Why DOJ Might Be Pushing for Lindsey Halligan to Get No Billed
Update: Per ABC, a grand jury indicted Jim Comey on two of three charges.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi
@AGPamBondi No one is above the law. Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.
Yesterday, there was a flood of leaks describing that Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s insurance lawyer turned defense team looker turned EDVA US Attorney, is going to present an indictment to a grand jury, probably today, charging Jim Comey with lying to Congress.
MSNBC rushed the scoop first (and as a result continues to have inaccuracies). ABC has led the pack with the most important details, including a description of the declination recommendation presented to Halligan this week, which may be why the newly hired partisan but onetime AUSA Maggie Cleary (referred to here as Lindsey’s deputy) has reservations about going forward.
Earlier this week, prosecutors presented Lindsey Halligan — Trump’s former personal attorney whom he appointed to lead the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia — with a detailed memo recommending that she decline to bring perjury and obstruction charges against Comey, the sources familiar with the memo said.
A monthslong investigation into Comey by DOJ prosecutors failed to establish probable cause of a crime — meaning that not only would they be unable to secure a conviction of Comey by proving the claims beyond a reasonable doubt, but that they couldn’t reach a significantly lower standard to secure an indictment, the sources said.
According to Justice Department guidelines, prosecutors are generally barred from bringing charges unless they can prove a defendant will “more likely than not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by an unbiased trier of fact and that the conviction will be upheld on appeal.”
Despite their recommendations, Halligan — who has never prosecuted a criminal case in her career as an insurance lawyer — plans to present evidence to a grand jury before the statute of limitations for the alleged offense expires next week, the sources said.
[snip]
According to sources, Halligan’s deputy — a prosecutor who was briefly assigned to lead the office just a day before Trump appointed Halligan to the high-profile position — has also expressed reservations about bringing the politically charged case.
WSJ adds that Pam Bondi has reservations herself.
Trump has pushed Bondi repeatedly in private in recent days to bring charges against Comey, even as she has expressed reservations about the case, people familiar with the discussions said.
NYT, NBC, CNN, and WaPo all have versions of the story. Lawfare has a really good summary of why any decision to attempt to indict Comey would be stupid.
There are even some hints that EDVA is not just presenting an insufficient case to a grand jury — some grand jury — but that it won’t be in the Alexandria office, presenting the likelihood of venue problems if a grand jury approves the charges.
The publicity may be the point. Even more partisan Republicans in a grand jury someplace like Norfolk or Newport News would have heard of this story by now, possibly even including notice of the prosecutorial memo saying there wasn’t evidence to charge this. So while Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer might be craven enough to move forward, a grand jury sworn to uphold the law may not be.
These leaks make it far more likely that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer will get no-billed (meaning they’ve vote against indicting Comey). And that may be the point. Indeed, her law license may be among a handful that get saved in the process.
Consider how this would look to Todd Blanche.
Blanche may not have noticed that DC added Ken Chesebro yesterday to the growing list of former Trump lawyers who’ve lost their license to practice law. But he’s no doubt aware of how common it is for Trump lawyers to lose their law licenses.
Also yesterday, the judge presiding over Luigi Mangione’s case, Margaret Garnett, gave DOJ one last warning about inappropriate public comments made about the accused killer, including by Blanche’s own Chief of Staff, before she starts sanctioning DOJ.
In her order, Garnett specifically directed Todd Blanche to clean all this up.
Accordingly, the Government is directed to respond to those portions of the September 23 Letter by October 3, 2025, and to include with their response a sworn declaration from a person of suitable authority (i.e. at least Ms. Houle or Mr. Buckley, in his capacity as Acting U.S. Attorney for this matter, if not an official at Main Justice) that explains to the Court how these violations occurred, despite the Court’s April 25 Order, and what steps are being taken to ensure that no future violations occur. The Government is also directed to advise the Deputy Attorney General, for dissemination within the Department as appropriate, that future violations may result in sanctions, which could include personal financial penalties, contempt of court findings, or relief specific to the prosecution of this matter. The Government’s declaration shall also include confirmation that this message has been conveyed to the Deputy Attorney General. [my emphasis]
This order follows Judge Dale Ho’s observation that Pam Bondi and Chad Mizelle (who is leaving DOJ in coming weeks) had violated local rules by blabbing their mouth in the Eric Adams case. DOJ also has to know they’ll face worse admonishments for DOJ officials — starting with Kash Patel but including Blanche personally — for running their mouths if they ever charge Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer in Federal court, which they should not do, because it would endanger the Utah case.
