Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer Confesses There Is No Indictment
As I have suspected since at least Friday, there is no Jim Comey indictment.
That’s because, rather than re-presenting the case after the jury no-billed on one count, Lindsey Halligan never re-presented the remaining two counts.
Here’s CNN. (See also Politico, ABC, and WaPo.)
In a shocking back and forth, prosecutors said that instead of presenting a new indictment to the grand jury after it declined to approve one of the counts, Halligan simply brought an altered version to the magistrate’s courtroom for the grand jury’s foreperson to sign.
“The new indictment wasn’t a new indictment,” Lemons said, attempting to justify that it was only reviewed by the foreperson.
Judge Michael Nachmanoff quickly called Halligan, who was the only prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, to the lectern, asking her to confirm that the entire grand jury was never presented the altered indictment.
The judge started, “Am I correct -”
“No, you’re not,” Halligan interrupted. She said that there was one additional grand juror in the magistrate’s courtroom and quoted her back-and-forth with that judge.
“I’m familiar with the transcript,” Nachmanoff said. He then told her to sit down.
Apparently Michael Dreeben declared, correctly, that therefore there is probably no indictment, period, because the full grand jury did not vote to support it.
The problem goes beyond just the basics of how a grand jury works. As I noted here, Lindsey’s Loaner AUSAs already confessed that they want to rely on the no-billed count to support their obstruction case.
[A]s provided in discovery and via the indictment, the government intends to seek the admission of evidence at trial on this count regarding the defendant’s statements to senators during the September 30, 2020, committee hearing. For instance, the defendant’s statements to Senators Grassley and Cruz regarding his use of Richman as an anonymous source concerning the Clinton email investigation and his statements to Senators Graham and Hawley regarding his alleged lack of memory concerning the so-called Clinton plan to “tie Trump” to Russia.
And it’s worse than the poor Loaner AUSAs seem to realize.
The September 30, 2020 hearing had a specific scope, which could fairly be taken as the scope of the investigation the Senate was pursuing at the time. The Clinton email investigation was not included in that scope.
1 Before the hearing, the committee agreed that it would be limited to four specific topics: (i) “Crossfire Hurricane,” (ii) the December 2019 Department of Justice Inspector General report’s “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation,” (iii) the Carter Page FISA applications, and (iv) Christopher Steele’s source network and primary sub-source.
Without the no-billed count, nothing charged against Comey would be included in the scope of the hearing.
Her fuck-ups continue to snowball!
So….
It was all an *actual* hoax?
Witch hunt.
Overdressed-for lynch-party, more like.
Is there a charge of attempted distraction to avoid prosecution? Unfortunately, the head perp has a get-out-of-jail-free card as well as the power of pardon. Thanks, John Roberts, we needed this?
I saw CNN article hit my feed and went here. If I were a member of the Florida Bar Association, I’d be drafting the complaint against her alma mater. I’d assume her bar license is toast. I’d assume that the Fourth Circuit is going to ask her nicely to submit an extraordinary pro hac vice application so they can reject it, with prejudice.
Without going and doing the full Due Diligence myself, do you know of any precedent that allows for tolling a criminal Statute of Limitations where the prosecution is at fault for fatal screw-ups? I cannot imagine as such but federal appellate courts tend to be deferential to the DOJ and law enforcement screw-ups over all.
SoL had what, like an hour and a half left on it?
In this case, an appropriate acronym!
That’s gotta be an old lawyers’ joke, right?
I would agree that Halligan’s license is in danger if she were a member of a real bar. But she’s licensed in Florida. Is the Florida Bar still a real bar? DeSantis has been doing a fairly thorough job of destroying all independence in Florida government. Maybe a Florida lawyer can speak up on this.
Lindsey is toast.
Presenting a judge with forged documents purporting to be a grand jury vote that never happened has got to be about the biggest f*ckup a prosecutor could make.
Just wondering what sanctions the judge will impose.
I also think I’m closer to getting my pony if the judge calls AG Bondi in for a chat.
Peterr getting a pony would make my day!
Pretty Pleeeeeaze energies of the universe? Make it so!
Peterr, I hope it ends up being the prettiest pony ya ever did see!
‘Lindsey is toast.”
Avocat toast.
(Full disclosure: I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on the side of a bus. )
You may be getting a call from Lindsay Halligan, who was just hit by a *metaphorical* bus.
Auto-underbussing is the term of art, I believe.
Do you think she’ll get differential treatment?
@ Bruce: an undercarriage of justice based on the transmission of faulty documents… Will she need a public de-fender?
Punaise: That Depends on whether she’s found continent.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/morgan-and-morga-injury-law-firm-ad-is-seen-on-a-bus-in-news-photo/2161850825
My favorite local billboard (Bay Area) one is: “Something Wrong? Call Anh Phoong”
[FYI – URL edited to remove tracking. Please avoid using links obtained on Google Search pages; click through at the Search page and lift the link once you land on the desired page. /~Rayne]
Not a lawyer sign but a favorite billboard I used to see crossing the Tehachapis on Hwy 58: “Eat Fruit Get Gas”
@ Rayne: sorry, I checked for the “?” to trim it, but it seemed too “early” in the sequence. My bad.
There’s no trimming if you take it from the Google Search page. You’ll need to snag the link from the SFGate’s page, but that requires following through the Google Search on your end. Otherwise Google hoovers everything if readers use the Google Search link you provided — they know it was you, from which device, on what network, posted at emptywheel’s site, and then the reader’s ID/device/network. Oops.
