Threshold issues

The very last thing Judge Michael Nachmanoff asked Michael Dreeben in Wednesday’s hearing on Jim Comey’s bid to throw out his indictment for vindictive prosecution, before turning to prosecutors’ argument, was whether he should wait and address all of Comey’s challenges at once or deal with vindictive prosecution on its own.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. But before you sit down, let me just ask you, do you think that the other pending motions, including the issue of literal truth and ambiguity and the other matters that are yet to be litigated, are so wrapped up in vindictive prosecution that the Court should deal with them all at one time, or do you think that the Court can and should deal with vindictive prosecution separately?

MR. DREEBEN: I think vindictive prosecution, like our motion based on the appointment of the U.S. attorney, are threshold matters that the Court should resolve as a threshold. Mr. Comey would like to see both of those motions resolved because they both go to the very heart of whether a prosecution in this case is permissible, one by virtue of a challenge to the official who brought it, the other by virtue of whether it complies with the Constitution to bring a prosecution at all.

Our other motions are very important, and we have a series of them that challenge other aspects of the prosecution. As I’m sure the Court is well aware, there are issues relating to the conduct of the prosecutor in the grand jury. But this one and the appointments issue stand at the threshold. They’re the gateway to all further motions, and those should be resolved at the outset of the case, in our view.

Dreeben, calling vindictive prosecution and disqualification (which Judge Cameron Currie had heard the week before) “threshold” matters, said they should be decided at the outset.

That may explain Nachmanoff’s decision at the very end of the hearing to deny Jessica Carmichael’s request to move up the next motions hearing — the one that would address the other issues Nachmanoff asked Dreeben about — from December 9, what would be almost three weeks (including the Thanksgiving holiday) from that day, to the prior week.

There’s also a motion to move up the next oral argument, which is set on December 9th. I commend everyone’s enthusiasm for trying to move this even faster, but the Court is reluctant to do that. I believe that it was Ms. Carmichael that had a conflict, and I will permit counsel to appear without Ms. Carmichael, who’s local counsel, so that she doesn’t have that issue, but I will keep the current schedule that we have.

If Nachmanoff does treat the vindictive prosecution challenge as a threshold issue, then he may hope to rule before holding another hearing. If Nachmanoff were to rule for Comey on vindictive prosecution (or Currie were to disqualify Lindsey Halligan, as is likely), the December hearing might be delayed anyway during an appeal, possibly all the way to SCOTUS.

It’s worth noting that Comey’s appellate lawyers — Ephraim McDowell in the disqualification hearing and Dreeben in the vindictive prosecution one — argued these District level motions hearings. As I noted when they were added, Comey walked into these challenges preparing to fight this all the way to SCOTUS.

The Comey prosecution may go away, pending appeal, in less than 20 days, via one of at least two ways. Indeed, given Judge Currie’s promise to rule before Thanksgiving, it could go away in the next week (again, pending appeal).

I lay that out as a way to understand some other things that have happened since Nachmanoff’s hearing.

The drama

But first, the drama, which started shortly after Dreeben answered that question about threshold issues.

Loaner AUSA Tyler Lemons had barely started his argument when Nachmanoff questioned the prosecutor’s claim that the grand jury, “returned a true bill.”

THE COURT: Well, we’ll have some questions about that —

MR. LEMONS: That’s correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: — but I’ll let you get through your argument.

Shortly thereafter, Nachmanoff challenged Lemons’ claim that Comey was relying on, “newspaper articles, anonymous sources, innuendo, [and] conjecture.”

THE COURT: Well, let me stop you there. With regard to the words of the president, whether it’s the post from September 20th or his answers to questions from reporters, you’re not suggesting that those aren’t things the president has said, are you?

Immediately before the drama of the declination memo, Nachmanoff bristled at Lemons’ insinuation that Erik Siebert, whom — the EDVA judge noted — had been appointed as US Attorney by the judges of EDVA, was involved in “machinations.”

MR. LEMONS: Absolutely, Your Honor. What I’m referring to is the newspaper reports that are relying on anonymous sources as to the machinations of former U.S. Attorney Siebert or to other decisions that essentially are not directly quoting the president or someone else.

THE COURT: Well, let me stop you there.

MR. LEMONS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: I’m not sure what machinations you’re referring to. Are you referring to the fact that Mr. Siebert was the interim U.S. attorney and then appointed by the Court, and then either resigned on September 19th or was fired by the president on September 19th?

MR. LEMONS: Yes, Your Honor. And I guess more specifically referring to any sort of — across, it sounds like multiple cases, not just this case — any reluctance or willingness to pursue cases in this Court.

That’s when Nachmanoff spent several minutes slowly cornering Lemons into admitting, in spite of direction from Todd Blanche’s office to avoid doing so, that he did not just know of a declination memo, but had read it.

THE COURT: Well, was there a declination memo?

“Was there a declination memo?” was question one. Questions ten and eleven in the colloquy, which also included Nachmanoff reminding Lemons he was “counsel of record in this case” and then getting him to explain that Todd Blanche’s office had instructed him to dodge these questions, went this way:

THE COURT: And had one been prepared?

MR. LEMONS: My understanding is that a draft prosecution memo had been prepared.

THE COURT: All right. And did you review that?

MR. LEMONS: I — yes, Your Honor, I did.

That still wasn’t the most dramatic part of the hearing, of course.

Lemons finished his argument, and then Nachmanoff returned to that question, the grand jury presentment. From the start, he mentioned it would be useful to hear from Lindsey, but he did allow Lemons to explain what he thought had happened, first.

THE COURT: Well, I have a couple more questions before you sit down.

MR. LEMONS: Okay.

THE COURT: At the beginning of your remarks, you said that the grand jury had returned an indictment and there’s a presumption of regularity with what happened, but as we know from other litigation in this case, there have been some questions and some attempts to resolve those issues, and Ms. Halligan submitted a declaration on Friday that explained, in part, in response to the question from Judge Currie about what happened after the grand jury began to deliberate, and then what went on —

MR. LEMONS: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: — after that. And I’ll ask you these questions, but it may be more direct to ask Ms. Halligan directly.

In spite of noting that it might be easier if Lindsey explained all this, Nachmanoff let Lemons explain what he understood had happened at length, including that the EDVA grand jury coordinator had had direct communications with the foreperson.

The judge asked Lemons the question about whether the full grand jury had voted on what he referred to as the second indictment three times, which is when he finally invited Lindsey to speak, as counsel of record. She barely said good morning before she interrupted the judge.

THE COURT: And so that the record is clear, when the grand jury return was taken, only the foreperson was in the courtroom, correct, the rest of the grand jurors were not present; is that right?

MR. LEMONS: Can I have a moment, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You can. Ms. Halligan, you can come to the podium. You’re counsel of record. You can address the Court. It might be easier. Good morning.

MS. HALLIGAN: Good morning.

THE COURT: So am I correct that, as is the usual —

MS. HALLIGAN: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: — practice, that the grand jurors were not present, just the foreperson?

MS. HALLIGAN: The foreperson and another grand juror was also present, and Judge Vaala corrected the record in open court, and the foreperson said in open court, We only no true billed Count One, we want to true bill Count Two and Three, and the foreperson signed that indictment.

THE COURT: I’m familiar with the transcript.

MS. HALLIGAN: Okay.

THE COURT: But I just wanted to make sure that the entire grand jury never had the opportunity to see the second indictment. You may sit down. Thank you.

The government, of course, has now refuted this account, thinking it helps them to claim that Halligan (and Lemons) stood before the judge and misinformed him, all because a confused foreperson said that the entire grand jury had voted for the two-count indictment, which served primarily to corrode any presumption of regularity DOJ is afforded.

From the start (and so when he asked whether he should wait on the other challenges), Nachmanoff had at least those two questions, the grand jury and the declination memo, in mind, and also, probably, how Lindsey could have assessed the case in the three days before indicting.

THE COURT: Well, that’s why I was asking you the questions about the declination memo and the prosecution memo, because she was appointed on September 22nd, and she went into the grand jury on the 25th, and I believe what you’re saying is that she made an independent evaluation of the case and concluded to move forward with it in that time period, in those couple of days. And so my question is, what independent evaluation could she have done in that time period?

MR. LEMONS: Your Honor, I think that — that discussion is inevitably one that we would have if you order expanded discovery.

Michael Dreeben, in rebuttal, asserted that the irregularity with the indictment was obtained is yet another cause to dismiss the indictment, and asserted that Nachmanoff didn’t need to see what the declination memo said to dismiss it.

Nachmanoff closed the hearing not just by denying Carmichael’s request to advance the next motions hearing, but by ordering both parties to brief a case.

I have some housekeeping matters to address. I would like, especially in light of our argument today, both parties to address the case of Gaither v. United States, 413 F.2d 1061 (D.C. Cir. 1969), and it addresses this issue regarding the foreperson signing an indictment. And I know you have your objections due at 5:00 p.m. today, so I wanted to make sure the government was aware of the Court’s interest in addressing that case, and, of course, the defense can address it in turn when they file their response.

The oddities of a three-judge docket

Now, I’m going through this exercise not to share the drama from the transcript, much of which got covered in real time, but because I want to understand how the hearing on Wednesday — particularly Lindsey’s confession about the grand jury — jumbled what would have happened and will happen in the brief window before December 9, when some or all of this might be launched on its way to appeal, possibly all the way to SCOTUS.

Here’s what happened and will happen in the week since the hearing; I’ve colored coded response chains:

November 19: Vindictive prosecution hearing before Michael Nachmanoff; Nachmanoff denies motions schedule change, orders CIPA schedule, orders briefing on Gaither

November 19: Government objection to Fitzpatrick order giving Comey grand jury transcripts, writing up interactions between grand jury coordinator and grand jury foreperson and seemingly confirming that court reporter left after rest of grand jury left

November 19: Government brief on Gaither (responding to Nachmanoff’s order)

November 19: Insanely stupid Lindsey Halligan interview with NYPost misrepresenting record and attacking Judge Nachmanoff

November 20: Comey Reply on fundamental ambiguity

November 20: Comey Reply on Bill of Particulars (including exhibits on discovery, kicking off graymail)

November 20: Government notice “correcting” record, including return transcript

Later November 20: Comey Reply on his motion for grand jury materials

November 21: Consent motion to set CIPA hearing on December 9 instead of filing CIPA 5

November 21: Comey Response to government objection to Fitzpatrick order

November 21: Motion to dismiss because there is no indictment

November 21: Amended motion to dismiss because there is no indictment

November 24: Comey requested response date on MTD no indictment

November 26: Expected Cameron Currie ruling on disqualification

November 26: Comey motion to suppress due

Start from the end: with a motion to dismiss because there is no indictment, which Comey almost immediately amended. As the citations page makes clear, this is substantially Comey’s response to Nachmanoff’s request for briefing on Gaither.