Blanche’s personal exposure in the LaMonica McIver case goes far deeper. He is at once:
- The official who ordered DHS personnel to arrest Ras Baraka even after he had left Delaney Hall property, creating the physical confrontation in which McIver was charged, and as such, part of the law enforcement team and implicated in a potentially unlawful arrest
- The person whose office conducted the prosecutorial review previously done by career prosecutors in Public Integrity Division after that got shut down
- Because Alina Habba continues to play US Attorney after being unlawfully retained, the person in charge of the prosecution
If McIver’s own selective and vindictive prosecution claim gains any traction, we may learn far more about Blanche’s effort to criminalize a co-equal branch of government for conducting lawful oversight.
Meanwhile, Jim Comey’s daughter Maurene has filed a lawsuit alleging that she got fired for no other reason than that she is Jim’s daughter. If her lawsuit survives a motion to dismiss, Ms. Comey will be able to start demanding discovery not just about the people at Main DOJ who invoked the President’s Article II authority to fire her along with some proof that Trump was actually involved in that decision, but also — unless DOJ provides another credible explanation for her firing, like that she prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell — discovery about the witch hunt against her father, including his prosecution in EDVA. Admittedly, that’s a higher bar than some other developments and will take forever, but it presents a credible threat that documentation of everything that occurred before her firing in July will one day become public.
That’s all before you get to the specific circumstances of Trump’s insistence to go forward with the indictment regardless of the evidence.
In what may have been leaks attempting to stave off precisely this development, NYT reported that both Bondi and Blanche defended then-US Attorney Erik Siebert before Trump, but lost that argument to Bill Pulte — who’s little more than a troll who benefitted from a whole lot of nepotism.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general who runs the day-to-day operations of the Justice Department, had privately defended Mr. Siebert against officials, including William J. Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who had urged that he be fired and replaced with a prosecutor who would push the cases forward, according to a senior law enforcement official.
Mr. Pulte’s power far outstrips his role as the head of an obscure housing agency. He has gained Mr. Trump’s favor by pushing mortgage fraud allegations against perceived adversaries of the White House, including Ms. James; a Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook; and Senator Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California.
Mr. Pulte has made use of his influence and access to a president who prefers advisers who are willing to push boundaries. He had told Mr. Trump directly that he believed Mr. Siebert could be doing more, according to several officials with knowledge of the matter.
But Mr. Blanche, like Mr. Siebert, questioned the legal viability of bringing charges against Ms. James, according to current and former department officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about internal discussions.
And, WaPo added predictably, also to Eagle Ed Martin, who in theory reports to someone at DOJ.
They added that Ed Martin, the Justice Department official who is overseeing criminal investigations based on Pulte’s allegations, also pushed for Siebert to be removed.
Having lost this battle to Eagle Ed creates real chain of command problems for DOJ, both in terms of Blanche’s credibility with the actual professionals who work there, and legally, as there are a slew of things that senior DOJ officials must approve (including politically sensitive prosecutions).
All that’s before, in recent days, it became clear that Eagle Ed had sent a menacing letter to the FBI agent who first responded to the Sandy Hook shooting as a favor for Alex Jones, which Blanche made Eagle Ed retract.
So to sum up so far: Blanche’s DOJ, and Blanche himself, already face multiple kinds of ethical scrutiny. Having been personally involved in reviewing this case, Blanche advised Trump not to do this, but Trump ignored him (and Bondi), siding instead with two men who are not prosecutors but who told Trump what he wanted to hear. That has badly undermined Blanche’s authority at DOJ and created all kinds of ethical exposure for the real lawyers involved.
