As you read the 100 page report about what a shitshow the FBI is under Kash Patel, keep the following in mind.

First, this report is an attack on Kash from the right, complaining among other things, that he hasn’t eradicated “Trump Derangement Syndrome” from the FBI and that Fox doesn’t play in FBI break rooms, while applauding him for eliminating DEI.

It was shared first with Miranda Devine, whose skillset is hit jobs, not government analysis.

It was shared as a Sribd.

It was sent to Chuck Grassley and Jim Jordan, but not their counterparts Dick Durbin and Jamie Raskin.

Yes, the report’s most damning anecdote describes that Kash delayed a presser in theTyler Robinson case until he could get a ladies’ sized jacket with the particular SWAG he wanted. Yes, it describes multiple sources quoting Dan Bongino saying, “the truth is for chumps.”

There’s even the very serious and persistent concern that the FBI has neglected its counterintelligence and counterterrorism mission (the report doesn’t mention rampant public corruption).

Perhaps the most telling detail, though, is there’s no mention of Andrew Bailey, ostensibly co-Deputy with Dan Bongino.

You see, in just two weeks, Bailey will be eligible to run the FBI or even DOJ without undergoing confirmation. And so you should expect that sometime after that, someone will be replaced.

Kash has long been the leading candidate to be replaced. But there’s likely to be a bit of a Hunger Games competition in the weeks ahead as various contestants attempt to keep their high flying planes.

In the first appellate court decision on Donald Trump’s persistent effort to put Insurance Lawyers, Election Deniers, and other sundry actors play-acting as US Attorneys, the Third Circuit has unanimously ruled that Alina Habba really is nothing more than a Parking Garage lawyer.

Habba is not the Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey by virtue of her appointment as First Assistant U.S. Attorney because only the first assistant in place at the time the vacancy arises automatically assumes the functions and duties of the office under the FVRA. Additionally, because Habba was nominated for the vacant U.S. Attorney position, the FVRA’s nomination bar prevents her from assuming the role of Acting U.S. Attorney. Finally, the Attorney General’s delegation of all the powers of a U.S. Attorney to Habba is prohibited by the FVRA’s exclusivity provision. Therefore, we will affirm the District Court’s disqualification order.

This ruling, if applied elsewhere, would cause problems for Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer, Sigal the Election Denying Laywer, and Bill the Claremont Nut, as well — including Essayli, whom a judge ruled could act as First AUSA.

Abbe Lowell, who represents Letitia James in EDVA, argued this case before the court.

The Third Circuit ruling comes even as the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Alina the Parking Garage lawyer is not only just a Parking Garage lawyer, but a frivolous one at that, sustaining the $1 million in fees on her and her liege Donald Trump.

Something funny is happening over at Xitter.

Yesterday, NYT published a 3,000-word profile of David Sacks describing how his installment as the White House AI and crypto czar has led to a number of decisions that may not benefit the US, such as sharing AI technology with UAE in seeming exchange for personal gain for others, including Trump. The profile quotes Sacks’ own spokesperson explaining that poor David Sacks just “wants the entire American tech stack to win.”

It also quotes Steve Bannon, which might hint at where the article came from, warning of the “road to perdition”!

Steve Bannon, a former adviser to Mr. Trump and a critic of Silicon Valley billionaires, said Mr. Sacks was a quintessential example of ethical conflicts in an administration where “the tech bros are out of control.”

“They are leading the White House down the road to perdition with this ascendant technocratic oligarchy,” he said.

In general, the article is a bit of a squish. As one critical example, it doesn’t mention Sacks’ role in fueling a run on Silicon Valley Bank only to whine and whine and whine until Sleepy Joe Biden bailed out the billionaires, the most significant lesson to explain Sacks’ installation.

The closing paragraphs nod to the significance of all this: that at a time when both crypto and AI need a bailout — a vastly bigger bailout than SVB needed — David Sacks is there to ensure that gets prioritized over real America.

In the keynote speech, Mr. Trump described Mr. Sacks as “great” before signing executive orders to speed the building of data centers and exports of A.I systems.

Then he handed Mr. Sacks the presidential pen.

The tech bros need a bailout and Sacks is there to deliver it to them.

But NYT doesn’t lay out the stakes. If this was a Bannon-attempted hit job, it missed its mark.

Or so I thought until I watched the Xitter response to Sacks’ whiny 1,500-word complaint about how he lawyered the article, to which he attached a much longer letter from defamation lawyers.

In response, every one of the loathesome crypto and AI bros whose installation Sacks served piped up to describe what a hero poor beleaguered David Sacks is.

Mark Andreessen who of course hosts or hosted a private chat of tech bros talking up other tech bros, may have kicked it off with his claim that Sacks was performing some kind of noble citizenship, which Daddy then picked up.

Marc Benioff seconded Gavin Baker’s tautology even while treating AI bros as “builders.”

David Marcus described tech bros’ efforts to collapse dollar hegemony in glowing terms while scoffing at “incompetent technocrats.”

Zach Witkoff — the man facilitating corrupt foreign investment in precisely these technologies — hailed Sacks’ role in “helping advance the ball forward on AI and Crypto.”