As Comey explains in a footnote, rather than just responding to Gaither, he’s using belated disclosures — from the discovery about the Fourth Amendment and attorney-client violations, from William Fitzpatrick’s opinion on the grand jury transcript, and regarding the failure to present the second indictment — to submit a separate motion to dismiss to be considered along with the other ones.

Mr. Comey respectfully submits that the Court can and should consider this motion along with Mr. Comey’s other dispositive motions. ECF Nos. 59 [vindictive], 60 [disqualification], 105 [fundamental ambiguity]. Those motions are fully briefed, and the government has filed its notice concerning Gaither v. United States, 413 F.2d 1061 (D.C. Cir. 1969). See ECF No. 201. The defense requests that the Court direct the government to file its response to this Motion—if any—by November 24, 2025.

He is effectively attempting to squish this motion to dismiss into the window when Nachmanoff will be deciding the vindictive prosecution motion and Judge Cameron Currie will be deciding the disqualification motion, with the unrealistic request that the government have to respond over the weekend to also squish it into that same window.

Dreeben did say he was going to file another motion to dismiss and Nachmanoff did not object, but he’s trying to squish that motion into this window when the judges are deliberating.

The new motion to dismiss overlaps in significant part with two other filings submitted since the hearing: Comey’s reply on his request to get grand jury transcripts, and Comey’s response to the government’s objection to William Fitzpatrick’s order that he get those transcripts.

In his reply, Comey explains how all of these documents fit together.

1 The absence of a valid charging instrument will be the basis of a forthcoming motion to dismiss [that is, the Gaithner briefing as motion to dismiss].

2 As the Court is aware, Mr. Comey will file his response to the government’s appeal of Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick’s order for the government to disclose the grand jury proceedings on Friday, November 21, 2025. This reply brief responds to the government’s arguments in opposition to the motion (ECF No. 184) to disclose the grand jury proceedings and highlights additional irregularities that have surfaced further warranting disclosure. Mr. Comey’s response to the government’s appeal of Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick’s order will explain why Judge Fitzpatrick’s ruling is well supported by fact and law warranting affirmance and address the government’s opposition to that ruling. These litigation streams present two related, but separate, avenues to order the government to produce the grand jury proceedings.

And the seeming cause for amendment to the motion to dismiss — a replacement of one claim about how Lindsey Halligan integrated privileged material in the grand jury…

Ms. Halligan referred to those materials in her presentation to the grand jury and elicited extensive testimony about privileged materials from Agent-3. ECF No. 192 at 14.

With another…

In turn, Ms. Halligan extensively questioned Agent-3 about communications between Mr. Comey and Mr. Richman during Agent-3’s testimony before the grand jury. ECF No. 192 at 14.

… reveals one of the things going on. In all three documents, Comey aggressively accuses the government of purposely seeking out privileged material in advance of the presentment.

Agents knowingly reviewed and printed out dozens of pages of privileged communications between Mr. Comey and his lawyers and appear to have presented at least certain of those privileged communications to the grand jury in this matter.

Thus the delicate balance Comey tried to correct with the amendment: they’re pretty sure Miles Starr did not just present tainted testimony, but that Lindsey cued him with tainted questions, but that overstates what they can say without seeing the grand jury transcript.

Both those sentences must rely on this passage of Fitzpatrick’s opinion (they cite the unredacted version rather than this one; the redacted discussion starts on the next page).

The government’s position is that the grand jury materials “confirm the baselessness of the defendant’s claim that privileged information may have been shared with the grand jury.” ECF 172. While it is true that the undersigned did not immediately recognize any overtly privileged communications, it is equally true that the materials seized from the Richman Warrants were the cornerstone of the government’s grand jury presentation. The government substantially relied on statements involving Mr. Comey and Mr. Richman in support of its proposed indictment. Agent3 referred to these statements in response to multiple questions from the prosecutor and from grand jurors and did so shortly after being given a limited overview of privileged communications between the same parties. The government’s position that privileged materials were not directly shared with the grand jurors ignores the equally unacceptable prospect that privileged materials [page break] were used to shape the government’s presentation and therefore improperly inform the grand juror’s deliberations.

Both sides are working at a disadvantage in this argument. The government complained that it couldn’t see what Comey shared in ex parte submission to Fitzpatrick (and, generally, complained that it hadn’t been able to get its filter protocol).

2 Although the docket indicates the government provided the materials for in camera review, Dkt. No. 179, the docket does not reflect that defendant submitted ex parte information to the Magistrate Judge. However, the magistrate judge referenced the defendant’s ex parte notice in its opinion. See Dkt. 191 at 7.

In his response, Comey described some of what was included in that.

Pursuant to Judge Fitzpatrick’s order during the hearing, the defense filed an ex parte sealed submission to guide Judge Fitzpatrick’s review, which was supplemented with evidence that the government had produced to the defendant, such as the privileged communications the government’s agents printed out and used in September 2025 after their warrantless search of the materials seized from Daniel Richman.

[snip]

Mr. Comey plainly had an expectation of privacy in his communications with his lawyer, which was clear from the face of the communications the government agents reviewed and printed in September 2025, ECF No. 172-2 at 2,2 as set forth in the ex parte submission the defense submitted to Judge Fitzpatrick.

But unlike the government, Comey doesn’t know precisely what was said about the Richman texts to the grand jury, in particular whether Halligan’s promise of more evidence — a reference the government did no more than to confirm in its response by saying, “the government anticipated presenting additional evidence were the case to proceed to trial” — pertains specifically to the Comey side of the Richman texts.

Plus, both seem to be trying to hold their fire. Perhaps Comey is waiting on the motion to suppress — which may be held in abeyance if Judge Currie rules for him. Surely, he is guarding his privilege claim.

And, after admonishments from Fitzpatrick, the Loaner AUSAs dropped their reliance on the Richman texts in their Bill of Particulars response, so they’re probably trying to avoid knowing Fourth Amendment violations.

So neither will say what I keep saying: On the morning before the grand jury presentment, Spenser Warren provided others with a two page printout of Richman texts, all of which preceded the moment when the FBI knew Comey had retained Richman. But someone went back into that unscoped material they knew to include privileged texts and printed out at least eight pages of texts, going well beyond the time Comey had retained Richman.

And whatever the reason for the reticence on both sides, unless you are misrepresenting the questions at issue (and remember, there is no transcript of the exchange Comey had with Ted Cruz included among the 14 exhibits that appear to have been presented to the grand jury), there is no sound reason to present any of these texts. None could be proof that Comey had authorized Richman to share this information while at FBI, because Richman had left months earlier. None could be proof that Comey lied to Chuck Grassley on May 3, 2017 about serving as a source for stories on the Russian investigation (which Grassley called the Trump investigation), because they all postdated Grassley’s question. None could be proof that Comey intended to obscure all this in September 2020, because he had already told Susan Collins about all of this on June 8, 2017. Contrary to what Loaner AUSAs claimed in their urgent bill for a filter protocol (authored by James Hayes), nothing in the public record supports a claim that Comey and Richman (and Patrick Fitzgerald) were conspiring to leak classified information.

The only crime Comey committed was exposing Donald Trump’s corruption, which led to a Special Counsel investigation that showed abundant evidence Trump obstructed the investigation into his ties with Russia.

But in his effort to mislead a grand jury to believe that was a crime, Miles Starr may have knowingly and unlawfully surveilled attorney-client communications without a warrant much less a filter protocol.

As of now, Nachmanoff has not ruled on either parallel request to grant Comey grand jury access (he said he would rule on the filings, without a hearing), though a footnote to the motion to dismiss, “reserves the right to supplement this Motion with further facts and argument if and when the grand jury materials are disclosed to the defense.” So unless and until he does, the record will remain what it is, with vague gestures from both sides about a conflict at the heart of this case, potentially excluded from the record if this thing gets appealed.

When caught lying, troll

Meanwhile, of course, Lindsey Halligan is already resorting to the tactics she learned from her boss, falsely misrepresenting a question Nachmanoff posed about Dreeben’s belief, laid out in Comey’s reply to prosecutors’ arguments about imputation (which I laid out here)…

MR. DREEBEN: That is certainly correct, and that is an additional obstacle that supported the court’s factual conclusion that imputation was not appropriate on the facts of the case. But we, of course, have a very different situation. In the hierarchy, the president stands at the top, and he has declared himself to be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. He has vested in him executive power, which includes supervision of the Department of Justice. The U.S. attorneys help him carry out his responsibility to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and as we argued in the brief, that is not just a theoretical constitutional structural argument; it is actually an argument that applies to the facts of this case because the president has taken on the responsibility and the authority to direct the Justice Department to take actions in the investigatory and prosecutorial realm that he thinks should be taken, and he has, in effect, substituted himself for the U.S. attorney as the decision-maker, and the facts of this case reveal that that’s why his vindictive motive is imputed to the prosecution. No, he didn’t go into the grand jury, but exercising the authority that’s vested in him, he brought about the prosecution through the chain of causation that we described earlier.

THE COURT: So your view is that Ms. Halligan is a stalking horse or a puppet, for want of a better word, doing the president’s bidding?

MR. DREEBEN: Well, I don’t want to use language about Ms. Halligan that suggests anything other than she did what she was told to do. The president of the United States has the authority to direct prosecutions. She worked in the White House. She was surely aware of the president’s directive. She didn’t have prosecutorial experience, but she took on the job to come to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and carry out the president’s directive, and this was a directive to the attorney general. I think we know that the attorney general is highly responsive to the president’s directives. She doesn’t say, Excuse me, Mr. President, this is my job.

