section, and have a plan. And, frankly, we feel like in this case, the cart may have been put before the horse, and my client would not like to wait around unnecessarily while they go through things we think that should have been done before.

For his part, Nachmanoff used the CIPA excuse as an opportunity to order prosecutors to get Fitzgerald clearance as quickly as possible and to conduct the fastest CIPA process in history. “Either it’s not relevant to the case or it can be declassified or we will go through the fastest CIPA process you have ever seen in your lives.”

Donald Trump’s clearance tantrums

There are two surprises that may arise out of this focus on CIPA, even ignoring Nachmanoff’s impatience with it.

Nachmanoff only described getting Fitzgerald clearance (he noted that Jessica Carmichael, the only attorney of the five present who was currently practicing in EDVA, “has had a number of national security cases in this district in the last few months”). He did not mention Comey getting clearance.

That said, it is customary in CIPA cases to give a defendant clearance if he had clearance to access the materials at issue in a case during the period of the alleged crime — that’s the standard adopted, for example, by Aileen Cannon in the stolen documents case.

If Comey wanted access to this material — and there’s good reason to argue he should — then it might create a conflict between prosecutors (including Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer) and Trump, because one of the areas where a purportedly unreviewable Presidential authority has come under challenge is in legal cases, where the government has tried to moot a legal case by denying someone clearance.

That is, this trial might force Trump to agree to give Comey clearance, something he has stripped from all his adversaries.

But Comey might have reason not to pursue it: because of the even more abusive case Jack Eckenrode is attempting to build in WDVA.

Jack Eckenrode, WDVA, and John Durham’s discovery woes

Last week, one of the FBI agents purged by Kash Patel, Michael Feinberg, described that one of two FBI agents on this case was, “John Durham’s factotum and enforcer,” which via this link he confirmed to mean Jack Eckenrode.

The significance of Eckenrode’s role in this case has received far too little attention. As late as Scooter Libby’s indictment, Eckenrode was a key investigator on Fitzgerald’s CIA Leak case team. But then, as multiple people got leaked information about Karl Rove being imminently indicted, he wasn’t anymore. He and Fitzgerald (and Comey, as the link above notes) go way back, but there’s also a decent chance that Fitzgerald has reasons to know that Eckenrode leaked details of that earlier investigation to pressure him to expand the charges.

And, as Feinberg noted, Eckenrode was Durham’s right hand man, which makes Durham’s testimony (also reported by ABC) pretty awkward.

John Durham, the former special counsel who spent nearly four years examining the origins of the FBI investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and its alleged ties to Russia, told federal prosecutors investigating James Comey that he was unable to uncover evidence that would support false statements or obstruction charges against the former FBI director, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

Federal prosecutors in Virginia met remotely with Durham in August to understand the findings of his investigation, according to sources familiar with the meeting, and his conclusions raise the prospect that Durham — who was once elevated by Trump and other Republicans believing he would prosecute high-level officials involved with the investigation of the president’s 2016 campaign — could now become a key figure aiding Comey’s defense.

But Eckenrode is also, per the NYT, the lead investigator in an investigation in WDVA premised on what seems to be a theory that FBI agents hid documents in a burn bag to protect people like Comey.

And that suggests a certain logic to the charges as originally packaged (which Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer fucked up and caused to be released). Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer, coached by Eckenrode, first tried to get the grand jury to approve three charges:

• One false statement charge claiming Comey lied when he couldn’t remember what Durham and Eckenrode, with the collusion of Kash Patel and John Ratcliffe, falsely packaged up into a “Clinton Plan” to frame Donald Trump (this is the one the grand jury rejected)
• Another false statement charge claiming Comey lied when he answered (he didn’t really) that he had not authorized anyone to speak to the press anonymously for him, which at some point meant Dan Richman sharing information about SVR documents suggesting that Loretta Lynch was helping Hillary dodge the email investigation
• An obstruction charge arising out of those lies (and now, the single charged lie)

That is, the original theory of the case (and unless the new prosecutors pull a wild headfake to try to salvage the case, still the theory) was directly relevant to the WDVA case. The idea being, you “prove” in EDVA that Jim Comey was lying in 2020 about his knowledge of multiple SVR documents, which you then use to build a case in WDVA that the FBI was conspiring to protect an effort in 2016 to focus on Trump to the exclusion of Hillary.