Martin Shkreli, who misspelled Sacks’ name, nevertheless insisted this is the kind of guy Americans want selling away American power.

And they all tagged Sacks and he RTed them (well, except for Shkreli) and all these billionaire tech bros were performing a circle jerk for the benefit of the foreign trolls their host has installed, as if that performance itself could affirm the value of all this tech brobery to real Americans.

None of this exposes the real underlying problem here, the degree to which the American economy has been hollowed out so these bro boys can attempt to divorce themselves from the physical reality of real people entirely.

But it performs it.

In the last few days, we’ve got allegations of murder against two men who worked in counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, Whiskey Pete Hegseth and Rahmanullah Lakanwal.

We don’t yet know why Lakanwal drove from Bellingham, WA, across the country, to allegedly ambush two members of the West Virginia National Guard, Sarah Beckstrom and Andrew Wolfe. Spencer Ackerman noted that if Lakanwal came to the US committed to terrorism, he learned that commitment — and a great deal of military skills — from Americans.

[T]he most sobering fact about Wednesday’s slayings is that the alleged killer, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, was all too compatible with Western Civilization.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe issued an extraordinary statement revealing that the 29-year-old Lakanwal was a “member of a partner force in Kandahar.” While a knowledgeable source with deep experience in Afghanistan cautions that the US sponsored a variety of proxy forces in southern Afghanistan, much additional reporting has identified Lakanwal as a member of the Zero Units, death squads used by the CIA during the US’s longest overseas war.

In other words, contrary to Miller and Trump, Lakanwal’s shooting spree is not the result of importing Afghan culture to America. While much will surely be revealed in Lakanwal’s upcoming trial, it looks more like the result of importing American culture to Afghanistan. The realities of blowback – the violence America experiences as the unintended consequences of the violence of US foreign policy – are what the US needs to examine in the wake of this horrifying murder if it expects to prevent the next one.

But even Ackerman doesn’t consider the possibility that something happened since — quite possibly in the last year, as Trump keeps dicking around allies of all sorts who’ve helped the United States in the past — that led Lakanwal to drive across the country only to target members of the Guard who had been uprooted from their homes to avenge Ed “Big Balls” Coristine.

The list of Republican governors who will uproot Guardsmen from their home, family, and (for many of them) regular jobs to go to DC continues to grow:

• Ohio Governor Mike DeWine
• South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster
• West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey
• Tennessee Governor Bill Lee
• Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves
• Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry

All of these men believe protecting Big Balls is a higher priority than protecting their own constituents.

How soon we forget that the entire reason why Trump invaded DC is that Ed “Big Balls” Coristine, one of the DOGE boys hired by the richest man in the world to snoop through the private heath and social security data of Americans, got beat up by unarmed teenagers?

Contrary to what Trump and his propagandists keep squealing, Lakanwal was vetted over and over again.

The Afghan national accused of shooting two National Guard members near the White House this week underwent thorough vetting by counterterrorism authorities before entering the United States, according to people with direct knowledge of the case.

Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, arrived in the U.S. through Operation Allies Welcome (OAW), a Biden-era program that helped resettle Afghan nationals after the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021.

[snip]

A key question from critics has been whether any evacuees managed to enter the U.S. without proper vetting. Lakanwal, however, would not have been among them, according to the individuals, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation. One of the individuals said Lakanwal was vetted years ago, before working with the CIA in Afghanistan, and then again before he arrived in the U.S. in 2021. Those examinations involved both the National Counterterrorism Center as well as the CIA, the person said.

Lakanwal was also granted asylum earlier this year, a process that would have brought its own scrutiny, according to #AfghanEvac, a coalition that supported the relocation effort — an assertion the White House did not dispute.

But no amount of vetting can forestall every awful possibility of violence.

Similarly, we can’t even say what led our Crusader-tatted Secretary of Defense to personally order the murder of two men who survived the first murderboat operation on September 2.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. “The order was to kill everybody,” one of them said.

A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.

The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.

Trump claims these murderboat operations combat drug trafficking. That was always suspect. Not only are many of the people killed at most low-level shippers, but killing traffickers was less useful than capturing them.

And Trump’s promise to pardon former President of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who was a major drug trafficker, suggests Trump is not so much opposed to drug trafficking, he just wants a cut.

What we do know about Hegseth, the man who ordered defenseless men to be murdered, is that the Fox News host repeatedly failed efforts to vet him — first when he was excluded from defending the Capitol after January 6, and then the multiple warnings of abuse, incompetence, and addiction reviewed during his confirmation process.

And so it was that Pete Hegseth happily uprooted Sarah Beckstrom from her home to serve as a prop for Trump’s authoritarian theater, where she was as predicted, targeted.

[M]ilitary commanders had warned that their deployment represented an easy “target of opportunity” for grievance-based violence. The troops, deployed in an effort to reduce crime, are untrained in law enforcement; their days are spent cleaning up trash and walking the streets in uniform. Commanders, in a memo that was included in litigation challenging the high-visibility mission in D.C., argued that this could put them in danger. The Justice Department countered that the risk was merely “speculative.” It wasn’t. There are costs to performatively deploying members of the military—one of which is the risk of endangering them.