The makebelieve US Attorney for EDVA instead falsely claimed this was a direct expression of Nachmanoff’s own opinion.

Interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan suggested Wednesday that the Biden-appointed judge overseeing the criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey violated judicial conduct rules by asking if she was a “puppet” of President Trump.

District Judge Michael Nachmanoff asked Comey’s defense lawyer if he thought Halligan, the prosecutor who brought the indictment against the former FBI boss, was acting as a “puppet” or “stalking horse” of the commander in chief, during a hearing in an Alexandria, Va., courtroom.

“Personal attacks — like Judge Nachmanoff referring to me as a ‘puppet’ — don’t change the facts or the law,” Halligan exclusively told The Post.

“The Judicial Canons require judges to be ‘patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity’ … and to ‘act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,’” she continued.

Lindsey’s attack in the NYP was similar to the one prosecutors made in their response to Fitzpatrick’s order (which Comey addressed in response).

Federal courts have an affirmative obligation to ensure that judicial findings accurately reflect the evidence. Canon 2(A) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires every judge to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and mpartiality of the judiciary” and to avoid orders that “misstate or distort the record.” Canon 3(A)(4) requires courts to ensure that factual determinations are based on the actual record, not assumptions or misrepresentations. Measured against these obligations and the rule of law, the magistrate’s reading of the transcript cannot stand.

They’re trolling.

They’re doing precisely what Trump always does when caught in a crime: he trolls and attacks rule of law.

On November 6 District Court Judge Sara Ellis issued a preliminary injunction barring the federal government from attacking Chicago residents engaged in lawful protests.  Judge Ellis also  certified a class for this litigation. It consists of

All persons who are or will in the future non-violently
demonstrate, protest, observe, document, or record at Department of Homeland Security immigration enforcement.

The defendants sought a stay pending appeal. On November 19, a panel consisting of Michael Brennan, Frank Easterbrook, and Michael Scudder complied, freeing Trump’s goons to attack us without restraint.

The facts of the case are well known. Masked thugs are caught on camera shoving protesters to the ground and zip-tying them, shooting people with pepper balls, teargassing kids, holding people for hours without charges, and much much more. The evidence is set out in a detailed and very long Opinion and Order entered by Judge Ellis on November 20.

The legal standards for issuance of a preliminary injunction are also well known, at least they used to be before John Roberts and the Fash Five held that Donald Trump cannot be held accountable for breaking the law or violating the Constitution in Trump v. US and then drastically slashed the power of the judiciary to restrain law-breakingl in Trump v. CASA.

The Seventh Circuit Rationale

The panel says that the defendants are likely to succeed on the merits.

A. The order is overbroad

1. The Injunction binds the named defendants, their lawyers and people acting in concert with the defendants. Too broad?

That’s simply absurd. Of course the order binds the defendants and those acting for or in concert with them. They were duly served. They engaged in motion practice, participated in discovery, and appeared at the hearing. They had a full opportunity to be heard. They were found to have violated the constitutional rights of the class members. Perhaps in the future, these three can explain exactly why defendants shouldn’t be enjoined from breaking the law.

2. The panel coplains that the Injunction requires “… the enjoined parties to submit for judicial review all current and future internal guidance, policies, and directives regarding efforts to implement the order….”

No it doesn’t. Here’s the relevant section:

6. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall issue guidance to officers and agents to implement this Order. Defendants shall file with this Court such guidance and any directives, policies, or regulations implementing the guidance within 5 business days of issuance of the Order, with a continuing obligation to immediately file with this Court any subsequent changes or revisions to that guidance or implementing directives, policies, or regulations through the period of this Order.

This doesn’t call for judicial review. It prevents the defendants from hiding their non-compliance from the attorneys for the class members.

3. The order is too “prescriptive”. “For example, it enumerates and proscribes the use of scores of riot control weapons and other devices in a way that resembles a federal regulation.”

Apparently the panel didn’t realize the extent of the duplicity of the defendants and their lawyers who routinely claim innocence because an order is not precise. For example, the head of the Customs and Border Patrol, Greg Bovino, wrangled with Judge Ellis in open court about the number and location of identifying marks on the costumes of his agents.

Or perhaps the panel thinks one or more of the identified weapons is just fine. Here’s a short list of some of them from §1,c if the Injunction:

… kinetic impact projectiles (KIPs), Compressed Air Launchers (e.g., PLS and FN303), Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Spray, CS gas, CN gas, or other chemical irritants, 40 mm Munitions Launchers, less-lethal shotguns, Less-Lethal Specialty Impact-Chemical Munitions (LLSI-CM), Controlled Noise and Light Distraction Devices (CNLDDs), Electronic Control Weapons (ECWs)

B. Standing

The panel says the class members have no reason to fear imminent future harm. They should just wait around and see if any federal agents beat them senseless or tear gas their eighborhood. The panel says they know from media accounts that Bovino and his goon squad are gone, so why worry? Perhaps they missed the media reports of violations of the Injunction by defendants within a week of issuance.

Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are accused of firing pepper balls at moving vehicles, deploying tear gas and flash bangs in Little Village [a heavily Hispanic neighborhood] and exposing a 1-year-old and her family to chemical munitions as they traveled to a local warehouse store {they shot chemical weapons through the window of the care with the child in the back seat.].

But sure, this insane suggestion is warranted.

C. Irreparable harm to defendants.

The panel quotes this obscene sentence from Trump v. CASA: “Any time that the Government is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.” Does this authorize Trump’s goons to violate people’s Constitutional rights as long as they claim to be enforcing a statute? Apparently these judges think if Trump claims to be enforcing the law, it’s a terrible harm to, I don’t know, maybe government agents,  if they can’t violate our constitutional rights.

D. But maybe they’ll issue their own order

The panel assures us that maybe some day they’ll read the record and think up their own order. They ignore the massive effort put in by Judge Ellis and her staff (special shout-out to her clerks and office staff for the clear and coherent opinions and orders, since the panel just dismissed all of their work.)

I know I speak for the toddlers and families in Little Village, Belmont-Cragin, Albany Park and the rest of my beautiful city when I say how grateful we are for their willingness to at least consider protecting us from chemical attack.

The Bigger Picture

Now Bovino and his goon squad have moved on to Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Chapel Hill, and other Democratic cities in North Carolina. They’re using the same tactics. One of the incidents in this story is a Kavanaugh Stop: “… an agent smashed in the window of a US citizen’s truck and the man, who is Hispanic, was temporarily detained.” This is a clear example of the indifference of the judiciary to individual Constitutional rights under the rules set by John Roberts and the other anti-democratic members of SCOTUS.

The only rights the SCOTUS majority will protect are those of the Imperial President.

Note, as we discuss at the very end of this, we’re wondering when/if you think we should record next week. We could do it on Wednesday, Friday, or not at all. Let us know!

 

Also, here’s that graphic Nicole mentioned, which shows that we’re firing cancer researchers and VA nurses and replacing them with ICE goons.

 

Listen on Spotify (transcripts available)

Listen on Apple (transcripts available)

I’ve written extensively about how Kash Patel and John Durham chased a particular intelligence report — one we now know to have been based on Russian fabrications — for four years.

Kash, John Ratcliffe, Durham, his lead investigator Jack Eckenrode (who leads this investigation), Bill Barr — all of them! — believed that because the FBI received a single intelligence report repeating a Russian claim that Hillary planned to hold Trump accountable for his ties to Russia, it was proof that Hillary had intentionally fabricated the Steele dossier (disinformation into which was probably injected by Paul Manafort buddy Oleg Deripaska) and the Alfa Bank anomalies.

The case against Jim Comey renews that goose chase, perhaps (because Durham concluded it was likely fabricated) criminally so.

In his bid to obtain the grand jury transcripts submitted yesterday, Comey laid out how important it was for him to see how Lindsey Halligan instructed the jury on this matter, especially given that the grand jury rejected the charge specifically pertaining to that intelligence, but Loaner AUSAs plan to use it to prove Count Two of the existing indictment. As part of that discussion, he lays out how obscene it was to even charge him for not remembering something simply because Kash and Ratcliffe had developed an obsession over it.

Note, I have generally referred to that intelligence report as the “Clinton Plan,” which is how Durham referred to it, though without the scare quotes making clear that Durham himself fabricated parts of this theory. Comey, in his filings, uses the FBI term for all such referrals, CIOL (Counterintelligence Operational Lead).

Comey’s description starts with a detail I should have known, but did not: When Comey was asked, three times during the September 30, 2020 hearing, about the “Clinton Plan” CIOL, he had not been shown it.

On September 30, 2020, Mr. Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation into alleged links between President Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government. See Oversight of the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation: Day 3, Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (Sept. 30, 2020), http://bit.ly/4o2ekHb. The night before, he was sent a copy of the Ratcliffe Letter, described above, which purported to summarize the September 7, 2016 CIOL in one sentence. Mr. Comey was not provided an opportunity to review the September 7, 2016 CIOL at issue prior to his testimony.

Ratcliffe had sent Lindsey Graham a misleading letter about it the night before the hearing, but he didn’t release the memo itself (which was itself redacted in a misleading way, and then shared with the Federalist) for another week. I first posted about it on October 11 of that year.

Nevertheless, Lindsey Graham highlighted it in the hearing and then Josh Hawley followed up. The focus on the referral was an ambush, probably intended to support the Durham investigation. And that’s what Kash is trying to criminalize, because doing so sustains his batshit insane theory that Hillary was treated better than Trump in the 2016 election when two criminal investigations into her dominated and the investigation into Trump’s aides remained secret.

To make things worse, Trump is trying to criminalize something which there’s no evidence Comey ever saw (Comey lays this out without even mentioning that Durham couldn’t find any proof that anyone else had seen it, either).

There is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Comey received the CIOL at issue, much less that he reviewed it. The materials in discovery make clear that every day, numerous CIOLs come to the FBI addressed to the Director—from a variety of federal agencies in a variety of formats—and are routed to employees other than the Director. Because the Midyear Exam investigation had been closed for more than two months, there is no reason to believe that any CIOL related to Ms. Clinton would have been sent to Mr. Comey (and the government has produced no proof that it was). There is no electronic trail showing that Mr. Comey received the CIOL at issue. There is no paper trail showing that he received it. And there is no witness who says that Mr. Comey either received it or discussed it with him. Full stop.