This is a direct replay of the strategy that Durham (who debunked the current charges) adopted (working with Eckenrode) in 2021, when he attempted to hang conspiracies around two thin false statement cases against Michael Sussmann and Igor Danchenko. You use the false statement to prove a motive for the conspiracy.

You also use one case — as Durham did with privilege challenges in the Sussmann case to obtain records that might have been pertinent to the Igor Danchenko case if they had said what his fervant fever dreams imagined they might — to attempt to obtain evidence for the larger case.

What’s worth knowing, though, is how classification stymied Durham’s case but also — thus far — protected his collusion with Russian spies. First, in 2020 (literally leading up to the Jim Comey testimony for which he has been charged), Ratcliffe and Kash “declassified” a bunch of documents in a misleading way to substantiate their “Clinton Plan” fabrication, pretty much reversing the meaning of the documents. That then formed the backbone of the Durham investigation. But Durham only shared still-classified SVR documents with a few subjects of the investigation, like Julianne Smith. He showed targets, like Peter Strzok, the misleadingly redacted documents (indeed, that’s what the question to Comey they wanted to charge would have been based on). There was a CIPA process with Sussmann, but I’m convinced they didn’t give him adequate substitutions, because otherwise he would have argued that they were framing him with fabricated documents.

The important detail is that Durham tried to coerce testimony from targets, undoubtedly including Comey, that would have required granting them clearance for such testimony. Witnesses could and some did avoid testifying by refusing to accept clearance — the same thing that the US Attorney in Philadelphia is using with a credulous Marc Caputo to excuse his inability to charge John Brennan.

Of course, to the extent that prosecutors who know none of this background have been dragged into this at the last minute, they may be forced to provide Fitzgerald, at least, with the proof that Eckenrode is still chasing decade old Russian disinformation. They’re just getting their hands around the discovery as well, Lemons explained.

They may in fact hand Fitzgerald evidence that Eckenrode committed the crime he wants to frame Jim Comey of doing.

Lindsey Halligan won’t say who she represents

There were two other details of from the arraignment that didn’t get enough attention, in my opinion.

First, here’s how the introductions went down. Lemons, the AUSA taking the lead, spoke first, greeting Judge Nachmanoff and describing his client in the standard manner. “Good morning, Your Honor. Tyler Lemons for the United States government.”

Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer went next. Not only did she not greet the judge, but … she didn’t tell us who she represents. “Lindsey Halligan,” was all she said.

After Gabriel Diaz introduced himself in the normal fashion (greeting, then describing that he represents the US), Fitzgerald gave the answer that made all the press reports (probably by design): “Good morning, Your Honor. Pat Fitzgerald, and it’s the honor of my life to represent Mr. Comey in this matter.”

Carmichael, the only one currently practicing in EDVA, also gave the standard answer. “Good morning, Your Honor. Jessica Carmichael for Mr. Comey.”

Given that the only times Lindsey the Insurance lawyer has represented anyone in federal court before, she introduced herself as representing Donald Trump, perhaps it was just safer for Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer to say as little as possible.

More interesting, however, is that Nachmanoff was not playing dumb to the problems with Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s presence. After Fitzgerald described his plan to challenge Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s appointment, Nachmanoff described — having already checked — what the procedure would be. “[A]ny motion to disqualify Ms. Halligan will be heard by an out-of-district judge,” Nachmanoff explained. “That is the process that has been followed in New Jersey and Nevada, and the Court will follow that process here, which means that a request will be made to Chief Judge Diaz of the Fourth Circuit to appoint an out-of-circuit judge only to address that issue.”

He came prepared for this issue.

As Nachmanoff moved onto a discovery order, Fitzgerald pointed to a piece of discovery he wants right away. “[W]e would like to see the appointment papers forthwith. We don’t want to be shooting at the wrong target” on the disqualification motion. Fitzgerald, who has had all manner of DOJ appointments in his day (once, on Jim Comey’s orders) noted “that most appointment papers for United States attorneys are a page or two, we would ask if we could have that forthwith” so that they could start drafting their motion.