Hegseth kept Beckstrom deployed even after Judge Jia Cobb ruled, six days before Beckstrom was shot, that state governors, including WV’s Patrick Morrisey, don’t have the authority to send their Guard to DC without being invited by DC.

[T]he out-of-state National Guards are likely operating in the District in a manner contrary to law. Under section 502(f), state law defines the permissible use of the National Guard under state control—i.e., which missions the governors can order their units to conduct. Here, the state governors whose units are currently operating in the District lack authority to order these missions because the District has not properly sought their aid under D.C. law and the EMAC.

This vetting failure, Pete Hegseth, happily obeyed Trump’s order to bring even more Guard troops to DC, whose mission of “crime deterrence and passive patrolling” will now require more Metropolitan Police Department effort to protect the Guard from being targeted again.

Two alleged murderers brought demons with them from Afghanistan to the US. Both together got a young woman with all her dreams and life ahead of her killed.

And yet we’re not removing the more obvious vetting problem to prevent further disasters.

Listen on Spotify (transcripts available)

Listen on Apple (transcripts available)

I am not surprised that Peter Skandalakis asked to dismiss the Georgia prosecution against Donald Trump. The fault for its dismissal lies primarily with Fani Willis for giving him the opportunity to dismiss it.

But Skandalakis’ dismissal is dishonest in many places and outright false in one case: notably, in his claim that Jack Smith concluded that he could not prosecute the case after SCOTUS interfered.

The strongest and most prosecutable case against those seeking to overturn the 2020 Presidential election results and prevent the certification of those votes was the one investigated and indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith. Although Special Counsel JackSmith’s federal case encompassed evidence from multiple states, he ultimately concluded the federal case could not be prosecuted because of the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States and the re-election of President Donald J. Trump.

Special Counsel Jack Smith wrote in his report, “Conversely, a select few of Mr. Trump’s agents and elector nominees had insight into the ultimate plan to use the fraudulent elector certificates to disrupt the congressional certification on January 6 and willingly assisted…. In each of the targeted states, Mr. Trump and his co-conspirators successfully organized enough elector nominees and substitutes to gather on December 14, cast fraudulent electoral votes on his behalf, and send them to Washington, D.C., for the congressional certification.”28

The criminal conduct alleged in the Atlanta Judicial Circuit’s prosecution was conceived in Washington, D.C., not the State of Georgia. The federal government is the appropriate venue for this prosecution, not the State of Georgia. Indeed, if Special Counsel Jack Smith, with all the resources of the federal government at his disposal, after reviewing the evidence in this case and considering the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v.United States, along with the years of litigation such a case would inevitably entail, concluded that prosecution would be fruitless, then I too find that, despite the available evidence, pursuing the prosecution of all those involved in State of Georgia v. DonaldTrump, et al. on essentially federal grounds would be equally unproductive.

The evidence had nothing to do with Smith’s decision to drop the case when Trump was reelected. Indeed, before the election he had laid out how he still planned to do so, as he laid out in his immunity brief.

This motion provides a comprehensive account of the defendant’s private criminal conduct; sets forth the legal framework created by Trump for resolving immunity claims; applies that framework to establishthat none of the defendant’s charged conduct is immunized because it either was unofficial or anypresumptive immunity is rebutted; and requests the relief the Government seeks, which is, at bottom, this: that the Court determine that the defendant must stand trial for his private crimes as would any other citizen.

This was a cowardly and partisan dodge by Skandalakis, one that sacrifices the integrity of Georgia’s democracy.

There’s something missing from all the analysis (and this, from Politico, is quite good) of what might happen in the wake of Judge Cameron Currie’s dismissal of at least the Jim Comey indictment, and possibly even the Letitia James one: the way the dismissal might help or hurt Trump’s plans to charge a Grand Conspiracy in Florida.

[I regret to inform all of you, especially Savage Librarian, that in thinking about this during a bout of insomnia on Sunday I set all my thinking about the Grand Conspiracy to the tune of Styx’ The Grand Illusion.]

After all, if the ultimate goal was always to charge Jim Comey as part of some 20-person conspiracy indictment claiming a bunch of people arranged to have Donald Trump investigated as a ploy to undercut his first term and damage his 2024 election chances (yeah, seriously, that is the theory!), then the statute of limitations expiration was always a mere speed bump.

And in the same way that the dismissal without prejudice leaves unresolved the larger issue of illegal weaponization of DOJ, it also leaves a number of things the Loaner AUSAs might have wanted resolved unresolved.

Understand, two things that had no business being in the Comey indictment are absolutely critical to the Grand Conspiracy theory.

The Grand Conspiracy would start at least by August 9, 2016, when Peter Strzok responded to Lisa Page’s question, “He’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” by saying, “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

From there, Kash Patel’s conspiracy theory about the “Clinton Plan” CIOL would take over.