This total lack of evidence is extremely troubling in light of credible press reporting that not only does a declination memorandum exist in this case,11 but it made clear that with respect to the CIOL in particular, a prior investigation found that Mr. Comey’s statement could not support a false-statement charge because there was insufficient evidence Mr. Comey had ever seen the CIOL.12 Ms. Halligan was also reported to have been advised by career prosecutors in that declination memorandum that “seeking the charges would violate DOJ policy, raise serious ethics issues, and risk being rejected by the grand jury.” Id. 13

11 The government’s refusal to answer basic questions about the existence of this declination memorandum and decision to hide behind a flimsy claim of privilege to stonewall the Court’s inquiries, see ECF No. 207, should be taken as confirmation that such a memorandum exists. See ECF No. 174 at 21.

12Katherine Faulders, et al., Ex-special counsel John Durham undercut case against James Comey in interview with prosecutors: Sources, ABC News (Oct. 6, 2025), https://perma.cc/M2JC-CQGQ.

13 Katherine Faulders, et al., Prosecutors’ memo to new US attorney found no probable cause to charge James Comey: Sources (Sept. 25, 2025), https://perma.cc/8KT5-LHAG.

As noted, this was a key part of Comey’s bid to get the grand jury transcripts, something that goes to the heart of the problem with simply cut-and-pasting the two true billed charges into a new indictment.

But as part of his (far less interesting) reply motion for a Bill of Particulars, he also includes all the discovery requests he has submitted (October 2, October 29, November 12, November 19). They hint at another way this prosecution might go away (and Comey’s post-exoneration retaliation might flourish), on top of the 14 ways we’ve already talked about: with discovery requests with which prosecutors will really not want to comply, or cannot, either because of bulk, classification, or destruction.

In the latter category, for example, Comey reveals an October 12 FBI 302 describing that DC USAO destroyed records relating to journalists when the Arctic Haze investigation was closed.

An FBI 302 Report, dated October 12, 2025, reports that “the District of Columbia United States Attorneys Office [was] ‘freaking out’ when the [Arctic Haze] case was declined for prosecution and in the process of being closed, with an Assistant United States Attorney telling [the lead agent in the Arctic Haze investigation] to ensure that any grand jury materials relating to members of the media were destroyed.” See FD-302 Report Serial 110 at -26505.

Lindsey’s Loaner AUSAs say that’s not true.

In an email on November 20, 2025 at 10:29 AM ET, the government represented that the 302 was inaccurate and the records had not, in fact, been destroyed. Mr. Comey reserves his rights with respect to the government’s potential spoliation of exculpatory evidence and will further investigate the government’s claim.

Comey also, just Wednesday, asked for the complete case file for the Arctic Haze, Durham, and this investigation (why he doesn’t have the latter two months after indictment I don’t know).

The Arctic Haze case file will lay out not just how Bill Barr focused exclusively on Comey (which I noted here) as opposed to others who might have been trying to damage him, but would name the Republican(s) who would have been the focus if he had not done so.

The Durham case file would explain why Andrew DeFilippis left DOJ quickly and quietly in the middle of the investigation. It would show that Durham lied in his report about how many FBI sources he had asked about the “Clinton Plan” CIOL, partly in an attempt to hide how clear it was that no one had seen this. It might show which Ukrainian Russian agents Durham and Barr and Jack Eckenrode consulted during the investigation and whether they also consulted Oleg Deripaska. It would either reveal the nature of the tip about Trump corruption that Italy gave to Durham or make clear that Durham hadn’t actually chased it down.

Importantly, it would also include all the evidence that shows Durham and Durham’s lead investigator turned Kash’s senior advisor, Jack Eckenrode, saw confirming that he had been chasing Russian disinformation for years, even while failing to establish any proof that FBI had actually received it. That evidence would be important to lay out how the continued pursuit of this by Kash and Eckenrode is a crime, at least according to Durham’s logic.

Holy hell I’d love to see the full Durham case file.

But the request that might really sink this prosecution, if 14 other things don’t first, is Jim Comey’s request for (1) all the CIOLs he received between January 1, 2016 (when the first SVR reports pertinent to the Clinton email investigation came in) and September 30, 2016, (2) all the intelligence he received pertaining to the Clinton email investigation or Crossfire Hurricane in that same period, and (3) all communications he received for a narrower period, July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016.

If the government intends to present evidence as part of its case in chief at trial regarding the CIOL dated September 7, 2016 that Mr. Comey was questioned about in the September 30, 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Mr. Comey is entitled to any and all documents that would rebut the inference that this CIOL was memorable to him as of September 30, 2020. Therefore, to the extent Count Two (or any other aspect of the government’s case in chief) is premised on the September 7, 2016 CIOL, in addition to the standard Rule 16 discovery that we are entitled to receive promptly, we are entitled to receive the following categories of documents pursuant to Rule 16 and Brady and its progeny, all of which are material to Mr. Comey’s ability to defend this case in pretrial motion practice and/or at trial:

(1) Any and all documents reflecting Mr. Comey’s receipt or review of CIOLs concerning the Midyear Exam investigation, Hillary Clinton, or the Crossfire Hurricane investigation between January 1, 2016 and September 30, 2016, including but not limited to:

(a) The CIOLs themselves; and

(b) Documentation reflecting Mr. Comey’s receipt or review thereof;

(2) Any and all documents reflecting Mr. Comey’s receipt or review of classified information concerning the Midyear Exam investigation, Hillary Clinton, or the Crossfire Hurricane investigation between January 1, 2016 and September 30, 2016;

(3) Any and all documents reflecting discussion involving Mr. Comey of CIOLs concerning the Midyear Exam investigation, Hillary Clinton, or the Crossfire Hurricane investigation between January 1, 2016 and September 30, 2016;

(4) Any and all documents reflecting discussion involving Mr. Comey of classified information concerning the Midyear Exam investigation, Hillary Clinton, or the Crossfire Hurricane investigation between January 1, 2016 and September 30, 2016; and

(5) Any and all communications or documents received by Mr. Comey in his capacity as Director of the FBI between July 1, 2016 and September 30, 2016. “Communications” as used in this subrequest five includes, but is not limited to:

(a) Emails;

(b) Phone calls;

(c) Text messages;

(d) Records of oral communications;

(e) Meeting invitations and calendar entries; and

(f) Hard copies of written communications delivered to Mr. Comey or his staff.

This is, on one hand, totally justifiable, because it would show just how unremarkable the CIOL that the current FBI Director has obsessed about for six years is as compared to everything else that Comey saw in that period. It would show why it made sense that, in 2020, when sandbagged by a misleading letter, it was unsurprising that the “Clinton Plan” CIOL would not ring a bell, as Comey responded in the hearing.

On the other hand, it is classic graymail, the very defense strategy used by Scooter Libby a hundred (well, just twenty) years ago: a request for documents so sensitive and so voluminous that prosecutors would have an exceedingly difficult time complying.

Libby’s request was more frivolous than this one. He asked for PDBs, among the most sensitive intelligence documents out there, covering the period when he was targeting Valerie Plame through the period when he lied to Patrick Fitzgerald about doing so. Fitzgerald managed not just to get the discovery to Libby, but to get substitutions approved so Libby’s team could walk through how insignificant exposing a CIA officer was to him, given the issues he was dealing with at the time.

By comparison, Comey’s is totally reasonable, given what prosecutors are preparing to argue, that he should have remembered, in September 2020, either the CIOL he didn’t receive or a briefing, possibly from John Brennan, that mentioned it in passing weeks later.

But Comey’s request will be just as difficult to comply with (and will also flip the logic of the dumb burn bag investigation back onto investigators). Plus, Kash Patel won’t want to comply with this, because it would involve giving Jim Comey a ton of information about how real and pressing the Russian attack was in 2016, the one Kash’s entire career is built on diminishing.

It seems that Lindsey’s Loaner AUSAs are already trying to dodge this request. The most recent discovery letter, sent Tuesday, reveals that prosecutors are struggling to come with even the number of CIOLs Comey saw.

With respect to defense Category Twelve, which we understand from our November 12, 2025 meet and confer that you are working to provide relevant numbers with respect to, we seek to review the underlying CIOLs for 2016 in their entirety, and reserve our right to seek declassification of those CIOLs.

Tough shit, this letter says. We not only want the number, we want to see them, all of them, and we may demand you declassify them.

In October, ABC reported that one of the things in the declination memo — one of the reasons why career prosecutors said they could not charge this — was the difficulty in even identifying the number of things they’d have to show 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.

This is what that concern looks like in real life.

And if Lindsey’s unlawful appointment or Trump’s clear malice or Lindsey’s suspected misconduct in the grand jury or her failure to actually get an indictment or Miles Starr’s breach of Comey’s privilege or their unwarranted searches or Ted Cruz’ prevarications and stupid questions or the destruction of exculpatory evidence or something else doesn’t make this prosecution go away beforehand, Lindsey’s Loaner AUSAs may one day give up.

Update: In a new filing, Comey asks for a delay of his deadline for identifying what classified information he’ll need to defend himself. Among the problems is DOJ has still not declassified the CIOL John Ratcliffe partly declassified 5 years ago.

First, the government must produce the classified discovery at issue. On October 29, 2025, and November 19, 2025, the defense made discovery and Brady requests to the government that called for the production of additional classified information and the declassification of certain materials. See ECF No. 204-2 (Requests Eleven and Twelve) and 204-4 (Request Fourteen). With respect to the defense’s requests, the government reported today, November 21, 2025, that they had requested authorization for the defense to have access to certain counterintelligence operational leads (“CIOLs”), but that they were held at high classification levels. Needless to say, to the extent Count Two relates to a CIOL, and Mr. Comey’s purported memory of a CIOL, it is necessary for the defense to review the CIOL and any other relevant CIOLs. That has not happened.