And then, Trump tweeted out a signed confession, making his personal interference and malice in this plain as day.
If this gets charged, it will be child’s play for Comey to mount a vindictive prosecution claim — we all saw it plain as day — and with it to demand evidence like the declination memo that ABC described Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer seeing this week! And, in addition, Comey (who used to have Blanche’s job), will be able to demonstrate that this prosecution violates ethical rules that bind attorneys.
As ABC laid out, they cannot charge a case they know they can’t win. And someone very close to Blanche has let it be known in the press that the people with actual prosecutorial experience, including Blanche himself, don’t believe DOJ can win this.
Prosecuting this case would very likely end up in credible bar complaints targeting everyone involved.
And on top of the procedural and ethical reasons this prosecution would pose a problem for Blanche, the only other basis by which this would be legal would be John Roberts’ rash language in Trump v. USA granting the President personally special province over prosecutorial decision-making.
Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 832 (1985), and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President, Art. II, §1. For that reason, Trump’s threatened removal of the Acting Attorney General likewise implicates “conclusive and preclusive” Presidential authority. As we have explained, the President’s power to remove “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed” may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts. Myers, 272 U. S., at 106, 176; see supra, at 8. The President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
See this great column on how Roberts, in response to arguments from Blanche!!, set up this problem.
Succeeding in getting an indictment won’t be good for Halligan, Blanche’s former colleague representing Trump in Florida, because she’ll be exposed to ethical scrutiny.
And it doesn’t even help Trump, as he has signed a confession that he’s doing this maliciously.
And in the background, Maurene may one day get proof of all of this, at least everything that happened before she was fired.
Whereas if Halligan presents a case to the grand jury and gets no-billed — just one more no-bill in a growing pile awarded to Trump’s most partisan US Attorneys — then it’s likely that Comey will never get to argue how fucked up all of this is (unless he is charged in one of the other jurisdictions Kash has people chasing geese). And Eagle Ed gets slapped with his first big humiliation.
This entire situation is a disaster for Todd Blanche. And only if Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer gets no-billed will he have a way to staunch the bleeding.
Wow! Great post with tons of detail. I heard about this last night while watching Chris Hayes on MSNBC. Ms. Halligan joins the ranks of such highly qualified legal beagles like Ed Martin and Alina Habba in the increasingly embarrassing Trump 2.0 Administration. I guess its only right to have an insurance attorney to go with your parking ramp attorney, right? Thanks for such great reporting so quickly!
If I understand Trump v. US and the unitary executive theory correctly, the DoJ Guidelines are legally irrelevant. State bar discipline still might mean something, but not if a Trumpy lawyer is relying on Trump’s 1000-year Reich for their livelihood.
Blanche knew what he was getting into when he took the job. As you noted, the list of sanctioned and disbarred Trump lawyers is long and getting longer. Blanche is simply the latest who thought “Oh, I know he was like that with OTHER lawyers, but he loves me, he’ll listen to me, and I can change him.”
Or, you know, he can watch his name get added to the list.
For this, Todd Blanche gave up a career with a prestigious law firm. You love to see it.
What a dope.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “Kathleen” triggering auto-moderation; it has been edited to reflect your original established username. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill; future comments may not publish if username does not match. /~Rayne]
I think it would help people to understand this case if they had better background information. From what I understand Hillary-hating agents in the NY FBI office went to top DOJ officials to get permission to open an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. They were rejected because they had based their case on “evidence” from the book “Clinton Cash” which was a political hit job written by Steve Bannon’s henchman Peter Schweizer.
I have never seen an explanation of how, despite this rejection, the FBI was able to get away with opening an investigation of the CF anyway. I assume it was some kind of preliminary investigation that did not need authorization from DOJ?
Those agents were determined to let the public know that they were investigating the Clinton Foundation that they started pressuring McCabe to leak it by getting him trashed by in the media with claims that McCabe was biased against Trump. McCabe’s wife had run for office in VA as a Dem and had taken money from a Hillary supporter.