In multiple cases when the Trump Administration tries something funny (as with the Illinois invasion, in which DOD fucked up the authorizing paperwork at least three times), they often don’t have their paperwork in order.

Which is to say, even before the reports out today that Lindsey didn’t consult with ODAG on public integrity concerns about indicting Tish James, DOJ may not have their ducks in a row.

Even as it is, Trump’s indictments of Comey and James have only worked within the narrow bubble of his frothers. In the wider world, they have focused increasing attention on his corruption. But by putting two prosecutors with absolutely no understanding of this background, to say nothing of the real ethical hazards involved in this case, they made it much easier for Fitzgerald to flip the table, to appear as if he is the one doing the prosecution, not them.

The indictment of Tish James on bank fraud and lying to a financial institution is here.

Once again, Lindsey Halligan alone signed it.

Here video statement, which focuses on Trump’s fraud, is very good.

Update: See this Lawfare analysis of what the actual charges might be.

Another Season, Another French Prime Minister Blowing in the Wind.

Back when we last visited the Dysfunctional 5th Republic of France, The young and fairly talented Gabriel Attal was the Prime Minister of the country as it went into Macron’s disastrous parliamentary elections. The elections went, well… disastrously. The final result yielded a parliament incapable of forming a durable French government. Everything a government does, passing laws, setting budgets, or even appointing ministers (who can actually stay in their posts) became impossible to count on in France.

Attal hung on as caretaker PM for a brief time after the election. He was followed by Michel Barnier, (of Brexit fame) François Bayrou, and Sébastien Lecornu. All started by trying to form a government, and all ended in either no confidence votes from the barely functional Parliament, or in the case of Lecornu, went the “You can’t fire me, I quit” route. Lecornu had slowly and methodically tried to put together a government, but it’s plain impossible. To be fair, Macron hasn’t tried with anyone outside of his incredibly unpopular centrist clique. And really why should he? He’s Macron, and the rest of us are wrong.

The Macronist Churn is speeding up. Prime Minister Lecornu quit Monday morning, after his government collapsed. He had been appointed in early September. He had been in post for a few days. As his first real act as PM, he announced the new governmental cabinet on Sunday evening. He was a dead man walking by Monday morning. There is no Prime Minister of France.

As I am typing this, it’s Thursday. Macron has promised to have another Prime Minister in post on Friday, which you may notice is tomorrow. He spent today attended the interment of Robert Badinter in the Pantheon, a pretty building in Paris where they put their fanciest dead people.  Robert Badinter is remembered for getting rid of the guillotine.

Presumably Macron is working late right now?

No one knows what kind of government we might have next week, as Macron grinds through a stock of uninspiring French centrists like they’re getting delivered from Central Casting.

Sometimes it feels like fashion. Macron has managed to have a new stylish prime minister for each season, each one either failing a vote of confidence in the divided parliament, or quitting before they got fired. Each one taking a poor doomed infantile iteration of French government with them. France can’t change taxes, or write a new budget, or… plan for anything. It’s just stuck in political stasis as one government after another is euthanized by the representatives of the French people.

No one us happy. But no one can do anything about it.

We managed a little over a year that way, but it looks like France might just be losing its goddamn mind again.

But let me catch you up: A fair bit has happened in French politics since last year’s election.

The French Right

In particular, the National Rally (Rassemblement National) has been through a lot, or at least its leader has. Marine Le Pen has been the sorrowful, pitiful victim of getting caught with her hand in a dastardly EU cookie jar. She and her party innocently, with wide eyes and rosy cheeks, embezzled 474,000 Euros from the EU Parliament to pay National Rally expenses back home in France. Le Pen has been convicted, and is barred from running for office for five years, putting her eligibility past the next French presidential election. She has appealed, but the evidence against her is so glaring that it seems likely that she’ll have to settle for sitting out a couple years of her sentence in comfortable home confinement. The rest is a suspended sentence.

It’s good to to be the Queen. Despite her ineligibility the international press still keeps talking like she’s a candidate for president in 2027. She’s not, she’s literally barred from running by the courts, because she did crimes and got caught doing them. I don’t understand why the international press keeps not getting this.