Discovery requests

Category One: Lindsey Halligan’s unlawful appointment (expanded to include WDVA)

Category Two: Lack of probable cause (expanded to include more prosecutors)

Category Three: Presentation to grand jury

Category Four: Vindictive prosecution (expanded to include comparators)

Category Five: Trump’s hostility to Jim Comey

Category Six: Prejudicial statements from Trump

Category Seven: Prior inconsistent statements from Andy McCabe

Category Eight: Other Rule 16 and Brady

[There’s no identifiable Category Nine]

Category Ten: Potential sources identified in leak investigations

Category Eleven: Privilege taint

Category Twelve: All CIOLs and communications

Category Thirteen: All evidence destroyed in Arctic Haze investigation

Category Fourteen: Full case files for Arctic Haze, Durham investigation, Jim Comey

 

Back on October 8, I noted that of the eleven people DHS claimed had been arrested at a September 27 protest at the Broadview ICE facility in Chicago, a protest at which Greg Bovino had promised a “shitshow,” the cases of all but one had been dismissed.

Bovino, I noted, was batting just 9% on his claims that protestors had engaged in violence.

Well, yesterday, the case of Dana Briggs, a 70-year old Air Force veteran charged with assault when he fell as officers were pushing him back, was dismissed too. He had planned to call Bovino as a witness at his December trial. Bovino’s success rate at substantiating his claim there were any rioters from that day is now zero.

Briggs is not actually the most stunning dismissal from yesterday. The case against Marimar Martinez (and her co-defendant Anthony Ruiz) was also dismissed, just before a follow-up hearing on the things the CBP agent, Charles Exum, did and said before and after he shot her.

At a press hearing afterward, Martinez’ attorney Christopher Parente suggested they would still be seeking vindication for her, so hopefully we’ll still get to learn what DOJ dropped the case in hopes of suppressing.

The Magistrate Judge who dismissed Briggs case (who had also signed the arrest warrants for the five actual arrests on September 27), Gabriel Fuentes, wrote a long opinion about the collapse of the September 27 cases.

Examining more closely the five September 27 Broadview criminal arrest cases, all of which came before the undersigned magistrate judge, the Court notes the following facts:

1) The initial complaints charged four (Collins, Robledo, Ivery, and Briggs) of the foregoing five persons with felony violations of Section 111(a). Only the complaint against Mazur was filed as a misdemeanor.

2) With today’s dismissal of the Briggs criminal information, none of these cases remains pending today – all have been dismissed.

3) As the docket entries reflect in all five of the cases, the undersigned magistrate judge obtained a sworn statement from the affiants in each affidavit, at the time of complaint issuance, that not only were the affidavit allegations true, but that video evidence of the encounters existed, that the affiants had reviewed the video evidence, and that the video evidence corroborated the version of events set forth in the affidavits. Mazur (D.E. 11); Collins/Robledo (D.E. 26); Ivery (D.E. 13); and Briggs (D.E. 14).

[snip]

4) Each of the five persons arrested on September 27 from Broadview on Section 111 charges endured official detention (or other government restrictions on their liberty) after their arrests.

[snip]

Importantly, nothing in this order should be construed as scolding the government for dismissing in these cases. Dismissing appears to be the responsible thing for the government to have done, in light of the government’s judgment and discretion. But the Court cannot help but note just how unusual and possibly unprecedented it is for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this district to charge so hastily that it either could not obtain the indictment in the grand jury or was forced to dismiss upon a conclusion that the case is not provable, in repeated cases of a similar nature. Federal arrest brings federal detention, even for a short time. It brings the need to obtain counsel, to appear at court hearings, to answer the charges (as Briggs did in this case, pleading not guilty), and to prepare for trial (as Briggs also has had to do in this case). Being charged with a federal felony, even if it is later reduced to a misdemeanor, is no walk in the park.

He also noted, repeatedly, that Briggs’ case was dismissed when he noticed his intent to call Bovino to testify.

Also yesterday, Judge Sara Ellis released her 233-page opinion in the Civil Rights case against the ICE/CBP invasion (my weekend reading, I guess), which catalogs the depredations done during that invasion, including her judgement that Bovino is a liar.

Turning to Bovino, the Court specifically finds his testimony not credible. Bovino appeared evasive over the three days of his deposition, either providing “cute” responses to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s questions or outright lying. When shown a video of agents hitting Rev. Black with pepper balls, Bovino denied seeing a projectile hit Rev. Black in the head. Doc. 191- 3 at 162:21–165:17; Doc. 22-44 (Ex. 44 at 0:10–12, available at https://spaces.hightail.com/space/ZzXNsei63k). In another video shown to Bovino, he obviously tackles Scott Blackburn, one of Plaintiffs’ declarants. Doc. 191-3 at 172:13–173:7; Doc. 22-45 (Ex. 45 at 0:19–30, available at https://spaces.hightail.com/space/ZzXNsei63k). But instead of admitting to using force against Blackburn, Bovino denied it and instead stated that force was used against him. Doc. 191-3 at 173:9–176:11, 179:11–181:5. Bovino also testified that, in Little Village on October 23, 2025, several individuals associated with the Latin Kings were found taking weapons out of the back of their car, and that they, as well as at least one individual on a rooftop and one person in the crowd of protesters, all wore maroon hoodies. Id. at 227:2– 228:21. He further testified that he believed the “maroon hoodies . . . would signify a potential assailant or street gang member that was making their way to the location that I was present” and that “there did begin to appear, in that crowd, maroon hoodies, both on top of buildings and in the crowd.” Doc. 237 at 18:22–19:10. But Bovino also admitted that he could not identify a street gang associated with the color maroon, id. at 19:11–13, although Hewson acknowledged that while Latin Kings members usually wear black, “they also can throw on maroon hoodies,” Doc. 255 at 264:17–20.10 Even were maroon hoodies to signify gang membership, the only evidence on footage from the relevant date of individuals dressed in maroon protesting in Little Village consists of a male wearing a maroonish jacket with an orange safety vest over it, Alderman Byron Sigcho-Lopez wearing a maroon sweater with a suit jacket over it, a female in a maroon shirt, a female in a maroon sweatshirt, and a man with a maroon hoodie under a green shirt and vest. Axon_Body_4_Video_2025-10-23_1053_D01A38302 at 10:03–10:33; Axon_Body_4_Video_2025-10-23_1106_D01A32103 at 16:12–17:17. Bovino’s and Hewson’s explanations about individuals in maroon hoodies being associated with the Latin Kings and threats strains credulity.

Most tellingly, Bovino admitted in his deposition that he lied multiple times about the events that occurred in Little Village that prompted him to throw tear gas at protesters. As discussed further below, Bovino and DHS have represented that a rock hit Bovino in the helmet before he threw tear gas. See Doc. 190-1 at 1; Homeland Security (@DHSgov), X (Oct. 28, 2025 9:56 a.m.), https://x.com/dhsgov/status/1983186057798545573?s=46&t=4rUXTBt_W24muWR74DQ5A. Bovino was asked about this during his deposition, which took place over three days. On the first day, Bovino admitted that he was not hit with a rock until after he had deployed tear gas. Doc. 191-3 at 222:24–223:18. Bovino then offered a new justification for his use of chemical munitions, testifying that he only threw tear gas after he “had received a projectile, a rock,” which “almost hit” him. Doc. 191-3 at 222:24–223:18. Despite being presented with video evidence that did not show a rock thrown at him before he launched the first tear gas canister, Bovino nonetheless maintained his testimony throughout the first and second days of his deposition, id. at 225–27; Doc. 237 at 11–17. But on November 4, 2025, the final session of his deposition, Bovino admitted that he was again “mistaken” and that no rock was thrown at him before he deployed the first tear gas canister. Doc. 238 at 9:12–21 (“That white rock was . . . thrown at me, but that was after . . . I deployed less lethal means in chemical munitions.”); id. at 10:20–23 (Q. [Y]ou deployed the canisters, plural, before that black rock came along and you say hit you in the head, correct? A. Yes. Before the rock hit me in the head, yes.”).

This is what the complete collapse of credibility looks like.

It should have happened after Bovino got caught prevaricating on the stand in Brayan Ramos-Brito’s Los Angeles trial in September, another protestor charged with assault but ultimately exonerated.

But unless and until an Appeals Court disrupts Ellis’ finding (the Seventh Circuit has stayed her order with respect to remedy, not fact-finding), the word of Greg Bovino will be utterly useless in any court in the United States.

Greg Bovino and his violent goons have moved on, at least to Charlotte (where — as Chris Geidner laid out — Bovino doesn’t understand he’s the guy trying to kill Wilbur, not the clever spider who thwarts that effort), possibly already onto New Orleans.

But his reputation as a liar will now follow him wherever he goes.

Let’s assume for the moment that, to the extent the players involved in indicting Jim Comey understand the least little bit about what went down, they’re telling the truth.

Here’s what Lindsey Halligan’s big day would look like.

In the morning, “the team” worked together to prepare the indictment against Comey. According to CNN, that team included the FBI agents from the FBI Director’s Advisory Team pursuing this case and FBI attorneys.

Halligan spent hours preparing with a group that included FBI attorneys and the agents who had led the investigation, the sources said.

Halligan participated in a number of “practice runs” and spent hours going through the exhibits in preparation, the sources said.

As part of that process, Special Agent Spenser Warren mentioned some texts that EDVA’s prosecutors had chosen not to use in an interview weeks earlier of Dan Richman. Warren explained that they seemed to include privileged communication.

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.

Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick describes there was “A second agent, possibly Agent-2, was also on the call but that that person’s identity has been shielded from the Court.” But given other filings in the case, it’s more likely the second agent is Jack Eckenrode, not least because Comey believes he was also exposed to these materials.

This OGC lawyer referenced in this affidavit is presented as someone outside the case team. Except CNN describes that FBI lawyers were part of Lindsey’s preparation, and a person named Gabriel Cohen shows up in document metadata for three case filings — two of them regarding whether Jim Comey should get grand jury materials, including Lindsey’s declaration about what happened that day — as OGC.

Whoever the OGC lawyer in question is, he tells “the team” not to include those particular texts, “referencing potential future legal representation,” in the grand jury presentment. So Warren provided a two-page exhibit of texts that preceded the privileged communication. But, as Fitzpatrick described, that OGC lawyer did not advise someone besides Miles Starr (who, again, works on the Director’s Advisory Team) to present the case.