The Grand Conspiracy conspiracy theory is that the “Clinton Plan” was real, and that it should have given the FBI notice that Hillary had a plan to frame Donald Trump. [I should emphasize, not only don’t I endorse this theory, much of it is false and even more of it is batshit insane, but it nevertheless is being pursued by a Senate confirmed US Attorney in SDFL, Jason Reding Quiñones.] But, the Grand Conspiracy conspiracy theory goes, when Peter Strzok got notice of the Clinton Plan on September 7, he made sure it never got shared with the people beginning to investigate why George Papadopoulos knew of Russia’s plan to help Trump in advance because, the Grand Conspiracy conspiracy goes, it would have led him to open an investigation into Hillary rather than Trump.

Again, not true, insane, but nevertheless what has everyone from the Deputy Attorney General and FBI Director on down to the people unlawfully accessing raw data collected years ago aroused.

Fast forward to 2020. According to the Grand Conspiracy conspiracy theory, when Jim Comey told Lindsey Graham the “Clinton Plan” — as misleadingly described in a John Ratcliffe letter no doubt drafted with Kash’s help — didn’t ring a bell for him, he was lying to cover up how the FBI ignored warning signs about leads from Hillary.

Fast forward even further to 2025. When Kash found a burn bag of materials that had not been destroyed, including the “Clinton Plan” CIOL that might have been brought to the FBI Director’s Office with a bunch of other Durham investigation materials, he and Jack Eckenrode instead assumed that Comey partisans were trying to protect Comey and Strzok’s devious plot to ignore the CIOL back in 2016.

You need the “Clinton Plan” CIOL for the Grand Conspiracy conspiracy theory because that’s what makes their wildly misleading claims about the treatment of the Steele dossier in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment damning. The Steele dossier should never have been used at all, the Grand Conspiracy conspiracy theory says, because the FBI had notice that Clinton wanted to frame Trump, but instead Comey, with Brennan’s involvement (the Grand Conspiracy conspiracy theory claims), demanded its inclusion and based (the Grand Conspiracy conspiracy theory claims) the judgement that Russia wanted Trump to win on it, and when Brennan lied about all that in 2023 (the Grand Conspiracy conspiracy theory claims), he was trying to cover up this devious plot.

You also need Comey’s decision to release the memo he wrote up memorializing Trump’s corrupt attempt to shut down the Mike Flynn investigation and with it the communications with Dan Richman. You need that, plus Comey’s overt wish that by releasing the memo a Special Counsel might be (and was) appointed, because it ties (the Grand Conspiracy conspiracy theory claims) Strzok’s stated intent to “stop” Trump from becoming President to the investigation that dominated his first term. The Grand Conspiracy conspiracy theory turns the very legal release of a memo demonstrating Trump’s corruption into the crime of depriving Donald Trump of his right to fully exploit the presidency the Russian government gave him.

Now consider how charging Jim Comey with lying and obstructing fucked the Grand Conspiracy conspiracy plans.

First, the “Clinton Plan” CIOL.

EDVA successfully prevented Comey from explaining the problem with the “Clinton Plan” CIOL before attempting to charge him for lying about it. In his first discovery letter, Pat Fitzgerald noted that he had offered to meet with prosecutors on September 17.

In that regard, on September 17, 2025, I wrote the DOJ to ask for a meeting to discuss why the case should not be brought but never received a substantive response, much less a meeting.

And his motion to dismiss because Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer failed to actually get an indictment revealed that EDVA even refused to engage with the offer to toll the statute of limitations.

In fact, Mr. Comey’s counsel requested a meeting with the U.S. Attorney’s Office the week before the indictment was obtained and offered to toll the statute of limitations to allow for that meeting. A prosecutor in the Office told Mr. Comey’s counsel that the Office had been directed not to engage with defense counsel.

Prosecutors at EDVA — supposedly the good guys who got fired — didn’t want any truths Fitzgerald might share to fuck up their larger Grand Conspiracy conspiracy.

In one of his two replies for release of grand jury materials, Comey laid out how stupid all this is.

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.

[snip]

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.

In a footnote, he noted that this is all based on Russian disinformation.

10 Indeed, it appears this information was created by Russian intelligence, and did not accurately reflect particular emails. See Charlie Savage & Adam Goldman, ‘Clinton Plan’ Emails Were Likely Made by Russian Spies, Declassified Report Shows, N.Y. Times (July 31, 2025), https://perma.cc/F8AF-TLAF.

Worse still, a grand jury determined there was not probable cause that Comey lied about the “Clinton Plan” CIOL (though the Loaner AUSAs were trying to backdoor that as a crime in the obstruction charge).

Todd Blanche whisked the criminal investigation into whether Brennan lied in 2023 about his enthusiasm for the Steele dossier away to SDFL before a prosecutor wrote up a declination memo. Having arrived in Florida, US Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones sent out a bunch of subpoenas that everyone recognizes to be entirely performative (because they ask for highly classified things none of the subpoena recipients would have in their private possession).

But Blanche didn’t whisk this “Clinton Plan” CIOL off to Florida (which might have happened had Trump not demanded Pam Bondi intervene) before Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer did real damage to it.