Meanwhile…

The old cast from last year is coming back. Green politician Marine Tondelier is back, and she is worried that France might fall into fascism. Like much of Frances left, she looks tired. Her green jacket is darker and more understated these days. Macron’s first PM Édouard Philippe is also back in the media, but he’s worried about the stock market. He’s calling for his old boss to quit the presidency early to allow for new elections, but that’s not going to happen. It’s not Macron’s style, he’s more of a France-sacrifices-for-me type of guy. He’s got two more years, and he’s a real hit the farther he gets from Paris.

Macron is still mostly not on speaking terms with France. He is doing plenty of speaking! He just spends all his time on international issues, where he gets plenty of the love he clearly feels he deserves. He’s doing fashionable presidential things like the recognition of Palestine, and talking about extending France’s nuclear deterrent to the rest of Europe in response to the war in Ukraine. He criticized Trump over Trump’s creepy Greenland lust. He’s like a clean, smiling boy band member waving at fans… as soon as he gets out of France.

So we know he still knows how to talk, just not how to talk to the people he supposedly leads. He won’t be giving up the presidency early, he has too many cool dates planned with other heads of state for that. The world still loves him.

But they don’t know him like France does.

Though some of us foreigners do have an idea of what he’s really like. Right now he has to stay here and appoint a Prime Minister, preferably with the political talent to create a government that can live long enough to pass a budget. Because, right now France has no budget. Did I forget to mention that?

France can carry over budget elements from the last time a budget was voted.. but there is no specific 2025 budget, much less anything planned for 2026, which is now less than 3 months away. France carries over the expired budget and tries to fit the current infrastructure into it. It is almost a mirror image of the American shut down. People and cities can do things, but the Federal equivalent can’t make any decisions, or make much happen at the national level. But the government employees, the air traffic controllers, they’re still getting paid. (France would burn to the ground if they didn’t. You don’t FAFO with French workers.)

Making Do, For Now

Most places in France are doing ok, they’re creative and careful. My local city just upgraded the trams, repaired a bridge, and is installing bike shares. But everyone knows it can’t go one like this. The budget is getting more out of date, new projects, even those announced by Macron himself, can’t really get off the ground. Modern nations need governments to really function.

As things sit back in mean ‘ol France, Lecornu is heading out. Many are calling for Macron to quit. The country still has no budget, no Prime Minister, and no government. France is slowly starting to succumb to political entropy, and people are beginning to suffer.

But that’s not really Macron’s problem, is it?

(I will be following this story, look for updates as France does more ridiculous things.)

In Illinois’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order against Trump’s invasion, they describe how, on September 27, Greg Bovino drive three Chevy Tahoe’s into the Broadview police facility, promising a “shitshow,” later that day. That led to increased targeting of protestors and even journalists.

Around 7:00 a.m. on Saturday, September 27, three Chevrolet Tahoe SUVs appeared in the Broadview Police Department’s parking lot without invitation. 91 Federal agents, including Agent Bovino of the CBP, emerged from the vehicles with a message for the Broadview police: prepare for “a shitshow.”92 Specifically, federal agents, including Agent Bovino, told the Broadview police to expect increased use of chemical munitions and increased ICE activity in Broadview.93

That afternoon and evening, September 27, Agent Bovino and his colleagues followed through on their warning. Groups of federal agents repeatedly chased people on foot through the streets of Broadview in ongoing vehicle traffic.94 Around dusk, Agent Bovino and a large team of fatigue-clad, tactically equipped, and masked federal agents escorted multiple federal vehicles out of the ICE detention facility. 95 And, again, federal agents fired pepper balls, rubber bullets, and teargas cannisters at protestors.96 Over the course of the protests on September 26 and 27 in Broadview, DHS reported making a total of eleven arrests of protestors, though only five of the individuals arrested have been criminally charged. 97

[snip]

The actions of federal officials since the September 26 DHS-to-DOD memorandum belie the notion that the protests in Broadview exceed law enforcement’s capacity to address them. See 10 U.S.C. § 12406 (referring to inability to execute federal law with the “regular forces”). When confronted with a protest of approximately 100 people on the evening of September 27 outside the Broadview ICE facility, federal agents dispersed the protestors and arrested eleven people, including a journalist, in the process.140 Far from being overwhelmed by this protest, a DHS spokesperson bragged on social media about the number of arrests its agents made in response.

