Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s Story Gets Stupider
In an attempt to unfuck Pam Bondi’s Halloween attempt to ratify Lindsey Halligan’s attempt to indict Jim Comey, the blondes from Florida have fucked things worse.
Bondi submitted a declaration effectively saying, never mind that the last time I claimed to ratify Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s work, I didn’t read closely enough to notice that the transcripts were incomplete. This time, I have read “the entirety of the record now available to the government” and I re-ratify what Lindsey did almost two months ago.
The district court has subsequently raised questions about the completeness of the record of the grand jury proceedings presented to me at the time of the initial ratification. For the avoidance of doubt, I have reviewed the entirety of the record now available to the government and confirm my knowledge of the material facts associated with the grand jury proceedings.
Lindsey, for her part, claims there was no gap and confessed she did not re-present the charges after getting no-billed. There was only one presentment.
1. Accordingly, I, Lindsey Halligan, submit this declaration to clarify the precise sequence of events on September 25, 2025, to confirm that the grand jury transcript accurately reflects the full extent of my appearance before the grand jury, and to explain that the period in question consisted solely of the grand jury’s private deliberations, during which no prosecutor, court reporter, or other person may be present pursuant to Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. There are no missing minutes, contrary to the suggestion raised by the court.
2. On September 25, 2025, I presented the case of the United States v. James B. Comey, Jr., to a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. I have reviewed the full transcript of the grand jury proceedings, and the transcript accurately reflects the entirety of the government’s presentation and presence in front of the grand jury. There was no additional presentation, interaction, or discussion with the grand jury outside of what is reflected in the transcript. Below is a brief timeline of the events that day.
3. On September 25, 2025, I appeared before the grand jury. After introducing myself and the case proposed for indictment, the case was presented through testimony. At the conclusion of the presentment, I provided a brief summation to the grand jury and then departed along with the court reporter. The process of presenting the indictment took place from approximately 02:18 PM to 04:28 PM.
4. Approximately two hours later, at 06:40 PM, I was notified by then-First Assistant United States Attorney Maggie Cleary 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.
There are a slew of problems with that.
First, there are two indictments — or rather, three:
- The no-billed indictment as Lindsey first presented it, with the signature page from the real indictment, which starts in blue ink and ends in black.
- The no-billed indictment as it subsequently got corrected, with both a (claimed) signature from herself and the foreperson, all in blue ink.
- The indictment purportedly supported by the grand jury, signed in black.
Lindsey now claims she only presented the case once, yet there are — or purport to be — two indictments.
For what it’s worth, when Amicus12 first pointed this out, I called the clerk to find out WTF, but have gotten no response.
Also of interest, right wing propagandist Julie Kelly (who is quite chummy with Pam Bondi’s corrupt DOJ) claims that yesterday morning, the Chief Judge in EDVA, Leonie Brinkema, restricted Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s US Marshal detail from the courthouse.
But even if there’s not the colossal paperwork error there appears to be, there’s another problem.
The Loaner AUSAs confirmed … yesterday, that they plan to include Comey’s “Clinton Plan” statements — the stuff no-billed in original Count One — in the obstruction charge.
But, as 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.
Comey attorney Pat Fitzgerald had already promised some challenge to this, in the halcyon days when everyone believed there were two presentments.
I think there’s another motion coming from us, in light of some disclosures that were made Monday, where we think that the government is expanding its case, we believe, to include the conduct that was no true billed in Count One as part of its proof of Count Two, which raises serious issues for us. So we’ll do everything we can, but to do all that while getting Mr. Comey access to materials…
But now Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer is claiming that she can rely on Count One even though grand jurors in the very same vote she’s claiming to rely on rejected that claim.
And Pam Bondi is signing on willingly to that claim.
Whatever else has happened, Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer has guaranteed that Comey will get to review what went down. The only remaining question, I suspect, is when he gets that — whether it is soon enough to help him throw out the evidence against him. But it seems like Judge Currie is not the only one alarmed by what she saw in these transcripts.
Update: I should add, given my continued obsession with the authors who have not noticed their appearance, Gabriel Diaz authored the document submitted today.
Meanwhile, Gabriel Cohen is the author of the digitally signed but unsworn declaration from Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer.
Someone named lheim authored Pam Bondi’s signed but unsworn declaration.
Update: Holy hell.
Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer appears to have resubmitted the entire package, not to fix her stupid story, but instead to fix her signature line (which Josh Gerstein first noted).
From Bondi’s declaration above, with emphasis added:
A couple of thoughts.
1) The difference between “at the time” and “available now” is, shall we say, intriguing. Did someone NOT provide Bondi the full record when she made her first declaration, and now she has seen the full record? Who failed to provide the full record in the first place?
2) Given the statements in court, what exactly is “the entirety of the record now available to the government”? Does that include the Rosemary Woods x 7 gap material?
3) Why wasn’t “the entirety of the record” available to the Attorney General of the United States of America BEFORE she made her initial declaration?
4) Is Bondi going with the “it was a mistake and some idiot screwed up” excuse or “it was an attempt to cover something up and it has failed” declaration? If it is the former, are there staffers who have been admonished, demoted, or fired for this error? If it is the latter, what kinds of consequences are being pursued? Are there DOJ staffers (or now-former staffers) whose law licenses are now in jeopardy for misleading conduct? Are criminal charges being pursued?
I think I address a lot of that here.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/11/13/lindsey-halligans-six-times-18-minute-gap/
Their least damning explanation is:
1) Originally DOJ only got a transcript for the FBI agent’s testimony, not Halligan’s instruction.