McCabe caved to their pressure and leaked to the WSJ so the public knew that the Clinton Foundation was under investigation (for nothing of substance). McCabe claimed that Comey had authorized that leak but Comey denied it. McCabe was fired for lying . The IG’s investigation supported Comey. (Not sure what the order of these events were.)
In contrast when it came to the Trump-Russia investigation the FBI scrupulously followed the rules and kept quiet about their investigation into the Trump campaign’s very real Russia ties. They were extremely careful that fact never leaked. For example when gathering evidence from Trump campaign advisers:
“ ….the FBI used an informant, rather than sending its own agents to do interviews, because it feared a more aggressive approach might lead to leaks that an investigation was underway, which could improperly influence the election.”
https://time.com/5288607/donald-trump-fbi-spygate/
I read some of this in portions of the DOJ’s IG report on the FBI’s handling of the email “scandal”. The media buried those fact choosing to make McCabe out to be a victim of Trump, not someone who helped anti-Hillary forces in the FBI take her down. This investigation gives the media a chance to finally make it clear that agents in the FBI worked to help Trump and got away with it. What they did was far worse than what Peter Strzok did yet he got fired.
The IG explained the fact that those agents had never been disciplined and Comey “couldn’t” stop them by saying they had “timed out”. No one seemed to question that bizarre excuse.
That agents in the FBI were so powerful they could intimidate Comey, McCabe and top DOJ officials so much that they let those agents interfered in an election seems like something the public needs to know but maybe I have my facts/interpretation all wrong?
Read the Lawfare piece. It explains it.
FWIW, your account of the CF investigation is wrong. It was started, independently, in three separate offices and because one of those had an additional informant, allowed to continue.
The lies they want to charge Comey for are either to claim that his answer about CF applied to other leaks (for which they got contrary evidence from Dan Richman) or a lie about receiving a document that Kash and John Ratcliffe deliberately misrepresented along with John Durham when he asked Comey about it.
In 2016 the NYC FBI field office was rife with Rudy Giuliani’s friends and supporters who hated Hillary with an irrational passion. Clinton Cash (the book, much more well-received generally than we remember now) may have factored in, but Rudy had plenty of his own inside dope to feed them. Remember Andrew Wiener?
The poison emanating from that office was a well-kept secret, then and now. (The DC field office became its own story belying Trump’s claims of “liberal” FBI as well.) I happened to have a personal connection to it; otherwise I would never have known what was going on.
Wasn’t IG Horowitz supposed to investigate the NY FBI field office—and whatever happened to that promise? Interesting how he was one of the relatively few IGs whom trump didn’t fire—bc of course he didn’t. Besides Rudy, at least one other figure with ties to that office has been investigated or indicted for ties to the figures associated with the Russian mafia. FWIW
Many former AUSAs, including this one, will tell you that the finer moments of their careers occurred when we stood in the door to stop a prosecution that the facts did not support. But as someone who bears the scars incurred over decades of being edited, I can’t resist asking: Did the esteemed Dr. Wheeler mean “stanched” instead of “staunched”?
Both are acceptable variants, according to my Merriam-Webster’s. (“Staunch” also has a 2d meaning.) Maybe living in Ireland accounts for using the alternate spelling? (I write for both US and UK-based audiences and groups, and have to remember to set my spell-check accordingly.)
I highly recommend that others read the Lawfare piece EW links to. Not only do the authors run through the several options that might–remotely–be plausible for Halligan to charge, they close the article with a whopper I hadn’t heard elsewhere. This whopper, this masterpiece of legal theory, comes courtesy of John Ratcliffe and Stephen Miller, who see a way past the statute of limitations issues by instead charging Comey as just one member of a massive “ongoing conspiracy.”
A conspiracy to do what? Well…”seditious” kinda stuff. The kind we can’t tell you about. And plus it’s “ongoing,” which means we don’t even know yet!
Reminder: Stephen Miller is not and has never been a lawyer. Delusional? Mightily. I don’t know what Ratcliffe’s excuse is.