If the September 27 protest in Broadview had truly threatened to render the federal government incapable of executing federal law, then presumably the federal officials in charge of the ICE facility in Broadview would have focused their energy, attention, and resources on securing it the following day, September 28. Instead, CBP sent dozens of armed, fatigue-clad Border Patrol agents led by Agent Bovino through downtown Chicago—twelve miles removed from the ICE facility in Broadview.143 These actions are impossible to square with any good-faith argument from the federal government that it is unable to execute federal law in Broadview or anywhere else in Illinois.141 And although DHS declared all 200 people at the protest to be “rioters,” only eleven people had been arrested by federal agents, and, as of September 29, only five had been criminally charged by federal prosecutors.142

91 Id. [declaration of Broadview Police Chief Thomas Mills] ¶ 38.

92 Id.

93 Id.

94 “Agents chase after protesters, smoke and pepper bullets deployed outside Broadview ICE facility” ABC 7 Chicago (Sept. 26, 2025), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Byews1aX7XI.

95 “Protest continues outside ICE facility in Broadview,” CBS News (Sept. 27, 2025), available at https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/video/protest-continues-outside-ice-facility-in-broadview/; see also Ex. 13, Declaration of Gil Kerlikowske (“Kerlikowske Decl.”), ¶¶ 46-51; Ex 15, Declaration of Commander Jacqueline Cepeda (Cepeda Decl.) at ¶ 8.

96 Ex. 4 (Mills Decl.) ¶¶ 35-36, 40.

97 Sabrina Franza, “Arrested Broadview ICE protestors appear in court; 2 held, 3 released,” CBS News Chicago (Sept. 29, 2025), available at: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/broadview-ice-facility-protesters-arrestcourt/.

[snip]

140 Ashlyn Wright, et al., “U.S. Border Patrol takes over security of Broadview ICE facility, protests continue over the weekend,” WGN (Sept. 27, 2025), available at: https://wgntv.com/news/operation-midway-blitz/protesters-rallyoutside-broadview-ice-facility-against-operation-midway-blitz/ (noting that “[a]bout 100 demonstrators” gathered outside the Broadview ICE facility” on Saturday, September 27); Cindy Hernandez, et al., “Broadview officials say ICE agents warned that mayor’s comments would bring consequences,” Chicago Sun-Times (Sept. 27, 2025), available at: https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2025/09/27/ice-broadview-action-mayor-katrina-thompsonimmigration; @DHSgov, 8:50 a.m., Sept. 28, 2025 post on X.com, available at: https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1972297960319832252.

141 @DHSgov, 8:50 a.m., Sept. 28, 2025 post on X.com, available at: https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1972297960319832252.

142 ABC7 Chicago Digital Team, “Neurodivergent man among 5 protesters charged after clash at Broadview ICE facility, supporters say,” ABC7 (Sept. 29, 2025), available at: https://abc7chicago.com/post/ice-chicago-todayprotesters-expected-return-broadview-facility-weekend-clashes/17902425/. [my emphasis]

In the later discussion of the provocation, the filing noted that DHS called the eleven people arrested “violent rioters” in included two weapons that, DHS claimed, “were taken off rioters” at Broadview.

Two whole days ago, filing cited this story (at footnote 97), which noted that only five of the eleven claimed arrests were charged on the docket. The later section, as well as this story (at footnote 142), which noted that of those five, one was neurodivergent.

One of the people not formally challenged, as reflected in the lawsuit by Chicago’s civil society filed same day as Illinois’ lawsuit, journalist Stephen Held described being arrested at the “shitshow.”

The five cases that had been (and have been) filed by that point were:

• Paul Ivery, the neurodivergent man, who tragically spoke to the cops and admitted he said, “I’ll fucking kill you right now,” to a senior Border Patrol official who admitted he “does not specifically recall what IVERY said to [him] given the commotion.” The government initially asked for him to be detained, but then agreed to his release.
• Dana Briggs, whose hand a Border Patrol official grabbed to prevent him from handing his phone to a friend, after which (the complaint claims) Briggs hit the CBP officer in the wrist. The government agreed to his release on $10,000 unsecured bail.
• Ray Collins and Jocelyne Robledo, a couple who were pushed as the Feds tried to extend a perimeter of the facility. In the process, the Feds found (and put in their social media post) that each had weapons. Collins, who allegedly pushed back, was detained. He filed for release, noting that the weapons he and his partner both had were licensed Concealed Carry weapons. He was released on bail on October 2.
• Hubert Mazur. Even the complaint admits that the the alleged Border Patrol victim pushed Mazur first, which led both of them to fall to the ground. He was released on his how recognizance.