And by bringing in Loaner AUSAs who actually care about their bar licenses, Blanche also did grave damage to their plan to use the Comey memos in the Grand Conspiracy conspiracy. The Loaner AUSAs attempted (or rather, fronted for James Hayes’ attempt) to use this investigation to get a filter team approved to turn the clearly privileged materials Miles Starr and Jack Eckenrode could have read because Kash Patel’s FBI turned off the filters applied under Bill Barr into crime-fraud excepted communications, at least ostensibly because they reflected a conspiracy to leak classified materials but in reality to serve their larger Grand Conspiracy conspiracy.

But instead of getting their filter protocol, the EDVA effort resulted in an order from William Fitzpatrick prohibiting the government from reviewing those privileged materials.

ORDERED that the Government, including any of its agents or employees, shall not review any of the materials seized pursuant to the four 2019 and 2020 search warrants at issue until further order of the Court;

And then Fitzpatrick issued an opinion effectively holding that DOJ violated Comey’s attorney-client privilege in 2020 by not permitting him to assert privilege.

However, the government never engaged Mr. Comey in this process even though it knew that Mr. Richman represented Mr. Comey as his attorney as of May 9, 2017, and three of the four Richman Warrants authorized the government to search Mr. Richman’s devices through May 30, 2017, 21 days after an attorney-client relationship had been formed. ECF Nos. 38 at 2 and 138-11 at 33 (Aug. 2019 Office of the Inspector General Report) (noting that Mr. Comey informed the Office of Inspector General that “the day after his removal, or ‘very shortly thereafter,’ he retained attorneys Patrick Fitzgerald, David Kelley, and Daniel Richman.”).

[snip]

At the time the Richman Warrants were executed, the government was aware not only that Mr. Richman represented Mr. Comey, but also that he maintained ongoing attorney-client relationships with other individuals, as the FBI materials regarding his resignation from Special Government Employee status noted his intention to represent a defendant in a federal criminal prosecution. Id. As a result, when the government obtained the first Richman Warrant in 2019, it was clearly foreseeable that Mr. Richman’s devices contained potentially privileged communications with numerous third parties, including Mr. Comey. Nevertheless, in 2019 and 2020, the government made a conscious decision to exclude Mr. Comey from the filter process, even though Mr. Comey, as the client, is the privilege holder, not Mr. Richman. The government’s claim at the November 5, 2025 hearing that Mr. Richman, at the time himself the subject of a criminal investigation and represented by separate counsel, was in a position to effectively assert Mr. Comey’s privilege is entirely unreasonable.

Fitzpatrick noted that had prosecutors obtained a new warrant to investigate Comey’s alleged leaks, it would be narrowly scoped. (He doesn’t say this, but it is the case that a new warrant would have prohibited any searches after February 7, 2017, the day Richman left the FBI, and therefore prohibited the review of the Comey memo exchanges even on the Richman side.)

If a new warrant had been sought by the government and issued by the Court, the Fourth Amendment would have required it to be narrowly tailored, authorizing access only to materials within a limited time frame and relevant to the new offenses under investigation. See Williams, 592 F.3d at 519. In addition, any new warrant would have imposed strict procedural safeguards to ensure privileged information was not reviewed by the prosecution team. As a result, the parameters of the 2025 search would inevitably have had a different and much narrower scope than the Richman Warrants. Faced with this prospect, the government chose to unilaterally search materials that were (1) seized five years earlier; (2) seized in a separate and since closed investigation; (3) that were never reviewed to determine whether the seized information was responsive to the original warrants; (4) that were likely improperly held by the government for a prolonged period of time; (5) that included potentially privileged communications; (6) did so without ever engaging the privilege holders; and (7) did so without seeking any new judicial authority.

And he described that DOJ had permitted Miles Starr to remain on the investigative team even after having been tainted by privileged communications.

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.

The Fitzpatrick opinion was absolutely devastating for the Grand Conspiracy conspiracy, because it rendered Comey’s side of the Comey memo exchanges unlawfully seized.

And then Donald Trump DOJ responded the way Trump always does, by claiming bias. The Loaner AUSAs made a specious claim that Fitzpatrick’s comments about Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s misstatements to the jury reflected bias.

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 impartiality 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.

And, that very same day, Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer lied to the NYPost in a bid to claim that Michael Nachmanoff himself is biased.

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.

By November 19, the day of these twin bullshit claims of judicial misconduct, the Comey prosecution in EDVA had done grave damage to the Grand Conspiracy conspiracy. But the plan was to discredit everything the judges did.

Except for Cameron Currie. They forgot to include Judge Currie, and her order dismissing the indictment without prejudice — making the indictment and everything that happened after that a legal nullity — left all of this wildly unresolved.

DOJ is on notice that they broke the law and that their Grand Conspiracy conspiracy theories are bullshit. But that notice has become a legal nullity, with no way for them to rebut it in EDVA.

I can tell you what the plan was. It was (as Charlie Savage recently laid out) to whisk this all away to Aileen Cannnon’s courthouse to make the crimes FBI committed go away.