I don’t believe most Trump’s courtiers are delusional, any more than most congresscritters are. They appear delusional to those who know how the roles they play are supposed to be done, and that those filling them have historically either followed the law or recognized its constraints.
I think Trump’s courtiers knowingly and willingly break the law or act with reckless disregard of what it says. They are relying on Trump’s chutzpah, immunity and pardon power to get them through the relevant statutes of limitation. As Ken Chesebro has found out, they could be wrong.
Hard to exercise chutzpah from the graveyard. I don’t dispute what you propose but am amazed that these opportunists seem oblivious to the historical fact that no fuehrer has ever had a successor.
I was also amazed at the idolatry being heaped on Kirk who it appears was seen as the second coming of a fuehrer.
The graveyards, said deGaulle, are full of indispensable men. They cannot fill up fast enough for me but what conceivable off-ramp do these stooges think they will have?
i read the Lawfare piece. I am grateful it was linked here, and recommend all EW visitors read it.
to lay people the situation is confusing, as are many games lawyers, LE, and litigants play.
Delusional? Their only delusion is belief in the 1,000 year Reich.
Can Maureen Comey represent Jim?
Good lawyers don’t represent family members.
In a legal side note, the unctuous Kenneth Chesebro has been disbarred.
thedailybeast.com/key-fake-elector-lawyer-barred-from-practice/
More partisan Republicans in Newport News or Norfolk not only will be aware of what happened to Siebert, but will also remember that a few weeks ago the US attorney for the western district of Virginia, Todd Gilbert, another staunch Republican, was forced by DOJ to resign or be fired after only a short time on the job, because of a personnel dispute. (Gilbert wanted to keep on someone who had served in the Biden administration, and who therefore obviously was tainted in the eyes of the Trump administration.) It made a lot of waves since Gilbert (like Siebert) is well respected in Virginia Republican circles.
Well, it was a nice theory.
“James Comey was charged Thursday with making a false statement and obstruction in a criminal case filed days after President Donald Trump appeared to urge his attorney general to prosecute the former FBI director and other perceived political enemies.”
Compared to other federal indictments I’ve seen in recent years, this one seems a little…thin.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.1.0_2.pdf
Thanks, Scott.
I am SO confused. Was he a Republican who purposefully tanked Clinton’s election or a lefty who tried to tank Trump’s presidency only to have said presidency result in the greatest economy and all kinds of perfection the likes of which had never been seen before so after all the fake news he could return and scuttle the government? What a double agent.
Seriously, Comey was perhaps a bit self-righteous but I’ve never been able to see him as an evil guy.
Comey first came into public view when he raced to John Ashcroft’s hospital bed to stop the White House from coercing Ashcroft’s signoff on some John Yoo-style “war on terror” tactic. Sanctimonious yes, but I’ve never doubted his loyalty to his idea of America. He’s easier to root for than Bolton. To me, he’s Stan from The Americans.
Seems like not a disproven theory! If they wanted a no-bill, that required the GJ to cooperate in that direction, and maybe they said “we are here to protect the vulnerable from legal abuse, not protect legal abusers from themselves; this defendant has ample resources to properly defend themselves against this silly charge. Please proceed into the threshing blades!”
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too short, your username will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]
Only those that believe in the judiicial system could have thought that there would be any other outcome.
It’s Comey’s turn in the barrel, and our tax dollars will pay for his coming misery. Emperor Trump intends to break him, and others are in the pipeline. Trump’s hate is boundless.
Comey has outstanding lawyers, is a successful author and this case — about five-year old testimony before deeply partisan inquisitors posing purposely confounding questions based on fraudulent documents they knew or should have known were cooked up by Russian intelligence, and based on events taking place over three years prior to that—seems grotesquely thin. For all his human flaws Comey is widely regarded for his integrity. If anyone can withstand this assault he can.
One has to hope that the whole thing gets thrown out by the first Federal Judge that reviews it. James Comey is represented by WilmerHale Law and Preet Bhahara who is pretty good at what he does and is much better connected and respected by the Judiciary than the DoJ morons that brought this case to the GJ in the face of a declination memo.