One of these days I’ll have to write a post explaining this but it’s not going to happen until I’m through with my current semester. Carry on, wayward son!
@ Rayne – thanks for the Raynesplainin’!
Votre toast!
Y’all’re truly burnt.
Charred, Esquire.
The judge is clearly shocked, so I guess this CAN’T be routine. But I don’t quite get the purpose of the actual document that only needs to be signed by the foreperson (and the prosecutor). Does it actually have to list out no-billed charges? Is there actually a requirement that the entire grand jury has to see that document, so long as it precisely captures what WAS true billed?
Are we sure the only reason the judge finds this weird isn’t because normally prosecutors don’t make the other errors they made in how they sent this Frankenstein document to the judge (which included AO 191 for some reason and also mixed versions of the indictment itself, some from first draft and some from second draft).
Not suggesting everybody else is wrong here, I know nothing about this stuff, just trying to understand.
The law depends on transparent process and meticulous documentation. What was presented to the grand jury? Dunno, Lindsey didn’t record that. What did the grand jury decide about the revised indictment? Dunno, Lindsey didn’t show it to them. Were there sufficient votes from the grand jury to indict on those two counts alone? Dunno, Lindsey didn’t record it and only had the foreman (and one other) document it.
I agree. I can imagine a scenario where the judge needs to determine whether the transcript of the grand jury adequately and precisely captures the charges that were true billed. In that case, it’d be very important for Comey’s team to have access to the transcript and grand jury materials, since that’d be disputed. However, it wouldn’t necessarily mean there was simply no indictment that took place, that’d be for the judge to figure out.
As I understand this twisted history, the GJ no-billed the first count of the “indictment” but agreed on charges two and three. That’s not an indictment per se you can present to the court. But it is a federal record that has to be preserved in its original form.
instead, Halligan cut out the first charge, somehow reformatted the pages, renumbering the charges in the process, and got the foreperson to sign it. She then signed it and submitted it as the “indictment.” That’s a big problem on many levels.
What she should have done is revise the paperwork around the two charges the jury “could” agree on, resubmit it to a quorum of the grand jury for a vote, get the required vote, have the foreperson sign the true-billed indictment, sign it herself, and submit it to the court as the indictment.
She saved about an hour’s time by not resubmitting the revised paperwork to a quorum of the GJ for a vote. Who knows whether presented that way, the minimum number of grand jurors would have agreed on the two charges. They barely agreed on them the first time.
The document Halligan submitted is not an indictment. It’s void and has no legal effect. She tanked the case and her law license to save about an hour’s time. Without a presidential pardon or commutation, she might spend time in prison.
So, Forgery. Don’t expect Kash Patel’s FBI to investigate and charge LH, or Bondi’s DOJ to prosecute.
It’s not forgery, the signatures are genuine. What they purport to signify, though, is not what they signify, owing to Halligan’s abuse of the underlying process.
Halligan has generated a laundry list of problems for herself, this case, and any case she touched while claiming to be the acting USA.
For starters, her presentment of the “indictment” to the court is probably fraudulent, which alone might get her disbarred. It’s made worse by her sass and wordplay with the court, as she tried to defend the indefensible. A smarter lawyer would have fessed up and asked the court for leniency.
If this were a novel, I’d toss it aside as too improbable.
Never, ever smart to lie to a judge.
As the old Princess Bride line goes, “Inconceivable!”
That’s why bar de-licensure is a topic these days.
18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations… felony
I am not a lawyer, but isn’t a basic procedural judicial rule like showing the GJ members the result of their work as a written indictment are based on commonsense honesty. Like a contract, both sides-citizen jurors & prosecutor-should know & agree on what is documented as the indictment. Its a requirement of respect & more than symbolic veracity.
Question: This was a sitting Grand Jury, wouldn’t they have recognized Halligan had “cut corners”? How could there be mutual respect going forward?
I’m beginning to doubt the legitimacy of her law degree. It would appear she has no problem cutting corners and dodging unwanted inspection. Maybe put in for a transfer to CIA field operations where such talent might be more appreciated?
How do you know the Judge is “clearly shocked” when you “know nothing about this stuff, [and you’re] just trying to understand?” And how is it when “know this about this stuff” you also ask so many alternative explanation questions seemingly seeking to sow doubt in this report by Marcy? You clearly KNOW and UNDERSTAND far more than your self-debasing puffery claims or you’re a savant of some type. I agree with you that those questions should be asked and answered but I’m definitely calling complete bullshit on your puffery self-abusing and misdirection in your post. All apologies, in advance, if I am wrong.
I know the judge was clearly shocked because the first sentence of the quoted piece begins “In a shocking back and forth…”. You think the judge finds this routine? Marcy has been documenting how insane and sloppy and corrupt the behavior from the prosecutors has been and she is correct.
2. I’ve spent a bunch of time reading emptywheel closely over the years, huge fan. Commenter only for a few years, but I go back much longer. But I’m not a lawyer, don’t work in legal profession at all, just read this website too obsessively. So like I googled around to understand what AO 191 because it’s in the docs that were linked to, for example.
The idea I’m trying to undermine the reporting is incorrect. I have nothing but respect and admiration.
Well then, let’s work on upping your confidence level because your longtime reading and great insights into the nuance and next steps was excellent. I apologize in advance and again now. Apologies again, I didn’t recognize your handle and that you’ve been here so long.
My wife and I combined for over thirty total years as Assistant US Attorneys, and still more at the Dep’t in DC. Neither of us ever handed up an indictment that had not been presented to & voted on by the entire grand jury, & neither of us ever heard of anything remotely resembling Halligan’s apparent circus.