I have no fucking clue what the plan is now, because I have no idea what the legal import is of these legal statements that have been rendered a legal nullity by the Currie order.

I do know, however, that when imagining what might come next, you have to consider that SDFL investigation, which may be why Comey’s statement predicted that, “I know that Donald Trump will probably come after me again.”

Update: In somewhat related news, the 11th Circuit has upheld the judgment and sanctions against Trump and Alina Habba for their frivolous lawsuit very much paralleling the Grand Conspiracy theory.

Meaning, Jim Comey has beaten Trump in court twice in a holiday-shortened week.

Bloomberg obtained and posted the content of two phone calls showing Steve Witkoff — whom Michael Weiss has dubbed “Dim Philby” — working for Russia’s interests, not US interests. Bloomberg published two transcripts:

• A 5-minute October 14 call between Witkoff and Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s top foreign policy advisor, in which Witkoff tells Ushakov how to pitch Trump on capitulation
• A short October 29 call between Ushakov and Kirill Dmitriev, in which Dmitriev described “informally pass[ing …] along [Russia’s maximal “piece” plan], making it clear that it’s all informal. And let them do like their own

The transcripts show that Witkoff is a sycophant serving Putin’s interest and that the transcript that Americans have been claiming was their own plan was, as everyone smart insisted, in fact Russia’s plan.

The fall-out of this is yet to be seen. Thus far, Marco Rubio’s efforts to salvage things seems to have bought time.

When Bloomberg posted the transcripts they said they had reached out for comment from the White House. That reference is gone, but now Trump and his flunkies claim these transcripts make Witkoff look strong, rather than culpable. So maybe Trump will just try to barrel through the transcript release and still capitulate to Russia.

I want to consider the logistics of this leak, which could arise from wiretapping (or simply recording) what happened on Ushakov’s phone, which is common to both transcripts. It could have come from any of three entities:

• The Russians, who would have ready access to Ushakov’s phone and no concern about preserving that access
• Some European intelligence service, which would be endangering a tremendously valuable compromise by releasing this, but might stave off diplomatic catastrophe
• American leakers, possibly at the CIA (which, like Marco Rubio, was excluded from these negotiations)

Bloomberg’s story has no byline, which would make it harder for the FBI or anyone else to determine who leaked these materials.

Now consider the effect of the leak. The transcripts make it clear the claims sold to Axios and WSJ — that Jared Kushner wrote this plan — were false. Dmitriev succeeded, as he told Ushakov he would do, in getting the White House to pass off the Russian plan as their own.

If the US forces through this deal, the leak of this transcript makes Russia’s complete dominance evident.

Or, if the deal fails because Rubio succeeded in making the deal more acceptable to Ukraine and Europe, this leak may undercut Dmitriev’s role in the entire process (indeed, the leak could be an attempt to scapegoat him for a failed plan to get maximal capitulation).

But unless the US understands where the transcripts came from, it makes Witkoff vulnerable. The only obviously targeted phone is Ushakov’s. But if they got both sides of this conversation, what else did they got?

We don’t know the answers but it’s worth remembering something about 2016 to 2017.

Like Witkoff, Mike Flynn used absolutely abysmal operational security when working a back channel to undermine sanctions on Russia. Ultimately, US spies discovered what he had done, after trying to figure out why Putin did nothing in response to US sanctions. But the Russian Embassy pretty clearly knew the phone lines Flynn was calling into were wiretapped. Russia knew that would be exposed, and likely knew that one of several things would happen: they’d have blackmail on Trump because he dealt with Russia before becoming President or, the discovery of Flynn’s actions could destabilize the Trump administration as the investigation into his Russia ties in fact did do.

The same could be said for these transcripts.

In the wake of Judge Cameron Currie’s order dismissing the Jim Comey and Letitia James’ indictments, right wing Trump supporters have contorted themselves into knots trying to claim that Comey and James got special treatment, rather than simply the application of clear precedent to their case.

A technicality!!!!!!

The funniest wail from these MAGAts is their claim that Comey and James only got off on a “technicality,” so we can go ahead and consider them guilty.

In point of fact, Comey pointed out in a filing last week that the Loaner AUSAs have yet to point to any instance that fits the terms of their claimed alleged lie.

Here, the government has repeatedly failed to provide a coherent factual basis for its theory that Mr. Comey authorized Mr. Richman to be an “anonymous source” in news reports regarding the Midyear Exam investigation while Mr. Richman was “at the FBI.” Of the communications following Mr. Comey’s October 28, 2016 letter that the government cites in both briefs, none reflect Mr. Comey authorizing Mr. Richman to be an anonymous source. For instance, the communications show Mr. Richman discussed materials that were already public, like Mr. Comey’s letter to Congress. See, e.g., Opp. at 3 (“Wittes and I are spending a lot of time saying your letter means exactly, and only what it says.” (emphasis added)); id. at 3-4 (quoting the defendant as telling Mr. Richman that Richman’s contributing to a New York Times Opinion piece “would [be] shouting into the wind,” and “that they would ‘figure it out’” without Richman’s contributions). And even where the government alleges that Mr. Comey encouraged Mr. Richman to speak to the press in late October and early November 2016, there is no indication that Mr. Richman did so anonymously; to the contrary, one of the exhibits the government cites references Mr. Richman’s televised interview with Anderson Cooper. Opp. at 4 (citing ECF No. 138-6, 138- 7). The remaining communications cited by the government in its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based on Vindictive and Selective Prosecution suffer from numerous defects, but most critically, all occurred after February 7, 2017, when Mr. Richman left the FBI. This alone makes the government’s theory that Mr. Richman was “at the FBI” when these communications occurred incomprehensible.