One wonders whom DoJ will send to argue this shitshow in court. Surely Halligan knows that she is not competent to do it herself, but will anyone else volunteer?
Aside from the horrific abuse of power, this might be entertaining to watch it play out. Trump’s partisan hacks in DOJ are likely to look like dogs who chased and cornered a grizzly. It will not end well for the dogs …
Their goal isn’t to convict him, though that would be a big plus, but it is to make his life miserable. That is the difference between a judicial system and revenge.
It’s time that we all forget about the DOJ being about ‘justice’, and think about its goal as exacting revenge.
And to further the ongoing narrative of Trump’s persecution by, and righteous battle against, the Deep State. I.e., to make his fans’ lives more angry AND happy. From that point of view, even a dismissal or acquittal has its value.
Is that value enough to outweigh the damage potentially done by a dismissal or acquittal? To Trump’s ego, to the widespread perception of the inevitability of his power grab, to public tolerance of his power grab, to his ability to cow people with the threat of frivolous prosecution, to the willingness of dupes to put themselves in the line of fire for him?
Does venue come AFTER the indictment? Are you always allowed to district shop for an indictment?
This maladministration believes in judge- and jurisdiction-shopping, but only for themselves.
Trump doesn’t care whether these cases result in convictions. This is a raw power exercise, plain and simple. The point is to make his opponents (or perceived opponents) suffer. It’s profoundly abusive. It will gravely tarnish the DOJ’s reputation.
On the positive side, Comey will get a first class defense. It may end up being a bigger embarrassment – at least for those with the capacity to feel it – than the Durham prosecutions.
Obviously you don’t need a conviction to crush a defendant, but do you really think Trump doesn’t care at all? That a lack of a conviction won’t piss him off and embarrass him? Especially if Comey gets a dismissal before trial? I suspect (what Trump imagines to be) the public display of his power and superiority might be even more important to him than the suffering of his “enemy,” especially since he’s the kind of narcissist who has trouble imagining other people’s emotions.
Comey’s legal team is likely already well-prepared for this indictment. Suppose they refused to waive time and expedited the trial. Might it not be both effective for his defense and politically powerful to catch USA’s office completely unprepared?
Non-lawyer here.
Is it really legal for the government to indict Comey in EDVA for an offense that allegedly took place in Washington, DC?
Answered my own question. He was testifying remotely from EDVA during COVID. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/2020-senate-testimony-that-led-charges-against-ex-fbi-chief-comey-2025-09-26/
COMEY posted a VIDEO response last night. Here is Ken White reposting that:
https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social/post/3lzp7jmg76k2w
September 25, 2025 at 8:28 PM
Here’s the direct link:
https://bsky.app/profile/jamescomey.bsky.social/post/3lzp67sw2os2o
September 25, 2025 at 8:05 PM [VIDEO]
COMEY’s son-in-law resigned from EDVA immediately after the indictment:
https://bsky.app/profile/yasharali.bsky.social/post/3lzpaei7a6c2m
September 25, 2025 at 8:44 PM
“To uphold my oath to the Constitution and country, I hearby resign […] effective immediately […]” – Troy Edwards, Deputy Chief, National Security Section
https://bsky.app/profile/paleofuture.bsky.social/post/3lzp46pnnx222
September 25, 2025 at 7:29 PM
Also, Patrick FITZGERALD is back in the picture:
https://bsky.app/profile/kyledcheney.bsky.social/post/3lzpacgssfx2v
Links to:
‘Let’s have a trial’: Comey proclaims innocence as Trump revels in grand jury indictment he demanded A grand jury indicted the former FBI director on two felony charges stemming from congressional testimony he gave in September 2020.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/25/james-comey-charges-indictment-00581501 Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein 09/25/2025 06:56 PM EDT // Updated: 09/25/2025 09:24 PM EDT
Marcy has a post up about COMEY:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/09/26/will-ted-cruz-go-to-prison-for-the-lies-he-told-as-part-of-the-jim-comey-indictment/