As I think over our procedures, I can only conclude that we presented the grand jury with the same document that would, if voted out, be:
(1) Signed by our office & the foreperson, then
(2) Handed up to the judge, to avoid
(3) Any doubt that we had complied with the Constitution and submitted our charges to a grand jury.
I have to admit I’m not aware of any court decisions on this subject. The main reason for that, though, is that no prosecutor in their right mind would pull something like that. (I’ll save Halligan’s apparent mis-statements of the law for another day.)
Thanks for that info! Totally change my views on all this.
This is the type of perspective and insight that fueled my first response to your post – it seemed to me that you were newer because you hadn’t understood this perspective which is very often represented in the comments here!
While I don’t have a combined 30-years of experience, I have some at both fed and state level, and I totally co-sign this. I cannot imagine a world in which I would ever have made the decisions LH made. (As an aside, I cannot imagine a world where I was close to *not* getting a true bill, but that’s a different story I guess). And I also agree about struggling to find analogous case law – it’s so hard to fathom because I don’t understand how any prosecutor would think it would be ok to refashion a document like this. The carelessness is breath-taking.
Mind if I ask one more question:
In the Letitia James case, is it weird that the first page is less bolded than the other page, or is that a normal artifact of clerk copying machines? https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/media/1416106/dl?inline The only reason we know about the no-bill charge for Comey was that they jumbled the pages when filing.
As I mentioned below, the judge (per TPM’s David Kurtz) pointed the parties to a 1969 case that prohibited a practice in D.D.C. of basically doing what happened here (voting on a charge in the abstract, and having the foreperson signing it after the USAO drafted the indictment). So at least in D.C. (and more than likely, because the bars in DC, EDVA, and MD probably overlap), it hasn’t been a question in 56 years.
Marc
DC is actually its own circuit. MD and VA are in the same (Fourth) Circuit.
He’s probably looking at this bc it is so rare.
EW, I realize that; and that it’s both rare and the one case that is like the 4A search and seizure case with the same model and color car is older than most of the folks in the courtroom. Technically “only persuasive “ authority” but…
Well, there does appear to be black letter law on this:
“[A]n indictment may not be amended except by resubmission to the grand jury, unless the change is merely a matter of form.” Russell v. U.S., 369 U.S. 749, 770 (1962)(citing Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1; United States v. Norris, 281 U.S. 619; Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212). Ex Parte Bain was overruled on other grounds in 2002, but this point appears to be still good law.
I don’t think deleting one whole count from an indictment could be considered “merely a matter of form.”
Attn: “Skip Intro” replying to Mike_16MAY2022_0915h — no, you don’t get to skip the introduction in which new commenters are asked to choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters, and use a similarly unique email address even if it’s not valid/working. We adopted this minimum standard to support community security.
The fake email address you used has been previously used numerous times by commenters seeking anonymity and is therefore not adequately unique.
Did she backsass a judge? O__O
Yeah…ooof!
Like Trump and Bondi, Halligan appears to be a one-trick pony. She back-sassed the court, as if she were being interviewed by Faux Noise, performing for Trump.
Apart from this case, I hope the DoJ’s gross mishandling of this case and abuse of the courts in general encourage federal courts to refuse to give the DoJ the presumption of regularity on every case brought by Trump.
Lindsey is displaying her preening devotion for her Dear Piggie Piggie!
Gonna be interesting to see how Judge N addresses all of her blatant ethics violations – if so.
I keep having this feeling that most counsel in most cases would likely have already received a notice to show cause!
JVOJVOJVO says:
November 19, 2025 at 4:22 pm
I’d look at the Federalist Society or wherever else they spent a lot of non-class time in or after law school. Because it’s beginning to look like a pattern. (Add Kobach in KS, who got hit with remedial classes and *still* is bad at lawyering.)
I think you’re being a bit unfair to the Federalists. Most of them are rule-of-law people, and will follow the rules as well as anybody else. If you want to slag them, you could point out that their preferred law might be a mixture of Hanging Judge Jeffries, Deuteronomy, and the Confederate Constitution.
Merely interrupting a judge is considered pretty poor form, never mind correcting them.
Obviously the judge is a professional who will consider only the facts and evidence, without letting personal feelings get in the way, but it’s a pretty dick move to annoy them.
I would think that rudeness should be the least of her worries right now.
This particular display of rudeness is small in the scheme of things, yes, but it’s readily evident to people with zero understanding of DOJ and the judiciary. It’s obvious, the arrogant dismissiveness treating a co-equal branch of government with open disdain, and yet another failure to uphold the oath all federal employees take to defend the Constitution. The Insurance Lawyer is treating our government like she would a claimant against her client, and that’s not her job.
I get that. I’m not trying to minimize the importance of professionalism. I’m saying that losing her license and potentially opening herself up to a civil suit (if she is deemed to not be properly appointed) seem like the kind of thing where the judge would forego scolding her for interrupting him because she’s getting ready to go through some things.
Reply to trnc2023
November 19, 2025 at 1:40 pm
I meant to come back to this yesterday; I want to point out that while you’re concerned with the court before which Halligan is attempting to prosecute Comey, the other important court is that of public opinion. Trump demanded Comey be prosecuted not just to terrorize Comey and obtain retribution for harms he believed Comey caused him, but to destroy Comey’s reputation. Halligan’s behavior before the judge emphasizes the irrational nature of this case before the court of public opinion which has little to no experience in law, only social expectation that the law and the courts are respected.