Agent-3, rather than remove himself from the investigative team until the taint issue was resolved, proceeded into the grand jury undeterred and testified in support of the pending indictment. ECF 179. In fact, Agent-3 was the only witness to testify before the grand jury in support of the pending indictment. Id. The government’s decision to allow an agent who was exposed to potentially privileged information to testify before a grand jury is highly irregular and a radical departure from past DOJ practice.

Within hours, Starr went from hearing about these privileged communications to serving as the sole witness to the indictment against Jim Comey.

The presentment started at 2:18PM. Somewhere along the way, Lindsey had problems working the ELMO AV system, and grand jurors and someone else — possibly the Grand Jury Coordinator? — tried to help her.

There was one instance where the prosector had technical issues with ELMO and some of the jurors assisted and came in to assist as well.

Not only did Starr present as an exhibit the opening memo for a related — and ridiculous — case in WDVA he himself authored, which contained a patently false representation of Jim Comey’s September 30, 2020 testimony regarding the “Clinton Plan” (reliance on which could be a crime in any case).

Former Director Comey previously testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was unfamiliar with this CIOL as well as its related intelligence.

But rather than using the 2-page exhibit of Dan Richman texts that stopped before those privileged texts he had learned about hours before, Starr used a different 8-page exhibit, which went right through the period when Richman (using his pseudonym Michael Garcia) shared details of Donald Trump pushing Jim Comey to drop an investigation into Mike Flynn.

To be clear: Unless you are misrepresenting the questions at issue (and remember, there is no transcript of the exchange Comey had with Ted Cruz included among the 14 exhibits that appear to have been presented to the grand jury), there is no sound reason to present any of these texts. None could be proof that Comey had authorized Richman to share this information while at FBI, because Richman had left months earlier. None could be proof that Comey lied to Chuck Grassley on May 3, 2017 about serving as a source for stories on the Russian investigation (which Grassley called the Trump investigation), because they all postdated Grassley’s question. None could be proof that Comey intended to obscure all this in September 2020, because he had already told Susan Collins about all of this on June 8, 2017.

According to Fitzpatrick, the grand jurors asked a lot of challenging questions.

[T]he statement by the prosecutor was made in response to challenging questions from grand jurors, the context of which suggests the grand jurors may have reasonably understood the prosecutor to mean that if she could not satisfactorily answer their questions, then Mr. Comey would “[redacted]” answer these questions at trial.

According to Loaner AUSA Gabriel Diaz, Lindsey and Miles Starr had already addressed the last grand juror question when she made one of two problematic comments.

The transcript itself refutes the notion that the U.S. Attorney was responding to unresolved juror confusion about Fifth Amendment rights. The last question from a grand juror appears several pages earlier in the transcript, during an exchange between the U.S Attorney and the witness about [redacted] and in that exchange the juror’s question was resolved.

What Diaz does not dispute (at least in unredacted form) is that Lindsey did promise that, “the government anticipated presenting additional evidence were the case to proceed to trial,” which Fitzpatrick took to invite grand jurors to assume there was better evidence.

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

Diaz simply ignores this comment altogether in his unredacted response.

If this reference was remotely in context of those texts — the ones that extend well past the date when Richman came to represent Comey — such a promise would taint the entire proceeding.

Lindsey finished up her presentation at around 4:28. She left, along with the court reporter.

After about two hours of deliberation, so around 6:28, the grand jury voted. They rejected what was then Count One, pertaining to the alleged “Clinton Plan” lie that Starr had misrepresented in his opening memo. They approved what were then Count Two, alleging that Comey had authorized someone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source in news stories, as well as then Count Three, accusing Comey of obstructing the investigation the Senate Judiciary Committee was carrying out in September 2020 with false and misleading answers (which was limited to the Russian investigation, though I would bet 50 Bitcoin that grand jurors never learned that).

Then, the grand jurors left the grand juror room, and the court reporter collected the recording from the grand juror room and left.

At some point, the grand jury foreperson filled out the form indicating a no-billed indictment — the whole thing — in blue ink. That no-bill report also bears the signature of Lindsey Halligan, in blue ink.

After that vote, the grand jury foreperson told the EDVA Grand Jury Coordinator (GJC) the result of the vote, and that person, in turn, informed EDVA’s Deputy Criminal Chief, who told the GJC to “amend” the indictment by removing the no-billed Count One. GJC did so, and according to them, then “presented the corrected indictment to the grand jury foreperson and the deputy foreperson.”

As far as we know, the court reporter was gone by that point.

About ten minutes after the grand jury finished deliberation, at 6:40, Maggie Cleary told Lindsey,

that the grand jury had returned a true bill as to the presented Count Two and Count Three of the indictment and that the grand jury had not returned a true bill as to the presented Count One. I then proceeded to the courtroom for the return of the indictment in front of the magistrate judge.

The grand jury return transcript starts, at 6:47PM, with the announcement of a successful indictment, “charging “Jim Comey” with false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the United States government and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.” But then Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala started through the colloquy about accepting an indictment, and the foreperson revealed that on one count, Count One, fewer than 12 people supported the charge. 

THE COURT: And for each count and for each defendant for all of the indictments, did a sufficient number, meaning at least 12, of grand jurors return a true bill?

THE FOREPERSON: One exception.

THE COURT: What is the exception?

THE FOREPERSON: James Comey, Jr., on Count One.

That’s when Vaala tried to sort through the two fundamentally incompatible documents in front of her, which at that point included one document showing that grand jurors had rejected the entire indictment, and another showing that grand jurors accepted two charges.

THE COURT: Okay. When you say one count — so I’mlooking at two different — I’m looking at case 25-cr-272,United States of America v. James B. Comey, Jr. I have an indictment with two counts that my courtroom deputy read that looks to be signed by you, ma’am.

THE FOREPERSON: Yes.

THE COURT: And it says 14 grand jurors concurred inthe indictment.And then I have a report of a grand jury’s failure to concur in an indictment, and it just reports that — has three counts, and it says that the grand jurors did not concur in finding an indictment in this case.

The foreperson described that “they” — we now know this was the GJC, who may have come into the grand jury presentation to help Lindsey run ELMO, and who by their own description “presented” the “corrected” indictment to just two members of the grand jury — separated the charge they didn’t agree on.

THE FOREPERSON: So the three counts should be justone count. It was the very first count that we did not agree on, and the Count Two and Three were then put in a different package, which we agreed on.

THE COURT: So you —

THE FOREPERSON: So they separated it.

The foreperson, probably out of confusion, falsely informed Vaala that the grand jury had voted on the indictment with just two counts.

THE COURT: Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. So you voted on the one that has the two counts?

THE FOREPERSON: Yes

That’s when Lindsey the Magistrate Judge asked Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer to explain all this. Rather than offering an explanation — which might have saved Jim Comey two months of his life — Halligan disavowed involvement with the no-billed indictment. She knew the indictment had been “redrafted,” but she denied signing the indictment.

THE COURT: So this has never happened before. I’ve been handed two documents that are in the Mr. Comey case that are inconsistent with one another. There seems to be a discrepancy. They’re both signed by the foreperson. The one that says it’s a failure to concur in an indictment, it doesn’t say with respect to one count. It looks like they failed to concur across all three counts, so I’m a little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that are inconsistent.

MS. HALLIGAN: So I only reviewed the one with the two counts that our office redrafted when we found out about the two — two counts that were true billed, and I signed that one.I did not see the other one. I don’t know where that came from.

THE COURT: You didn’t see it?

MS. HALLIGAN: I did not see that one.

THE COURT: So your office didn’t prepare the indictment that they —

MS. HALLIGAN: No, no, no — I — no, I prepared three counts. I only signed the one — the two-count. I don’t know which one with three counts you have in your hands.

THE COURT: Okay. It has your signature on it.

That’s when Vaala had the foreperson annotate the no-billed indictment (marked in pink below) to reflect that the grand jury had rejected just one charge, and then recorded that the grand jury foreperson had done so in the transcript.

What I need you to do is write on this piece of paper both the case number, which is 25-cr-272, but also no true bill as to Count One only, and then sign and date it so that it’s clear, okay? So I’m going to hand it back up to the courtroom security officer and have you do that. You can have a seat.

Okay. All right. So for the record, Madam Foreperson, I now have a report that looks like you’ve handwritten — a report that 12 or more grand jurors did not concur in finding an indictment in — and then you’ve added in handwriting — Count 1 only in this case. Is that correct?

THE FOREPERSON: Yes, ma’am.

This is one reason why the initial fucked version of the no-billed indictment matters. Lindsey Halligan says she didn’t sign it.

As initially loaded into the docket, she had not: the signature page was actually the signature page from the two count “indictment,” if we can call it that. But the next day (see William Ockham’s correction), someone loaded a different copy of that document into the docket, and that version showed a signature from Lindsey Halligan, written in the same blue ink that the grand juror foreperson had used to sign the original indictment.

This narrative answers many of the logistical questions about that day — which is a far cry from answering the legal ones. And most of what Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer (as distinct from the very confused Magistrate Judge) said in the declaration authored by Gabriel Cohen, OGC, is true, as to herself, including that, “I was never present in front of the grand jury alone.”

But what is not true is Lindsey’s claim — authored by Gabriel Cohen, OGC — that,

There was no additional presentation, interaction, or discussion with the grand jury outside of what is reflected in the transcript.

The GJC was alone with the foreperson and the deputy; no court reporter documented what happened between them.

Furthermore, there’s still no explanation of how Lindsey Halligan’s signature came to appear on that no-billed indictment, because Lindsey is on the record stating that she didn’t sign it.

Here are some obvious questions that remain to be answered:

• Is Gabriel Cohen part of the prosecutorial team and is he also the one who gave shoddy advice about taint?
• Did the person who put together an 8-page exhibit of Dan Richman texts know about the privileged communications they were going to chase on the other side of those texts?
• Was Lindsey’s promise of more evidence addressed specifically to the texts from Dan Richman?
• Who signed the no-billed indictment?
• Is the “Deputy Criminal Chief” Maggie Cleary?
• Who all was involved in the decision to salvage the indictment by “amending,” “correcting,” or “redrafting” (all representations to the court) it to exclude the no-billed charge?
• Did they know that the obstruction charge relies on — and prosecutors intend to rely on — the alleged false statement the grand jury no-billed?
• Does Pam Bondi want to reconsider her ratification of all of this?