And exhibits another Loaner AUSA submitted in the government’s response to James’ vindictive prosecution claim show that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer was gaslighting Anna Bower when she was stalking her.

More astonishing, though, is that these indictments were dismissed on the very same “technicality” — that the prosecutor was unlawfully appointed — that Judge Aileen Cannon invoked to dismiss Trump’s far better substantiated stolen document case (though Cannon was a newbie judge departing from decades of precedent, while Currie is a senior judge simply following existing precedent).

Indeed, Judge Currie even cites Cannon’s opinion dismissing Trump’s indictment for the principle that everything had to be unwound.

In such a case, “the proper remedy is invalidation of the ultra vires action[s]” taken by the actor. United States v. Trump, 740 F. Supp. 3d 1245, 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2024). “Invalidation ‘follows directly from the government actor’s lack of authority to take the challenged action in the first place. That is, winning the merits of the constitutional challenge is enough.’” Id. (quoting Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. All Am. Check Cashing, Inc., 33 F.4th 218, 241 (5th Cir. 2022) (Jones, J., concurring)).

To make things more awkward, in the hearing on this, Judge Currie asked Pam Bondi’s Counselor, Henry Whitaker, about that precedent and he partly disavowed it, and in doing so, noted that Bondi had other means she could have put Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer in place to indict Comey and James, means she did not take.

THE COURT: Mr. Whitaker, let me ask you one last question. Do you believe that U.S. v. Trump, decided by Judge Cannon, in, I believe, 2021, was wrongly decided?

MR. WHITAKER: Well, I think it’s certainly not controlling here, Your Honor, because in United States v. Trump, Judge Cannon held that various statutes that existed, some of which I’ve cited here today, did not authorize the appointment of a special counsel. But here, in a very important distinction between this case and Trump, is that we have available to us a number of statutes that the United States did not have available in making those arguments. For example, you know, you couldn’t have appointed Jack Smith as an AUSA under 542. I mean, we could have — we certainly could have done that with Ms. Halligan. You couldn’t have appointed Jack Smith as an assistant to a United States attorney under 543. We certainly could have done that with regard to Ms. Halligan.

But, I mean, look, to the extent that — and I do think that mostly what was driving Judge Cannon’s decision in that case was sort of the unique and broad authority that the special counsel possessed sort of free of supervision, which, of course, is an element that we do not have here. But I will say this: Like, look, to the extent you can read Judge Cannon’s decision as suggesting that the Department of Justice does not have authority under, for example, 28 U.S.C. Section 510 to appoint Main Justice attorneys, which would basically knock out most of the Department of Justice as it existed for the past, like, 50 years, yes, we certainly do disagree with that, and we agree that the attorney general has full authority to make appointments under statutes like 28 U.S.C. Section 510 and 509, and that source of authority would fully support Ms. Halligan being an authorized attorney to the government even though there may have been a paperwork error, a citation error in her appointment order.

A Clinton appointee swooping in to steal the case

Which brings us to the second complaint: that it was somehow improper for Currie, a Clinton appointed senior judge from South Carolina, to swoop into EDVA and end the case.

But that is precisely the process used in the three other districts where judges have ruled similar interim appointments unlawful, with a fourth (also involving Tish James) still in process.

When Julien Giraud, father and son, and Cesar Humberto Pino challenged Alina Habba the Parking Garage Lawyer’s involvement in their cases, the Chief Judge from the Third Circuit appointed an out of District judge to preside, Matthew Brann, a Republican appointed by Obama.

Shortly thereafter, the Honorable Michael A. Chagares, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, designated me for service in the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292(b) and reassigned this matter “and all related cases” to me.36

When a bunch of defendants in Nevada challenged Sigal Chattah the election denier lawyer’s involvement in their cases, the Chief Judge from the Ninth Circuit appointed an out of District judge to preside, David Campbell, a George W Bush appointee.

The Nevada District Court Judges recused from hearing these motions to dismiss, presumably because the motions implicate their own power to appoint an Acting U.S. Attorney. See 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). Exercising her authority under 28 U.S.C. § 292(b), Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary Murguia designated the undersigned judge to hear and decide these motions. Doc. 21.

When some Los Angeles defendants challenged liar for ICE goons Bill Essayli’s involvement in their cases, the Chief Judge from the Ninth Circuit appointed a different out of District judge, Michael Seabright, another George W Bush appointee, to preside over their challenges.