Should add the media isn’t doing a particularly good job of noting the disparity between Halligan’s behavior and what the public has learned is appropriate behavior before a judge. No one charged should expect to see the prosecutor behaving this way.
It’s something we in the military would lead thusly: ‘With all due respect…’ which means some whoop-ass is on its way to a superior officer. The phrasing ties the criticism solely to the action at hand, not the office or the person. However, as a personal servant of wannabe King Convict-1 IS Halligan thinks she’s ‘wearing his stripes’ and is at his level. It usually doesn’t work well among professionals who know their job.
Like she is doing now for the Epstein files, expect AG Bondi to decide to open an ‘investigation’ to prevent a close look at the whole cabal from Convict-1 on down. The problem with that idea is timing, because a lot of inconvenient truths will be hitting right before the midterm elections of 2026. Bondi can’t investigate forever, and FWIW, the 5th Circuit just shot down TX redistricting attempts. Let’s remember this is the district that tried to wipe out medication abortion or the right of the FDA to approve drugs. In other words, not tree-hugging DFHs. It’s a very bad sign for Convict-1’s plans if he can’t even get the 5CA to agree with him.
Halligan’s conduct appears weirdly consistent with that hideous Senate hearing in which Pam Bondi hissed and huffed like a harpy.
Bondi’s insolence toward the senators was corrosive, and if Halligan witnessed that obnoxious escapade, she may think that lying to judges and generally acting like an empress is ‘normal’. Halligan cannot be disabused too soon.
If I’m a homeowner or corporate plaintiff that went up against Lindsey Halligan in a legal matter anytime from 2013-2022 – and a partner from 2018 – when she was at Cole, Scott & Kissane, I’d be contacting lawyers right now to see if there were any legal shenanigans perpetrated by the Insurance Lawyer against them.
*ding-ding-ding* That. All of that.
If I’m a lawyer who was at Cole, Scott & Kissane anytime from 2013-2022 (especially after 2018), I’d be looking back over every damn one of my cases that she was even remotely connected with, to see if there are any landmines that will go off if any opposing counsel start poking around and asking questions.
And if I’m the managing partner there right now, I’d be calling a mandatory meeting with every single attorney that has three agenda items: (1) Do NOT ever f*cking do what she did by screwing with the documents and lying to a judge; (2) I need all of you to go back through every case you handled and see if it has her name on it, even if she just did mock arguments in prep for your case, and see if we are sitting on a bomb because today was not the first time she did something monumentally stupid; and (3) I need some of you to go through every one of *her* cases and do the same thing, for the same reason.
Unfortunately, you left open more than a few possibilities in your very excellent common sense response and plan. YES, this is necessary – at a minimum.
I’m left speculating what if they were all in on it – because this type of insurance lawyer with her specific history doesn’t develop these types of skills all on her own – every lawyer gets trained at some level if we’re being honest at all.
Trump learned from Roy Cohn – did Trump train Lyndsey at any point? Who did train Lyndsey in these tactics? Who trained / spoke in the ear of United States District Court Judge Aileen Cannon? They can be whatever bent they want to be but you don’t get those types of plans and details on their own. From whom is Lyndsey getting counsel? And I’m not asking about the DOJ.
Unless this is part of the ethos of Cole, Scott & Kissane.
Lil bit reminiscent of La Halligan’s tone in interaction with Anna Bower, as detailed in Bower’s Lawfare piece.
#tu
That’s not mere back-sassing. That is *interrupting* the judge before he could even state his premise. That is making (or rather attempting to make) the JUDGE look wrong and stupid when the wrong and stupid lies entirely with you, Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer. That is pre-empting the Judge’s question.
And she reportedly did it while chewing gum. Chewing gum! In court. I don’t know what the hell is wrong with these people, but one of the things is that they all act like this whole thing is high school. Or junior high?
Wherever their maturation process topped out.
Interesting. I was just thinking yesterday that the MAGA crowd acts as if they are stalled developmentally, emotionally, around the Junior High-Freshman level, if that.
Am I hearing correctly that the DOJ rep told the judge his boss, Todd Blanche, told him not to say if there was a prior declination memo in the case? IANAL but perhaps one of you who is can tell me how a Judge handles this kind of thing? Will he demand to hear from Todd Blanche???? Is this not contempt?
The attempt to put thumbs on legal scales is likely to lead to a conspiracy charge eventually (no way Convict-1’s pet DoJ will pursue one) on all of the actors here. It might even include Convict-1 himself if he doesn’t self-pardon.
Since these are all documented interventions proving a conspiracy should be easier to show how IS Halligan (based on Feeb coaching) did what fellow MAGA USA Cleary would do, since she talked to actual lawyers. Could VA do the investigation and charging as a state matter since this was done there?
I hear you asking, “Is there a Virginia state prosecutor with jurisdiction who is as pure as the driven snow and is willing to rush their entire life into an onslaught of lunacy and personal attacks and devastation to their very core but yet has the fortitude and institutional backing to do so? {grab some popcorn and relax – gonna be a while until we find out!
Don’t know for sure (IANAL) but it seems likely that if state charges are brought (but can they be?), those targeted will argue that the charges should be moved to federal court. I imagine that the feds would want to claim exclusive jurisdiction over their own venues.
I’m not sure if the court wants to provoke a fight with Main Justice, but it’s odd that Blanche thinks he can just refuse to disclose whether a memo exists. Even if he’s arguing that the memo is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the law doesn’t let you refuse to confirm or deny its existence – you usually log the document in a privilege log. Second, it sure seems like that memo could be exculpatory information under Brady, so there’s a tension between Comey’s constitutional right to exculpatory information and the DOJ’s right to the work product privilege. So it seems like just refusing to confirm or deny its existence isn’t going to work as a long-term strategy. Although, tbh, DOJ has way bigger problems than this in terms of saving this crap criminal case.