Cast of characters

Lindsey Halligan: Donald Trump’s defense attorney and sometime Smithsonian bigot

Maggie Cleary: Before Trump demanded Pam Bondi install Lindsey, the partisan attorney Pam Bondi installed as First Assistant US Attorney in EDVA; Cleary is the person who told Halligan that the grand jury had no-billed one charge; she was removed on October 13

EDVA Deputy Criminal Chief: This person instructed the EDVA grand jury coordinator to “amend” the indictment

EDVA Grand Jury Coordinator: After “amend[ing]” the indictment, they “presented the corrected indictment to the grand jury foreperson and the deputy foreperson” without a court reporter present; if Lindsey did not sign the no-bill indictment, the Grand Jury Coordinator is the most likely person to have done so

Jack Eckenrode: Senior Advisor to Kash Patel, lead investigator for John Durham, and former FBI Agent on Scooter Libby case

Miles Starr: Lead case agent on this and other Comey cases

Tyler Lemons: On loan from EDNC

Gabriel Diaz: On loan from EDNC

James Hayes: Litigation Attorney at Main Justice, he is listed as author of the following:

• Motion for discovery order
• Consent motion for CIPA protective order
• Motion for filter protocol
• Motion for expedited ruling on filter protocol
• Appeal of initial order to share grand jury materials
• Additional briefing on order to disclose grand jury materials
• Emergency motion to stay order to share grand jury materials

Gabriel Cohen: Metadata lists him as OGC, possibly in Detroit, he is the author of:

• Response on motion to disclose grand jury materials
• Response on motion for Bill of Particulars
• Lindsey Halligan declaration on what happened with the grand jury

Henry Whitaker: The former Solicitor General of Florida and currently Pam Bondi’s counselor, he is the signed author of:

• Response on unlawful appointment

Kathleen Stoughton: An AUSA in South Carolina with solid appellate experience, she is listed as author of:

• Response on vindictive prosecution

Michael Shedd: A newish AUSA in South Carolin, he is listed as author of:

• Response on literal truth

lheim: Metadata lists as author of:

• Pam Bondi re-ratification of indictment

In Lindsey Halligan’s first attempt to explain why there were two grand jury indictments, she was at pains to deny that any of her actions were missing from the transcript.

5. During the intermediary time, between concluding my presentation and being notified of the grand jury’s return, I had no interaction whatsoever with any members of the grand jury. This time represents the grand jury’s private deliberation which was done in secret with no one but the members of the grand jury present, consistent with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(d)(2).

6. I was never present in front of the grand jury alone. At every moment I was in front of the grand jury, the court reporter was also present.

An email from the transcription service, submitted as an exhibit to the government’s bid [link fixed] to stave off Jim Comey getting the grand jury transcript, notes that — aside from Lindsey’s difficulties running ELMO, the AV system — there’s nothing untoward in the recording.

With the high profile nature of these cases, we went back through the audio and transcript for the J.C. case again and can confirm that no audio was missed and no testimony was left out. There was one instance where the prosector had technical issues with ELMO and some of the jurors assisted and came in to assist as well. That is detailed out in the transcript. When the prosecutor was finished presenting her case, she and the court reporter left the room, as is standard procedure, to let the jury deliberate. It was about 2 hours of deliberations. Both the court reporter and the CSO remained in the Grand Jury area (outside the jury room but in the secure area where the breakroom and restrooms are) during the deliberation period. When the deliberations were finished and the jurors were released, the court reporter went back into the jury room, transferred the audio files and annotations to the envelope and brought the envelope to our offices. The length of the audio files match to the timestamps in the annotations and nothing was missed or otherwise left out of the transcript.

But Lindsey also claimed all interaction with the grand jury was captured by the transcript.

There was no additional presentation, interaction, or discussion with the grand jury outside of what is reflected in the transcript.

That’s false. The transcription service’s description lays out that the court reporter left after “the jurors were released” and they “transferred the audio files and annotations to the envelope.”

Which means the other key disclosure in this filing happened without a court reporter as witness.

After the grand jury coordinator learned the grand jury had rejected one charge, “the coordinator was informed,” passive voice, by a prosecutor at EDVA to revamp the indictment. The grand jury coordinator “presented” the “corrected” indictment to the grand jury foreperson and deputy foreperson.

As a result of the grand jury’s determination that probable cause existed to believe that defendant had committed two of the charges set forth in the proposed indictment, the draft indictment was amended to remove the first count and keep the remaining two counts on which the grand jury had concurred. 23

23 After the Nov. 19, 2025, hearing on the defendant’s vindictive prosecution memorandum, the EDVA Grand Jury coordinator informed the undersigned that the grand jury foreperson informed her they had returned a true bill as to counts two and three, and not as to count one. The coordinator was informed by the Deputy Criminal Chief to amend the indictment by removing the text of former count one, and moving the remaining counts, two and three, to reflect as counts one and two. The grand jury coordinator then returned to the grand jury room and presented the corrected indictment to the grand jury foreperson and the deputy foreperson.

Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer was never alone with the grand jury. But the EDVA grand jury coordinator was.

Sure, maybe nothing substantive happened. But you have no proof that’s true.

As I have suspected since at least Friday, there is no Jim Comey indictment.

That’s because, rather than re-presenting the case after the jury no-billed on one count, Lindsey Halligan never re-presented the remaining two counts.

Here’s CNN. (See also Politico, ABC, and WaPo.)

In a shocking back and forth, prosecutors said that instead of presenting a new indictment to the grand jury after it declined to approve one of the counts, Halligan simply brought an altered version to the magistrate’s courtroom for the grand jury’s foreperson to sign.

“The new indictment wasn’t a new indictment,” Lemons said, attempting to justify that it was only reviewed by the foreperson.

Judge Michael Nachmanoff quickly called Halligan, who was the only prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, to the lectern, asking her to confirm that the entire grand jury was never presented the altered indictment.

The judge started, “Am I correct -”

“No, you’re not,” Halligan interrupted. She said that there was one additional grand juror in the magistrate’s courtroom and quoted her back-and-forth with that judge.

“I’m familiar with the transcript,” Nachmanoff said. He then told her to sit down.

Apparently Michael Dreeben declared, correctly, that therefore there is probably no indictment, period, because the full grand jury did not vote to support it.

The problem goes beyond just the basics of how a grand jury works. As I noted here, Lindsey’s Loaner AUSAs already confessed that they want to rely on the no-billed count to support their obstruction case.

[A]s provided in discovery and via the indictment, the government intends to seek the admission of evidence at trial on this count regarding the defendant’s statements to senators during the September 30, 2020, committee hearing. For instance, the defendant’s statements to Senators Grassley and Cruz regarding his use of Richman as an anonymous source concerning the Clinton email investigation and his statements to Senators Graham and Hawley regarding his alleged lack of memory concerning the so-called Clinton plan to “tie Trump” to Russia.

And it’s worse than the poor Loaner AUSAs seem to realize.

The September 30, 2020 hearing had a specific scope, which could fairly be taken as the scope of the investigation the Senate was pursuing at the time. The Clinton email investigation was not included in that scope.

1 Before the hearing, the committee agreed that it would be limited to four specific topics: (i) “Crossfire Hurricane,” (ii) the December 2019 Department of Justice Inspector General report’s “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation,” (iii) the Carter Page FISA applications, and (iv) Christopher Steele’s source network and primary sub-source.

Without the no-billed count, nothing charged against Comey would be included in the scope of the hearing.

Her fuck-ups continue to snowball!

In advance of today’s hearing (at 10AM ET) on Jim Comey’s vindictive prosecution claim, I want to lay out two aspects of the Comey prosecution that likely doom it, and may doom the larger fever dream of a grand conspiracy case.

Both arise out of the way that Lindsey Halligan was prepped not by prosecutors, but by FBI agents working on the “Director’s Task Force” we know to be led by Jack Eckenrode, the guy who chased Russian disinformation for years based off Kash Patel’s misleading packaging of classified documents back in 2020.

This post will argue that likely all of them, possibly up to and including Kash himself, have tainted themselves by snooping in Jim Comey’s privileged communications. A follow-up will lay out the increasing evidence that Jim Comey’s grand jury presentment is a crime scene.

On September 12, FBI agents working on the Director’s Task Force were prepping for EDVA’s September 16 interview with Dan Richman, then led by Erik Siebert. They were searching the full Cellebrite extraction from Richman’s phone, and stumbled on communications Richman conducted using a pseudonym. They didn’t use those communications for the Richman interview, almost certainly because that interview would have been focused on actual suspected crimes rather than the fever dreams of conspiracists. But after that interview led prosecutors to conclude there was no crime that could be charged, Trump removed Siebert, leading Pam Bondi to appoint overt partisan Maggie Cleary, on September 20 (Cleary becomes important for the follow-up). But that wasn’t good enough. Then Trump publicly demanded Bondi install Lindsey Halligan, which Bondi did on September 22. That week, Cleary reportedly heeded prosecutors’ view the case could not — should not — be charged.

But Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer instead prepped with FBI agents working on the Director’s Task Force. Importantly, because DOJ wouldn’t provide Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer with outside help, those FBI agents prepped Lindsey, who knew nothing about how to prosecute a case, themselves.

DOJ headquarters declined to provide lawyers to assist Halligan, and FBI agents and lawyers working to prepare her were denied their request for a para-legal professional to assist in the presentation, according to two people familiar with the matter.

[snip]

Last Tuesday [September 23], Halligan began a crash course to prepare. Justice officials told her that the deputy attorney general’s office didn’t have lawyers to help her, and that it was against federal rules of criminal procedure for one of the attorneys from Justice headquarters to be in the grand jury room, one source familiar with the discussions said.

There’s a natural tension between FBI agents and prosecutors. The former get really invested in their targets, leading them to believe their case is stronger than it is. The latter, traditionally, have focused on how to sustain DOJ’s prior near-perfect record of convictions, all while keeping their bar licenses, and so they focus on what will be admissible and credible at trial, not their emotional belief they’ve caught a baddy.