2) The Loaner AUSA didn’t check that before giving it to Bondi and Judge Currie.
3) Bondi didn’t look closely enough to notice
4) Currie did, and asked for everything (but ASSUMED there had to be two presentments)
5) But in fact there was only one, meaning Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer may have fabricated an indictment
6) Currie got something back that looked like it stopped short
7) Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t
Yes, I see what you said, but I’d like Bondi to clarify what she meant by “at the time” and “available now.” What, exactly and precisely, did she look at then, and what more did she look at now? And why were these not the same?
I’d like Bondi to clarify matters like the ones you raise above, like #5, #6, and #7.
More than just me, I think the judge would like to know these things as well. Perhaps inviting the AG to grace the courtroom might be worth considering, to allow the AG to clarify whose screwup this was, how bad a screwup it was, and what the DOJ is doing to make things right in this case, and what the DOJ is doing to ensure this isn’t going to happen again — and to make these clarifications before the judge decides what to do in this matter.
Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t imagine a federal judge likes being manipulated, lied to, and otherwise toyed with by ill-prepared (best case) or corrupt (worst case) government attorneys. (See US v. Ted Stevens and the aftermath of the case)
In that vein, and reminding everyone that I am not a lawyer, I’d love to see the judge make this kind of statement to Pam Bondi, inviting her to come before the court, under oath, to answer a few questions . . .
I also want a pony.
What can one expect from an idiot that lets ‘United Stated’ go in the first iteration? It’s a basic spellchecker cut-and-paste error. Remember the cockroach rule that judges also know: where you see one problem there’s ten more you haven’t seen yet.
I think PatFitz will subpoena Bondi as a hostile witness because he may not be able to subpoena IS Halligan. Bondi would be grilled on her ‘reviews’ and also on who ‘lheim’ is before kicking out the memo because it’s not sworn or signed (ergo hearsay). Then again, if Halligan gets booted back to the spectator zone she can get her subpoena as well.
I am aware from a prior post that IS Halligan now has a Bar license complaint filed in FL, which will gain traction if her status is downgraded despite DeSantis’ interference. Lots of good D lawyers in FL as well.
All very odd and sloppy. I note that the gov’t had to re-file DE 187 today–I have not determined what changed in re-filed DE 188. Marcy linked to the attachments to the original filing (187).
Bondi almost certainly did not review a transcript that included Halligan’s comments, since Lemons says the gov’t did not have it until later. If she actually read that one she was incompetent to not notice it was deficient.
Were I Halligan I would have made sure (which she did not) to note that the transcript she refers to is the one delivered to Currie (as noticed in DE 158), which presumably should match the transcript provided to Fitzpatrick (as announced in DE 179).
Weird that the transcription service would initially prepare and deliver only a partial transcript, although I suppose such things can happen. Super sloppy that the government did not notice that what it initially conveyed to Currie was deficient.
I would suggest that, normally, the end of recording would be announced and would appear in the transcript–along the lines of “now going off the record” or, in this case perhaps “with that, we will end recording and leave the grand jury to deliberate.” It certainly appears that no such cue was available for Currie.
Indictments were flung at the GJ like spaghetti to a wall
retribution “justice” delivered by the Illegally Blonde duo
More like ketchup to a wall.
I’m not a lawyer, but surely there’s some grounds to get grand jury transcript discovery on the basis of repeated unusual activities with the grand jury? Wouldn’t that be stronger grounds for access to grand jury transcripts, based on existing weirdness (the invalid indictment signer, the missing transcripts, the page numbering issues, the stuff you mention about whether there was a no-bill), rather than trying to get access based on a vindictiveness argument?
There are.
Comey has parallel requests in.
He first requested the transcripts on October 30, his preexisting pretrial deadline.
Then on November 4, MJ Fitzpatrick ordered them shared, which order the government appealed. So Comey made a slightly narrower case on November 10, and the govt’s response yesterday mostly addressed the narrower case.
Comey’s reply brief is due next Thursday. I’d be surprised if this is not resolved before then bc Comey wants the transcripts to challenge the warrants.
Most of this is here:
https://www.emptywheel.net/portfolio-item/jim-comey-prosecution/
it has bee asked (and maybe answered?) in previous comment threads, but is there a scenario whereby the judge can call in the grand jury foreperson to clarify any of this?
Judges have broad leeway.
Maybe even the Foreperson and the then FAUSA who was promptly fired the next day HAVE been queried about this.
merci, Marcy
Is there any basis for the Judge to interview grand jurors? The sequence and explanation by DOJ is so fishy that I wouldn’t be surprised if the grand jurors have a different story about what happened.
so, they printed out a “s” in the wrong size and pasted it over the “d”? looks ridiculous.
I’m trying to match up Halligan’s timeline with the timeline reported by CBS news (/news/judge-james-comey-indictment-confusion-trump/) (based on the transcript of the session where the indictment was presented to Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala).
Halligan says :
The CBS story says:
Halligan’s claim is that seven minutes after she found out about the no-billed count, her office prepared an entirely new document and got it signed by the grand jury foreperson? I think it would be interesting to hear from Maggie Cleary, who was removed from the EDVA office in October.
I’m on the east coast in the US, and current time is 7:40pm 11/14/2025, Eastern Standard Time.
The pdf time stamps in emptywheel’s update are an hour ahead of me. 8:35 pm 11/14/2025
(????)
Is the DOJ submitting these from a house boat floating somewhere in the Atlantic?
Or are these times in the PDFs Ireland local time from when Marcy screen-grabbed them?