Yesterday, a day before his preliminary hearing, the government moved to dismiss the case against Mazur. the docket minute explains that when the government reviewed the video evidence of the incident, they decided they could not even charge a misdemeanor.

The government provided additional basis for its motion, noting that the government’s review, after defendant’s arrest, of additional body-worn camera video evidence caused the government to decide not to file an information in this case, in which the compliant charged the case as a misdemeanor. Further, the government confirmed on the record that prior to issuance of the complaint, the complaint affiant had sworn under oath that the affiant had reviewed video evidence that corroborated the complaint’s version of events. The Court confirmed at the hearing that such sworn affirmation was a substantial part of the basis for the Court’s initial determination of probable cause on the complaint.

This morning, the government moved to dismiss the cases against Collins and Robledo. The docket minutes for today’s hearing on the dismissal confirmed (as had been reported elsewhere) that the grand jury no billed an indictment against this couple.

The government provided additional bases for its motion, stating that a U.S. grand jury on 10/7/25 returned a “no bill” as to these defendants and thus declined to return an indictment against them. Further, the government confirmed on the record that the complaint affiant swore under oath that the affiant had reviewed video evidence that corroborated the complaint’s version of events, and the Court confirmed that such sworn affirmation was a substantial part of the basis for the Court’s initial determination of probable cause on the complaint.

There are, admittedly, several sealed dockets. NDIL still has not docketed the case of the alleged Latin King member charged with soliciting a plot against Greg Bovino, and if there were any unsealed charges filed against the people from the South Shore apartment raid, it’s only two guys arrested on warrants for a narcotics case in Texas that doesn’t mention any gang involvement.

But as of right now, those eleven charges of which DHS boasted have turned into two.

Greg Bovino, who promised a shitshow, is batting just 18% on remaining public charges, less than two weeks out.

Update: Here’s Block Club Chicago’s report on the dismissed charges, which includes interviews.

“I’ve been practicing law for 54 years and I’ve never had another client with no bill returned,” said Richard Kling, an attorney representing Collins. “This is a once-in-a-lifetime for me.”

[snip]

Kling said his client, who had also previously been jailed for more than two days following his arrest last month, was “obviously relieved” but he cautioned that prosecutors have said they still have 2 1/2 weeks to determine whether to pursue other charges related to the arrest.

On Wednesday, citing the adage that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich, Kling told Block Club that prosecutors apparently had “less evidence than a ham sandwich” against his client.

“The grand jury, I hope, took the position that people have a right to protest,” Kling said. “They decided that the First Amendment is more important than criminal charges.”

Update: And … NDIL just moved to dismiss the Ivrey complaint — the one where he seemingly confessed.

When Pam Bondi and Kash Patel had Jim Comey charged two weeks ago, they may have signed their own arrest warrants.

The media focus, since the indictment, has been on the ominous chilling effect this would have on Trump’s opponents — though as always, journalists ignored the politicized prosecutions that have gone before.

The damage done to rule of law by replacing career prosecutors with Trump defense attorneys for the sole purpose of charging a political target is enormous. No doubt about it.

But charging former FBI Director Jim Comey on flimsy false statements charges crosses a rubicon in a different way, one that may be just as disastrous for American democracy.

Charging made it easy to charge top law enforcement officials — any former law enforcement officers — whom Trump ousted for political reasons.

Indeed, almost immediately after the Comey indictment, Kash turned towards manufacturing the very same basis — alleged lies to Congress — to charge Chris Wray, his immediate predecessor.

Kash released after action reports from January 6 to HJC which in turn shared them, complete with warnings that the documents were not for external dissemination, with John Solomon, who turned complaints including a heavy handed focus from the US Attorney’s office on misdemeanors into a story about “274 agents deployed to the Capitol in plainclothes and with guns after the violence started but with no clear safety gear,” which in turn led to conspiracy theories about “Fedsurrection,” which Donald Trump blew up in a lie-ridden post on Truth Social that explicitly drew a connection between Comey and Chris Wray.