You can’t spell Main Justice without Injustice.
Bravo!
But then he made it pretty clear there was one.
Of the two Loaner AUSAs, my sense is this one (Tyler Lemons) has figured out he needs to start thinking about his bar license.
I think it might be a bit late for that. The bar will be ready to make lemonade out of him.
The case will be tried in Citric Court.
And there will ultimately be no a-peel.
So we are in agrume-ment. Gotta separate church and state lest this case be tried from the pulp, it.
And now you know… the zest of the story.
punaise:
I thought the zest was history?!? We have to live with ourselves, qumquot may.
Truly, this would be another of Lemony’s Series of Unfortunate Events.
A seriously long series of unfortunate events, that is.
@ Bruce: my, you’re a loquat-ious fellow, a veritable font of pith. :~)
What would Ayn Rind (or is that Rind Paul) say about a potential segmented decision?
punaise:
Either would make the same juicy quip: “Let the meerkats decide.”
Wouldn’t that lemonade be from fruit of the poisson tree? Sounds fishy to me!
Maybe Lemon Bars?
Couldn’t help myself – I do so love a pun!
@ Booksellerb4: it may require a public herring.
But which way will the scales of justice tip?
Gill-T as charged.
What the hake! Now you’re just trolling.
Yep, just for the halibut. It’s the en-dor-(sal)-fins kicking in.
I’m floundering for a response. I might have to go downunder and call it a nightfish.
The DOJ is acting like a pro se litigant in small claims court. No, more like the unprepared side in front of Judge Wapner on the People’s Court.
I represented myself in Small Claims court here in the UK, which although the stakes are a lot lower is still a pukka court presided over by a district judge.
I conducted myself with courtesy and professionalism, and even when the opposing solicitor was talking absolute nonsense I countered calmly with facts and evidence – and brought receipts (literally!)
It’s simply a matter of respect. Respect for the people in the room, respect for the setting and the procedure. If I could manage it as a litigant in person, it’s beyond belief that professionals who do this for a living (although maybe not for much longer!) can’t do the same.
Obviously, not all. But I recall a friend suing his former landlord for his rental deposit. The landlord claimed he had to replace flooring and wanted to retain the entire amount. My friend provided before and after pictures of the claimed damage, his own repair costs for it, and a copy of the rental agreement. Friend won case and court costs back (so the landlord was out the deposit and my friend’s filing fees).
That’s exactly how much relevant experience Hannigan has. Again – most incompetent USA in history.
Based on Trump’s predelictions with selecting the best people, I think Homer has it right: most incompetent…so far….
https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3m5yppjo4n22a
Nov 19, 2025, 11:53 AM
From the screenshots of the Opinion:
In my former life as a lawyer, spent number of years as a prosecutor and presented hundreds of cases before grand juries. I can imagine and almost feel the terror Halligan was probably experiencing the moment she realized that she was putting in motion the irretrievable process of indicting someone for federal crimes that the grand jury had actually not voted on. I can, as well, picture the more sentient AUSAs lurking in the hallways and hiding in their offices feeling their own sense of terror for being witnesses to all this fuckery. Can almost feel sympathy for Halligan and the world of pain she’s going to live through for these transgressions, but then again…
Attorney Dreeben, I believe, had the right characterization of Trump in Dreeban’s Henry II quote about the meddlesome priest. Trump has spoken to avoid direct connection with an action and to establish plausible deniability since his Roy Cohn tutelage. Michael Cohen has emphasized this ability often in Trump requests. For Trump there has always been someone ready to try and rid Trump of any Trump designated “meddlesome priest”. Halligan is just the latest in a long line that started with Cohn. There was no terror in her attempt to get rid of Comey legally. Just intent.
She’s been tied to Trump for a long time and before she became an attorney – let alone represent Trump way beyond her experience and skills. Let’s be very clear, she is a very active and willing participant from everything I’ve noticed so far. Lyndsey really really wants to be a top performer for Dear Piggie Piggie! ffs
I don’t think Halligan ever realized that what she was doing was so irregular. After all, the grand jury allegedly approved counts two and three. She was just creating a document that eliminated count one. Cleaning up the indictment document. I would guess she still thinks this, and feels persecuted about a non-issue.
I can hear the cries of “a mere paperwork error!” already.
Lyndsey didn’t get to be the 3rd runner up in the Miss Colorado pageant in 2009 and 2010 and being a model while in law school (graduating in 2013) without knowing how to play to the judges!
The level of legal incompetence is beyond my comprehension (IANAL). In my former profession my license as a Professional Engineer would be toast as a minimum. Performing licensed work outside my specialty is expressly forbidden.
I was absolutely flabbergasted that she accepted the position. If she manages to keep her license, I can’t imagine anyone wanting to hire a lawyer is so mind numbingly unaware of how different legal fields work.
In my world, the Inspector is the judge and her/his decision is final! I was warned that disrespect of authority is like having a cage match in the mud with a pig.
After a couple of days…. you come to realize that the pig is enjoying himself and you are not.
Is the judge allowed to dismiss with extreme prejudice?
And can they please give Peterr a pony while they’re at it :-)
(I’m not advocating actual violence, merely alluding to a classic movie quote!)