ORDER (U.S.C. § 292(b)) by Chief Circuit Judge Mary H. Murguia as to Defendant Jaime Hector Ramirez: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292(b), I hereby designate the Honorable Michael Seabright, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Hawaii, to temporarily perform the duties of United States District Judge on an as-needed basis for the Central District of California beginning on 9/8/2025, and ending on 12/31/2025, and for such additional time required in advance to prepare or thereafter to complete unfinished business.

And when Letitia James challenged subpoenas issued by John Sarcone after he falsely claimed NDNY judges had named him as US Attorney, the Chief Judge from the Second Circuit appointed an out of District judge to preside over that challenge, Lorna Schofield, another Obama appointee.

Of note, all these challenges to Pam Bondi’s playacting US Attorneys had started before Bondi installed Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer on September 22, and Judge Brann had already ruled Alina Habba’s appointment to be unlawful.

Bondi was on notice that what she was doing with Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer was going to be challenged and had been successfully challenged. And she didn’t even attempt any of the gimmicks she is using elsewhere to keep Trump hacks in place, those means cited by her own Counselor in court — in part because she couldn’t. She had already used one of those tricks, installing Maggie Cleary as First AUSA, when Trump insisted it had to be Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer.

These cases might have been dismissed on other grounds. But the unlawful appointment dismissals are entirely of Bondi’s doing.

Stop blaming judges appointed by whichever President when Bondi is 100% to blame.

The Blue Slip gaslight special

Finally, there are even right wing dumbasses claiming that this is about Blue Slips, the Senate tradition that US Attorneys and Judges must have the support of both Senators before being confirmed.

To be fair, Todd Blanche did go on Fox News and falsely claim that is what this is about.

The way you know Blanche is lying is because Trump told us himself, when he ordered Bondi to install Halligan.

“[W]e almost put in a Democrat [sic] supported U.S. Attorney, in Virginia, with a really bad Republican past. A Woke RINO, who was never going to do his job.”

What he’s talking about is that Trump himself nominated Siebert with the support of both Mark Warner and Tim Kaine.

Siebert was someone everyone agreed on — Trump installed him, EDVA’s judges reinstalled him, Trump nominated him — until Siebert concluded, apparently with Blanche’s concurrence, that there was not probable cause to indict Jim Comey.

All this whining is nothing other than cope.

If you complain that Democrats aren’t supporting qualified nominees, you should be outraged that Trump pulled Siebert.

If you complain that unconflicted judges decide these issues, you’ve got one.

If you really had a problem with appointments clause dismissals, you should be demanding that Trump stand trial for stealing nuclear documents and stashing them in a bathroom.

But what you shouldn’t do is blame anyone other than the person responsible, Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Judge Cameron Currie has issued her ruling in Jim Comey and Letitia James’ efforts to disqualify Lindsey Halligan as unlawfully appointed.

In both cases, she dismissed the indictments without prejudice.

On September 25, 2025, Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, appeared before a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. Having been appointed Interim U.S. Attorney by the Attorney General just days before, Ms. Halligan secured a two-count indictment charging former FBI Director James B. Comey, Jr. with making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding.

Mr. Comey now moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Ms. Halligan, the sole prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, was unlawfully appointed in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. As explained below, I agree with Mr. Comey that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid. And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.

But she also ruled that the judges in EDVA will choose the US Attorney until such time as Trump can get one confirmed by the Senate, which might, in theory, lead Erik Siebert to be reinstated.

The power to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546 during the current vacancy lies with the district court until a U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate under 28 U.S.C. § 541.

This decision will be appealed. And given that Currie stopped short of dismissing the indictment with prejudice, it may not moot Comey’s other challenges to his indictment (or James’, which are not yet fully briefed).

Update: This language seems to prohibit Bondi from trying to reindict Comey again, but does not moot his other legal challenges.

The Government also fails to meet the second requirement for a valid ratification, i.e., that the principal must have been able “to do the act ratified . . . at the time the ratification was made.” FEC v. NRA Pol. Victory Fund, 513 U.S. 88, 98 (1994) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). In NRA Political Victory Fund, the Supreme Court rejected the Solicitor General’s attempt to ratify the filing of an unauthorized petition for certiorari when the attempted ratification occurred after the filing deadline had already passed. Id. at 98. Similarly here, the Attorney General’s attempt to ratify Mr. Comey’s indictment on October 31 “came too late in the day to be effective,” as the statute of limitations for the charged offenses expired 31 days earlier on September 30.21 Id.

21 Generally, “[t]he return of an indictment tolls the statute of limitations on the charges contained in the indictment.” United States v. Ojedokun, 16 F.4th 1091, 1109 (4th Cir. 2021). “An invalid indictment,” however, “cannot serve to block the door of limitations as it swings closed.” United States v. Crysopt Corp., 781 F. Supp. 375, 378 (D. Md. 1991) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Gillespie, 666 F. Supp. 1137, 1141 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (“[A] valid indictment insulates from statute-of-limitations problems any refiling of the same charges during the pendency of that valid indictment (that is, the superseding of a valid indictment). But if the earlier indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which to hang such a judicial limitations-tolling result.” (emphasis in original)).

Update: Comey has posted a video. And James posted this statement:

I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country.

I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day.