Even when Kash tried to tamp down the conspiracy theories he had sown and his boss had accelerated, he still included several lies: that Wray lied, that this was about crowd control, that running to the scene of a terrorist attack in progress would violate FBI rules.

The FBI responded on Saturday to a report that 274 plainclothes agents were at the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, clarifying the role of bureau personnel while still blasting former Director Christopher Wray.

While the agents were on hand, they were sent in after the riot had begun to try to control the unruly crowd, officials told Fox News Digital. That is not the proper role of FBI agents, and Wray was not forthcoming about what happened when he testified numerous times on Capitol Hill, Director Kash Patel said.

“Agents were sent into a crowd control mission after the riot was declared by Metro Police – something that goes against FBI standards,” Patel told Fox News Digital. “This was the failure of a corrupt leadership that lied to Congress and to the American people about what really happened.”

And so Kash, in a desperate bid to feed conspiracies like those that got him where he is, colluded (heh) in the framing of charges against a second FBI Director.

He did so, as Pam Bondi did, under a great deal of pressure to deliver.

The pressure against Bondi erupted in public, in the post Trump sent addressing her directly.

Two things suggest the text was meant to be private. It had far fewer lies than Trump’s public posts. And he also alluded to the pressure he was under — the 30 statements and posts complaining about “all talk, no action” — a testament to the impatience of his own mob. Other reports describe the pressure applied to Bondi in private.

The pressure on Kash — and its source — has been just as real. The lawsuit filed by top FBI agents describes how Stephen Miller demanded politicization at FBI to match that Emil Bove was pursuing at DOJ.

On or about January 27, 2025, Bove requested that Driscoll and Kissane “stay behind” following their daily morning briefing. At that “stay behind” meeting, Bove stated that he was receiving pressure from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to see “symmetrical action at the FBI as had been happening at DOJ.” Bove made clear that he and Miller wanted to see personnel action like reassignment, removals, and terminations at the FBI, similar to the firings and reassignments of senior attorneys at DOJ that had occurred since January 20, 2025.

It tracks how Patel and Dan Bongino attempted to protect the plaintiffs (both, of course, desperately want to be accepted within the fraternity of FBI officers), even defending Steve Jensen on Maria Bartiromo’s show.

125. Both Patel and Bongino lamented to Jensen that they were spending “a lot of political capital” to keep him in the ADIC position, a position that Jensen had not sought in the first place.

[snip]

I want the American public to realize what we did. That man was in a position where he literally fought back against the machine who was saying, “we want to politicize this event, we want to politicize this event.” And at the end of the day, remember, Maria, there’s a chain of command here. So you can fight back your chain of command to a certain degree before they fire you. And Steven Jensen and other folks were promoted because they embody what the American public demands of FBI agents.

The whole time, FBI’s leaders were terrified the White House would learn Jensen still had power.

143. Approximately two days into his leave, on July 16, 2025, at approximately 7:20 a.m., Jensen received a call from Bongino. Bongino began the call by sternly telling Jensen that he had to “use better judgment,” explaining that the SAC of the Philadelphia Field Office had sent out an email to various other SACs about the SAC Advisory Committee indicating that Jensen would assume the vice chair position that had been left vacant by the recent departure of the Richmond SAC. The SAC Advisory Committee is an organizational structure within the FBI that SACs from across the country rely on to channel communication and concerns to FBI leadership. It is not a formal organization and is, in effect, an additional duty for those who volunteer for the position. The Philadelphia SAC had asked Jensen to fill the vacancy left by the Richmond SAC and, apparently, Bongino had learned of an email announcing this.

144. During this phone call, Bongino warned him that if the White House learned that Jensen was on an advisory committee, it would be “problem” for Jensen.

After months of refusing to fire the Agents, Kash ultimately did, in August, explaining that his own job depended on doing so.

Patel explained that there was nothing he or Driscoll could do to stop these or any other firings, because “the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it.” Driscoll indicated his belief that Patel’s reference to his superiors meant DOJ and the White House, and Patel did not deny it.