Per TPM (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/due-to-botched-paperwork-comey-may-never-have-been-properly-indicted), Judge Nachmanoff pointed the parties to a case from the DC Circuit that seems pretty much on point: (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/413/1061/36450/). The practice there was for the GJ to vote on presentment, in general, after hearing testimony, and the USAO would draft an indictment for the foreperson’s signature, without the actual indictment being presented to and voted on by the grand jury; the DC Circuit rejected this practice. That court also pointed to precedent that limited what could be presented at trial to what was actually in the indictment. All in all, very good work by the judge’s clerk to find that case!
There is always something worse. The bottom is always further down. As remarkable as the absence of an indictment is it appears that there is a declination memo from Siebert and Todd Blanche is directing the rented prosecutors not to produce it. Could that be true? Did they show it to Halligan or have they kept it from her too?
It strikes me that the DOJ version of MAGA is seeing things like taint, warrants, and how to get an indictment from a grand jury as norms, things to ignore, finesse, or trash as a show of power. A parallel to Republican behavior in the Senate, or Trump himself. But they forget they need backup. The Senate has their self-interest rules like the filibuster, Trump has Congress and SCOTUS. Who do these clowns have? Bondi, who wouldn’t even give them a paralegal to help with prep? FAFO, as our Secratary of WAR!! likes to say.
Yup, the incompetence is intentional, but at some point an established process has to be followed. That may be less true IF you literally control everything, and that’s probably what Donnie Dementia thought.
I can’t help but wonder if Bondi set Halligan up to take the fall because she knew this case was a loser. Providing zero guidance to a complete novice seems a lot like sandbagging.
Given how Bondi jumped to attention when Trump demanded new investigations of Trump’s democratic enemies who are mentioned in the Epstein files, I would say Bondi didn’t set Halligan up for anything. “Just take the case, make the case, and please the boss!”
To borrow from “The Spanish Inquisition” from Monty Python’s Flying Circus:
Providing zero guidance to a complete novice IUSA also seems a lot like what you would expect a complete novice lackey of an AG to do.
Pam Bondi sounded just
like that today in her press conference.
“REPORTER: Madam Attorney General, the DOJ statement earlier this year saying that the files would not release mentioned that the review of documents and evidence did not suggest that any additional investigation of third parties was warranted. What changed since then that you launched this investigation?
PAM BONDI: Information that has come—information. There’s new information, additional information”.
It sounds like a lot of information just came in.
My guess is the additional information she mentions is the Epstein files release bill that passed overwhelmingly yesterday.
One quibble: should be rootless inefficiency.
Lindsey Halligan is clearly giving Ned Racine a run for his money. Things didn’t work out well for Ned, either.
I was thinking more along the lines of Lionel Hutz from The Simpsons.
Barry Zuckerkorn, anyone?
One of the ironies here is that Lindsey and the loaner AUSAs are proving Comey’s vindictive prosecution case for him before they even get to the actual trial part. Or at least giving him even more to work with.
They would be so much more dangerous if they were competent.
This will surely be Trump’s own eventual epitaph.
This is what confuses me. Why did Halligan include the original indictment with count 1 crossed out when she gave the indictments to the Judge? Did the court already have a copy of that original indictment and she needed to explain why she was bringing the one with only 2 counts? If she hadn’t included the original 3 count indictment, would the judge have even known it existed?
I suspect she thought what she was doing was OK, just saving time since the GJ had “approved” two of the three counts therefore it was a foregone conclusion they would approve the revised indictment, and as a consequence presented everything to the judge because it provided a complete record of what had happened. She didn’t want to get in trouble for leaving out some of the paperwork. I can’t imagine that if she’d any idea she’d probably lose her case and possibly law license over it she’d have not presented the new indictment to the GJ.
“foregone conclusion” isn’t quite what I meant (passed the edit deadline), more like “had already approved the two indictments”.
I can easily imagine it.
For starters, Halligan got no true-billed on one charge and barely got the votes for counts two and three. She might not have gotten those votes had she resubmitted a revised indictment for a vote by the requisite quorum.
Still, it’s all on Halligan. And now Bondi, after she improperly affirmed Halligan’s conduct, either without reviewing it or after thoroughly reviewing it and approving it anyway.
OK, I can see that. Thanks (for pointing out something that caused me to modify my opinion…)
The only possible explanation that makes sense is if Lindsey Halligan mis-heard Donald Trump, and has been working tirelessly to bring him a No-bill Prize.
To complement his collection of 34 TrueBill prizes. They’re all of no consequence.
Oh, snap!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcxpbhM0DaA
These people thought they would just
prosecute the fvcking former Director of the FBI…
unbelievable.
Bwahahaha
(I’m sorry, I’m still stunned by the fact that my admittedly trolling comment that maybe Comey was no-billed on all three charges turned out to be correct in the most hilarious way possible.)
I just wonder if the foreperson was put in personal legal jeopardy for signing what was apparently an illegitimate document? Or would the jeopardy fall on any lawyer who advised the — presumed non-lawyer — foreperson?
I think they are, because they did allegedly sign it. Whether it is an infraction, misdemeanor or felony would depend a great deal on intent when they did. They’ll certainly need to answer questions (in camera with the judge, perhaps?) about the time sequence.
It’s the prosecution’s job to know the law, rules, and procedures, not the grand jury’s or any member of it.
Still… Grand Jurors are warned about the import of their signature… not to be rubber stamps of Prosecutor. Also see 18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations
replying to earlofhuntindon:
“It’s the prosecution’s job to know the law, rules, and procedures, not the grand jury’s or any member of it.”
I would think that is especially true when, as here, the grand jurors are being actively
misinformed as to the law. (Although seeking to pin this on the GJ foreperson would be a very Trumpian move.)