Just as one example of how this pressure works, Jack Eckenrode — the head of this effort! — may well be the guy who tried to force Patrick Fitzgerald to indict Karl Rove two decades ago by telling journalists Rove was going to be indicted. Someone wanted Rove indicted (so did I!), but Fitz presumably believed that Robert Luskin had nudged Rove through serial admissions successfully enough to avoid perjuring himself too badly, and also that Rove would be useful at Scooter Libby’s trial, which he was.

But with the FBI agents prepping Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer, that moderating influence of a prosecutor didn’t exist. It was Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer, being led by the nose by hyper-partisan FBI guys performing for their hyper-partisan boss hunting the baddy that Kash had targeted even before getting the job.

And that’s important, because when Special Agent Spenser Warren describes “team” in this affidavit about the breach of Jim Comey’s privileged texts, it likely includes Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer.

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.

Take a step back though. This conversation should never have happened! That’s because the imagined crime these FBI agents were presenting was that Comey had lied when he told Ted Cruz he had never told anyone at FBI to act as an anonymous source. These texts post-dated Richman’s departure from the FBI by over three months. Even if they hadn’t accessed these texts illegally, they don’t help you prove your case (unless you neglect to tell grand jurors and judges when Richman left FBI, as this prosecution team persists in doing).

But because there was no grown-up in the room, they accessed the texts.

There are three pieces of evidence that the entire group — Miles Starr, Eckenrode, but also Lindsey Halligan, and with her, her Loaner AUSAs — all were tainted by the privileged communications, and along with it the grand jury.

First, Warren described that he shielded Starr from the taint of the privileged comms by isolating two pages of texts, “only from May 11, 2017, predating the reference to potential future legal representation.” But Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer likely presented eight pages of those texts, marked as Government Exhibit 10, on the fourth page of which Richman says, “just got goahead,” like he had just spoken to Comey, and the fifth through eighth pages of which post-date May 11 entirely. Someone went back into evidence they had been told included privileged texts and got an extra six pages of evidence.

And if Lindsey was already presenting texts well beyond the time that Comey retained Richman, that makes it more likely that when Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer told the grand jury there was better evidence they would get for trial, she was thinking of the other side of Richman’s communications, the communications between Comey and Richman.

But if that’s what she was thinking, the only way she would say that would be if she knew of the privileged comms — the comms an FBI lawyer specifically advised not to include in grand jury prep. That doesn’t mean she looked at them. It means she knew they were there and intended to go get them. When Miles Starr or whoever went back to get 8 pages of texts, he likely searched only the ones that included Mike Schmidt, thereby avoiding seeing any communications between Comey and Richman, but he did so because he knew those privileged communications were there.

Classic taint.

Also note, in the transcript, this comment appeared just one page after the other misinstruction on the law that (per Judge William Fitzpatrick) Lindsey gave, suggesting that Comey would have to take the stand. I’m sure the FBI agents who prepped her have the fever dream that they’ll see Comey on the stand, but no prosecutor would even silently imagine she could get a well-lawyered defendant to take the stand, much less blurt it out in front of a grand jury.

The other piece of evidence that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer was tainted by that privileged communication is the way that, even before sharing any of this discovery with Comey, she and the Loaner AUSAs set out to breach Comey’s privilege. They filed a motion to do so as one of their first filings (perhaps not coincidentally on the day Maggie Cleary was fired). And then, a week later, when they tried to rush Michael Nachmanoff into granting that motion, they invented a new theory of crime to get access to these communications: that Jim Comey lawyered up with Dan Richman and Pat Fitzgerald (and David Kelley) on May 11, 2017 in order to leak classified memos showing Donald Trump’s corruption.

Additionally, based on publicly disclosed information, the defendant used current lead defense counsel to improperly disclose classified information.

[snip]

This fact raises a question of conflict and disqualification for current lead defense counsel. Some of the communications in the potentially protected material are from the same time as the focus of the DOJ OIG report. Before litigating any issue of conflict or disqualification, the parties should have access to all relevant and non-privileged information. The sooner that the potentially protected information is reviewed and filtered, the sooner the parties can make any appropriate filings with the Court.

The imagined crime here is a leak of classified information, not a lie in response to a question from Ted Cruz, and so irrelevant to this prosecution.

In real time, Comey dismissed this claim as the bullshit fever dream it was: Comey was an Original Classification Authority and didn’t believe anything in his memos was classified, and the specific memo shared with Mike Schmidt had no classified information in it by any measure.

But consider how abusive the claim looks now. To get these texts, FBI agents working on the Director’s Task Force had gone back into material seized from Richman obtained more than five years earlier, they did so without a fresh warrant specific to either this prosecution or the fever dreams the FBI agents are really pursuing, rather than accessing the stuff that excluded the stuff Richman had said was privileged, they accessed the raw data and ostensibly did so for communications that could not have been responsive to their intended purpose (that is, to find out what, if anything, Richman shared anonymously while still at the FBI). And their interim claim they invoked to breach privilege, that this was a conspiracy to leak classified information, had nothing to do with this case, or even the larger fever dream conspiracy — the one they’re pursuing in Florida — that this was a conspiracy to be mean to Donald Trump.

A classic fishing expedition.

Betcha some money the Loaner AUSAs are delaying here so someone can try to get a warrant in Florida invoking a crime-fraud exception based on the well-known crime of being mean to Donald Trump.

Indeed, in Loaner AUSA Gabriel Diaz’ emergency motion for a delay (authored, as so many of these abusive filings are, by James Hayes), he doesn’t even argue this is about taint. He’s arguing (in a sentence fragment) only about whether Miles Starr read the actual texts in question, not whether he went back and searched for their counterpart texts to put together an 8-page exhibit for Lindsey to use.

Indeed, the government believes the Magistrate Judge may have misinterpreted some facts he found when issuing the latest order to release the grand jury materials to the defendant. For instance, whether the defendant has any standing to challenge the Richman materials, the full context of the statements made by the prosecutor to the grand jury, that Agent-3 was exposed to potentially privileged material, and that two indictments were presented to the grand jury.

Much of what the prosecutors have done since that day is a frantic bid to get those privileged texts, texts that could in no way serve to help prove this case as charged.

It’s sunny (and very cold by Irish standards), so I’m going to go take a walk before I map out the team — like James Hayes and OGC lawyer Gabriel Cohen — that’s lurking behind the foolish Loaner AUSAs fronting for all of this. But there’s a very good chance all of them are driven by taint, the taint of a fishing expedition into Jim Comey’s privileged communications.

This prosecution appears to have become more focused on finding some way out of that taint than on actually winning this particular prosecution against Kash Patel’s nemesis.

Cast of characters

Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer

Tyler Lemons: On loan from EDNC

Gabriel Diaz: On loan from EDNC

James Hayes: Litigation Attorney at Main Justice, he is listed as author of the following:

• Motion for discovery order
• Consent motion for CIPA protective order
• Motion for filter protocol
• Motion for expedited ruling on filter protocol
• Appeal of initial order to share grand jury materials
• Additional briefing on order to disclose grand jury materials
• Emergency motion to stay order to share grand jury materials

Gabriel Cohen: Metadata lists him as OGC, possibly in Detroit, he is the author of:

• Response on motion to disclose grand jury materials
• Response on motion for Bill of Particulars
• Lindsey Halligan declaration on what happened with the grand jury

Henry Whitaker: The former Solicitor General of Florida and currently Pam Bondi’s counselor, he is the signed author of:

• Response on unlawful appointment

Kathleen Stoughton: An AUSA in South Carolina with solid appellate experience, she is listed as author of:

• Response on vindictive prosecution

Michael Shedd: A newish AUSA in South Carolin, he is listed as author of:

• Response on literal truth

lheim: Metadata lists as author of:

• Pam Bondi re-ratification of indictment

HuffPo had a story describing how Trump has hired 50,000 new people while firing a bunch more in the parts of government that make your lives better,

The U.S. government has hired 50,000 employees since President Donald Trump took office, his top personnel official said, with the new staff largely in national security positions reflecting the administration’s policy focus.

The bulk of the new hires, reported first by Reuters, work at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said Scott Kupor, the federal government’s human resources director, in an interview on Thursday night.

The staff changes are part of Trump’s campaign to recast the government while sharply cutting other federal jobs.

“It’s about reshaping the workforce to focus on the priorities that we think are most important,” Kupor said.

The administration brought on the new employees while freezing hiring and laying off workers in other parts of the government, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The administration expects to shed about 300,000 workers this year, Kupor said in August.

Meanwhile, the Daily Beast has yet another story about the continued shitshow of the effort to expand Kristi Noem’s goon squad, this time with the price tag associated with getting people to do such morally repugnant work.

DHS insiders said the money on offer has lured back former executive-level leaders from HSI and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO)—with some of them taking home north of $250,000 for office-based shiftwork, per multiple sources who spoke to the Beast.

According to those familiar with the packages, the most senior HSI rehires return as GS-13s on the federal pay scale. With locality pay in high-cost areas—such as parts of Texas, California, and New York—adding 35 percent or more to a basic salary, agents can earn up to $137,000 in the majority of the country. This rises to $171,268 in more expensive parts of the country, such as San Jose and San Francisco.

Law Enforcement Availability Pay (LEAP) adds a further 25 percent for being available for substantial unscheduled duty beyond 40 hours. Add in ongoing federal pensions worth around $8,000–$9,000 a month, and some rehires can land well in excess of a quarter of a million annually, sources said.

50,000 ICE goons in, 300,000 people out, including people who cure cancer, help learning disabled kids get through school, protect our National Parks, ensure your Social Security comes on time, and care for veterans.

After I pointed this out, Christopher Ingraham did a handy graphic to show the trade-off.

Stephen Miller’s dragnet is unpopular in the abstract and wildly unpopular in the lived sense, even — if meekly — among local Republican leaders.

But it still retains support of a big chunk of the population, probably because Trump officials routinely blame their own failures to address American problems on migrants, when as often as not, Trump’s response to immigration is the source of the problem.

America can’t have nice things, like cures for cancer and welcoming public schools, because Republicans in Congress took the money used to pay for those things and gave it to Stephen Miller to use to invade America’s neighborhoods.

We need to start making that more obvious.