More recently, a story about Signal texts sent between a top Pete Hegseth aide and Stephen Miller’s included the commentary of the latter, Miller deputy Anthony Salisbury, describing that Kash’s firing of FBI agents who had taken a knee to deescalate during the George Floyd protests was “how Kash survives.”

In a separate exchange, Salisbury celebrated FBI Director Kash Patel’s decision to fire several agents who were photographed kneeling during a 2020 protest. He suggested Trump would approve of the action, then insulted Patel.

“This is how Kash survives,” Salisbury wrote. “He will do this stuff for the man but day to day giant douche canoe.”

To survive, Kash the giant douche canoe has to “do this stuff for the man.”

The pressure on Kash is particularly intense. The indictment of Comey, Kash’s more aggressive purges, his effort to perp walk Comey — they all come in the wake of the installation of former Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as babysitter for Kash and Dan Bongino, a constant threat that he would be fired.

[A]llies of President Trump and Patel’s harshest critics have begun to circulate word that contingency plans for Patel’s ouster are forming. They also claim his hopeful successor, Andrew Bailey, made clear that he would not leave his post as Missouri’s AG – or abandon his aspirations to run for state governor – only to serve as Patel’s number two.

Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, Bailey, who starts at the bureau on September 15, would be eligible to fill the FBI director post – should it become vacant – after he has been employed by the FBI for at least 90 days.

Multiple sources close to Trump acknowledged the president was not thrilled with some past episodes of Patel’s performance – including a public feud with AG Bondi over the administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. One senior White House official involved in personnel decisions also framed Patel’s botched communications during the manhunt for Charlie Kirk’s assassin as something Patel likely wished he could do differently, if he could do it all over again. Trump did not call for any action to be taken in response to it, the person said.

Patel’s purported off-ramp, which the White House denies, would not involve his firing but a reassignment to another administration role, according to multiple people who described it.

Sure, the plan now is to make Kash an ambassador to some faraway country once Bailey can become Director in December, as if he were Don Jr’s inconvenient ex. But the only thing that keeps Kash from becoming what Comey and Wray are — FBI Directors that Trump chose to put or retain at the Bureau but then fell out of favor and so were ousted — is his continued ability to feed the insatiable viciousness of Trump, the Wormtongue who increasingly controls access to him Stephen Miller, and Trump’s rabid mob.

And when that moment comes, it will be child’s play for the next guy to prove his loyalty by charging Kash and/or Bondi, citing the precedent of Comey (and Wray, if he’s indicted by then).

I’ve already noted that, by charging Comey, Kash provided evidence that this statement to Mazie Hirono was false.

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-

Kash has been doing Trump’s dirty work for so long there are a slew of other potential charges, starting with both January 6 and the stolen documents case.

The same is true of Pam Bondi, who got her start with Trump by taking campaign donations and then shuttering an investigation into Trump’s fraudulent university.

But like Kash, her slavering performance in front of Senate Judiciary Committee also provided fodder for charges on the same standard as Comey. Not only did she tell gratuitous lies — such as that Alex Padilla had stormed Kristi Noem’s press conference — but she made more material statements, such as that the decisions on the Tom Homan bribery investigation (which she seemed to attribute to Todd Blanche, who was confirmed a month after she was) predated her confirmation.

That’s is the thing about corruption. It is the price of admission and the reward for loyalty.

But it also a double-edged sword when you fall out of favor.

I don’t know whether Kash and Bondi are kidding themselves about what a bad precedent this is for their own future. I don’t know whether they believe their past loyalty — something Comey and Wray never performed — will exempt them from the treatment to which they’re subjecting Comey. But the thing about irrational, increasingly unfit authoritarians guarded by an even more ruthless henchman is that demands for loyalty only keep going up.

Ah, but look on the bright side, Kash, Bondi!

Disfavored Trump aides have not — yet — started falling out of windows, like they do in Vladimir Putin’s Russia!

Update: Here’s how a WSJ story on the politicization of DOJ ends.

Privately, Trump has acknowledged that he believes Blanche is a solid lawyer and Bondi appears great on TV, but has continued to complain to aides about the pace of the cases, even after the Comey indictment. Aides have reminded him about work in progress.

“She’s moving too slow,” Trump has said about Bondi, according to administration officials.