This LIVE THREAD of the Hearing by “recovering lawyer” Nonilex on Mastodon
was recommended by Ed Walker on Bluesky:
https://masto.ai/@Nonilex/115576824468954310
Nov 19, 2025, 09:26 AM
The LEMONS’ bit begins at Nov 19, 2025, 09:26 AM, here:
https://masto.ai/@Nonilex/115577199914315750
LEMONS to the Judge:
Lemons’s plea to the court, telling it that he was really trying to answer its questions, struck me as a lame demand for empathy he hasn’t earned and doesn’t deserve.
The court is entitled to candor. It’s not getting it from the prosecution.
The court is definitely not getting the least candor from Insurance Lawyer Lindsey.
Lazy, lackadaisical loaner lawyer Lindsay, Dirty Donald’s lickspittle litigator = “The best people.”
Ah yes – alliteration. Good. Very good.
Let us harken back to the days of ‘Laugh In’ and remember that Lindsey TIL is about to be Diddled by the Dubious Digit of Doom, although that was a subset of the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate award…
Those days were so funny. The four effs, some of us added a fifth eff.
Nobody has produced more disbarments than Trump
It’s his not-so-secret weapon
I’m interested to see who LtIL implicates, when she realises the personal jeopardy she’s in, and enters self-preservation mode. With her lack of prosecutorial experience, I assume (hope?) she asked for advice when the GJ no-billed, so am fully expecting a claim of ‘X told me to proceed as I did’, AKA the historically dubious Just Following Orders defence. And X – whoever s/he may be – must be shaking in their boots, as further information comes to light, especially given Judge N, not to mention Comey and his legal team, not only picked up on the error (and the mind boggles that anyone thought they wouldn’t) but are also invested in examining on record, how it came about.
Who might be implicated in the fall out? Apart from Pam, of course, who is now on record as green lighting (twice) LtIL’s conduct of the GJ proceedings?
[Welcome back to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Once you pick a new site standard compliant name, please use it on every comment; you currently have three different usernames (kspin, Kspin, K-spin). Thanks. /~Rayne]
Todd Blanche had prior experience at DOJ.
Did he have the foresight to give Halligan a “Recipe” on what to do and what not to do
* With a Grand Jury
* Properly handling the paperwork
* Proper procedures with the Judge and related Court personnel
If they gave her a “Recipe” and Prep that she ignored, then she deserves all of the blame.
If Blanche and the rest of the DOJ let her go into the Grand Jury process without adequate Prep and a “Recipe”, then they did her wrong since it should have been obvious to them that they would need to get it right the first time because of the looming deadline.
**********
John Roberts — The Office of the Solicitor General
Brett Kavanaugh — The Office of the Solicitor General
Neil Gorsuch — Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General
Sam Alito — Assistant to the Solicitor General
Four of the GOP six on the SCOTUS spent some time at DOJ during their careers. I realize that being RW – GOP has had considerable influence on their decisions over the years, but I would hope that at least one of them has enough affinity for DOJ to be somewhat ashamed of what they have allowed to happen to DOJ by getting Trump out of his legal troubles.
Lindsey Halligan deserves full blame regardless of whether Blanche or someone else gave her a cheat sheet about how to be a junior prosecutor.
Regardless of whether they gave Halligan a cheat sheet, those who put her in her position knew she was not capable of handing it.
Regardless of whether she got a cheat sheet, Halligan knew she had neither the training, experience, nor temperament to competently handle the assignment, for reasons that are now obvious. It’s not a conflict the client can wave. Halligan was ethically bound to refuse the assignment.
Imagine the consequences had this been a legitimate prosecution that she had bungled into a nullity. Imagine the consequences that her incompetence and malfeasance have now imposed on a wronged defendant. It’s one reason she should be disbarred.
I am not saying that Halligan should be absolved of blame on this. For her to have realized that she was in way over her head on this, she would need to have an objective awareness of her limitations and not everybody can be honest about themselves.
Alina Habba (New Jersey) and Jeanine Pirro (DC) are Trump World DOJ appointments that had known struggles and gaffes prior to Halligan going to EDVA. Halligan should have picked up on those things and refused going to EDVA since her credentials – background appears to have been no stronger that that of Habba and Pirro. Yet she took the assignment which suggests a combination of overestimating of what she was capable of doing and underestimating what capabilities were needed for the position.
For such a high profile – touted case with a close deadline to indict, I thought that DOJ would have poured in as many resources as possible to support her and from a distance it appears that they didn’t.
In regards to being ethically bound to refuse the assignment, she isn’t the only Trump World lawyer that needs to stop and reflect on some of the legal things that they have been doing – saying.
Here is an example of Ed Martin about Tina Peters (Colorado).
Don’t forget, this whole unseemly saga has been driven not by DOJ but by Kash Patel and his revanchist fantasies, in abject but incompetent servitude to his Great Lord. (Who, when the aforesaid GL finally joins up the dots, will have another metaphorical drive-by bus made ready to throw Pop-Eye under. His time in charge is surely numbered.)
You bring up many good points about how Miss Halligan should have known better. She should have seen that she was in over her head.
Maybe she couldn’t see that because Dunn and Kruger put their blinders on her.
That’s funny.
My own example of the Dunning Kruger effect in action.
I should not call the kettle black.
Isnt Dr EW alleging there is a “shadow team” behind La Halligan? Hayes, the Gabriels, the SA’s Starr, Warren. etc, etc?
it’s not an allegation. The names come from the metadata of court filings.
earlofhuntingdon: November 19, 2025 at 4:26 pm
“Imagine the consequences had this been a legitimate prosecution that she had bungled into a nullity.”
Yes. Like luck itself, the consequences that flow from the incompetence of a prosecutor runs both ways.
Noting this is completely tongue in cheek…
It would be immensely funny if Team Comey filed a *motion to express a preference for which docketed indictment is treated as real* or just started filing motions in triplicated with a slightly different version responding to each version of the indictment paperwork or list all three docket numbers when referencing the indictment without even acknowledging it: *The indictment [Dkt. No. 1,2, or 3] ]*
More seriously:
I think in hindsight probably the most insightful thing Team Comey did was lean into the Rocket Docket and Comey’s right to a speedy trial. It has forced the government’s hand by forcing them to rush, over and over. It continues to make visible that they pursued this with no preparedness AND that they are continuing to be incompetent at every term. There are many reasons the defense might want to slow things down to manage the government’s attempt to bury them in Brady material, but they did not even blink at that and we are seeing the results. No time for DOJ to try and polish their presentation of a turd, just layer after layer of incompetence as two (three?) different judges try and untangle whatever the fuck they did.
I know this is not a novel observation but it is one I keep coming back to.
Also forcing them to rush: the oncoming expiration of the statute of limitations. That, more than anything Comey did, plunged DOJ into this self-own.
And let’s not forget that none of it would have happened without Trump urging “Pam” to get on the case(s).
I sure hope there is such a thing as “dismissal with discovery.”
That would be a pony.
I hope Lindsey keeps her license, and is sentenced to represent Donald and the Trump (Dis?)Organization in all insurance matters for as long as she lives.
A classroom demonstration in how snafu leads to fubar.
And, for a slightly irrelevant, but entertaining distraction, I urge you all to go read RFC 3092: Etymology of “Foo,” particularly the definitions of “foo” and “foobar”:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3092
Thank you for this!
Old military here. Good to see that the derivation is traced to FUBAR (F’d Up Beyond All Recognition).
Wondering if the Halligan appointment and mishandling of the Comey prosecution will become a case study analysis for first year law students to reveal the many ways a prosecutor can mishandle a case.
It’s error piled upon error, beginning with an invalid appointment, to improper review of evidence, failure to provide declination by former prosecutor, and ending with failure to adhere to grand jury procedure, and ending with disrespecting the judge.
I’m guessing that’s a given.
“Taint by numbers” approach
Pairs well with “Connect the Dolts.”
Cut it out, you two (SL and Bruce). You have me in stitches (zigs and zags).
Ahem.
It will be used to illustrate ethical obligations, especially about not undertaking an assignment if you know that you do not have the requisite qualifications, about respect for judges, and recognizing who your client is. Halligan thinks she is representing Trump. She is mistaken.
As the old Demotivator poster read, “It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.”
Only if the outcome is negative for her. It seems totally possible in this alternate Lemony Snicket world that LH emerges from the cloud as MAGA Woman!
There is still a lot unknown, and just weird.
How do we even know the grand jury voted 14-9 to approve counts 2 and 3? The AO191 (“Report of the Grand Jury’s Failure to Concur in an Indictment”) has the original indictment fully signed as an attachment, with the weird black pen interliniation “Count 1 only” which is ungrammatical. The foreperson signed in blue, and did not initial the change. Who changed it, and when? The magistrate who first saw the AO191 spoke as if the entire indictment was no billed. It does not actually indicate anything as to what was approved on the indictment. You cannot imply from the AO191 that counts 2 and 3 were approved. I believe perhaps the foreperson conveyed that information verbally, and I am unsure if we have the entire inquiry by the magistrate on 9/25 to the foreperson on this subject (or subsequent inquiry with the foreperson).
Halligan has testified that she heard from her deputy (name?) that the grand jury returned with a no bill on count 1 but allegedly approved 2 and 3. Who allegedly told the deputy that? She obviously rushed to modify the indictment to delete count 1, and renumbered the paragraphs and counts. She then rushed to the court with the new document and had the grand jury foreperson sign the new document, and presented it to the court seven minutes later from the initial return of the grand jury. She has now stated that only the foreperson and one other grand juror was present when the foreperson signed the revised indictment.
Obviously, Halligan thought that all that she had to do was modify the indictment based on the story that the original counts two and three were approved. It’s as if the grand jury modified the three count to strike out the first count directly (draw a line through it), and approved the balance, and the revised document just represents a cleaned up version.
But there is no record other than the word of the foreperson as to what the grand jury allegedly did on the original counts two and three. They never saw an indictment that just listed those two counts. They saw the wording only.
I have no idea what the practice is when an indictment is allegedly only partially no billed. Plus where is the evidence of the vote?
What is clear is that the grand jury never saw the revised indictment. They did see the same language in the original indictment. Was that enough, plus the forepersons word about the vote?
Why is the original indictment fully signed by Halligan and and the foreperson? How did that happen?
And the big question that has gone begging is whether the foreperson was somehow in on it, like a Bizzaro World version of Runaway Jury.
CT, for sure, but not remotely outside the realm of possibility with this crew. (Underestimating their perfidy is a big part of how we got to this point.)
It is not the attempt to use a crescent wrench as a hammer that is the main problem. It is this crew’s assumption that they, and only they, make that decision.
A Stillson wrench, closed hard, is the appropriate hammer-analog. Every jackleg carpenter knows this.
I still say that all the fired agency workers and discharged military people (if they can take it financially) will someday, and not too long from now, thank their lucky stars they got out.