Listen on Spotify (transcripts available)

Listen on Apple (transcripts available)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, the “Clinton Plan” CIOL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same could be said for these transcripts.

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

A technicality!!!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Clinton appointee swooping in to steal the case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Blue Slip gaslight special

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

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

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

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

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

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

All this whining is nothing other than cope.

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

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

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

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

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

In both cases, she dismissed the indictments without prejudice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

This coming Thursday is Thanksgiving. It seems both far too soon and yet forever since our last turkey day. We have all been through hell and back since the last time we gathered around the table with friends and family to give thanks while trying to restrain the urge to throttle that relative who is a pain in the ass every holiday.

This year my family will have a slightly smaller gathering. A couple family members work in healthcare and will be on duty. My kids didn’t experience this growing up as neither my spouse nor I have had careers obligating us to forfeit holidays with family. I do remember expecting my mom would not be home on one of the holidays, either Thanksgiving or Christmas, alternating each year because she was a nurse working second or third shift at the local hospital. Babies don’t stop coming and emergencies happen no matter what day it is, after all.

My youngest has been working in pharmaceutical manufacturing as I’ve mentioned in a previous holiday post; large chemical plants including pharma producers don’t shut down though they may reduce production. This year the youngest is working in a different field of pharma so they’ll be able to join us. But they now have a significant other who works for a hospital dispensing pharma products, and they won’t be able to join us.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Thanks to all the first responders who will be working this holiday, and those who support us invisibly by keeping things running in healthcare and manufacturing.

This year the kids are doing even more of the prep work for the holiday, though we will be fewer in number. It’s funny how this coincided with the loss this past year of the last of the eldest member our family. We’re undergoing a generational shift both consciously and unconsciously.

It’s past time for me to pull together the family’s recipes and hand them off to all of the members of my kids’ generation. I’ve looked for decades now for a recipe database application that wouldn’t become enshittified over time. I wish I’d had that word when I first started looking for what I wanted, because it’s been a PITA to explain I didn’t want a free-now-but-recipes-held-hostage-later application, or one that would try to badger users to buy something as soon as they opened the app, or one that would steal the family recipes only to serve corrupted versions to others via AI-enhanced search tools.

I’ve gathered most of the family recipes, scanned those that were still on 3×5 cards, re-typed them all into plain text. I’m going to hand them off on flash drives this holiday, along with a copy of a free, open source note application so that the family’s heirs don’t have to expose themselves to Microsoft Notepad’s enshittification.

Perhaps next year the kids will take on even more of the holiday feast preparations once they’ve received the family’s cookbook.

~ ~ ~

There are two concerns I have for others this coming holiday: the cost of groceries and the problematic food supply chain.

If you have any pointers about cutting grocery costs for the holidays, please share them.

lf you’ve experienced shortages of food items and are using workarounds, please share them.

And if you’ve got the extra cash to help others this holiday, please give to a food bank or soup kitchen near you.

Feeding America has a tool for finding food banks near you: https://www.feedingamerica.org/find-your-local-foodbank

Share it with those who may need the assistance as well as those who may have resources to help others.

Food banks have been hard pressed to keep up with demand because of the government shutdown and the lack of SNAP funding, as well as the cascade of funding problems created by Trump and Musk’s DOGE-driven cuts to programs. Give what you can — even $5 can buy as much as 20 meals.

~ ~ ~

Lastly, if you have a favorite recipe you prepare each Thanksgiving, feel free to share below along with whatever you’re planning to do to prepare for the holiday. Are you traveling, and if so, are you taking anything with you to share over the holiday?

This is an open thread but let’s try to focus on Thanksgiving preparations and on topics related to food and the food supply chain.

Three things happened in the last week that have befuddled a lot of observers, but which might best be understood as the kinds of developments we’ll see increasingly as the power structure around Trump grows fragile and fluid:

• A positively giddy Trump welcomed Zohran Mamdani to the White House
• “The White House” rolled out yet another plan to sell out Ukraine to Russia
• Marjorie Taylor Greene announced she will quit in early January

All of these, in my opinion, arose out of and reflect Trump’s increasing political weakness, his separate mental and physical decline, and the fight for power that results.

Mamdani speaks of Trump voters, groceries, and building

Much of the focus on the Trump-Mamdani meeting was on what Trump did, such as his interruption before Mamdani had to answer whether he believed Trump was a fascist, rather than on what Mamdani said. But if you look closely at what Mamdani said — which was often simply a restatement of his campaign pitch — he managed to say them in such a way that Trump parroted them as his own.

Both men centered their statements on their shared love of New York City, which is real and has been underplayed.

Mamdani’s first comment did so — as did his relentlessly disciplined campaign did — in terms of affordability; Mamdani mentioned “groceries,” the awkward shorthand Trump’s handlers have had him use to address affordability.

Mr. Trump: You know, we had some interesting conversation, and some of his ideas really are the same ideas that I have. A big thing on cost. The new word is “affordability.” Another word, it’s just groceries. It’s sort of an old-fashioned word, but it’s very accurate. They are coming down. They are coming down.

Mamdani repeatedly spoke in terms of Trump’s voters (again, a line directly from his campaign).

Trump had no idea that Mamdani targeted Trump voters, and as the coalition that elected him last year abandons him in the polls, Trump took notice when Mamdani explained that.

When I spoke to New Yorkers who had voted for the president last November on Hillside Avenue and Fordham Road, I asked them why. I heard, again and again, two major reasons. One was that they want an end to forever wars — they wanted an end to the taxpayers’ dollars we had funding violations of human rights, and they wanted to address the cost-of-living crisis. And I appreciated the chance to discuss both of those things.

Mr. Trump: He said a lot of my voters actually voted for him.

Mr. Mamdani: One in 10.

Mr. Trump: And I’m OK with that.

[snip]

Reporter: First of all, for the mayor-elect: You’re both from different parts of the political perspective. You’re both populist, though, and I just wonder to what extent the president’s campaign styles — his techniques, his social media use — inspired any part of your campaign?

Mr. Mamdani: Well, I actually told the president that, you know, so much of the focus of our campaign has been on the cost-of-living crisis, and when we asked those New Yorkers who had voted for the president — when we saw an increase in his numbers in New York City, that came back to the same issue. Cost of living. Cost of living. Cost of living.

And they spoke about the cost of groceries, the cost of rent, the cost of Con Ed, the cost of child care.

Mamdani seems to have reminded Trump that Trump got a historic number of votes last year (the voters Mamdani kicked off his campaign by canvassing) by running on affordability.

Reporter: Mr. President, you said you grew up in New York City. Mr. Mamdani, does New York City love President Trump?

Mr. Mamdani: New York City loves a future that is affordable. And I can tell you that there were more New Yorkers who voted for President Trump in the most recent presidential election because of that focus on cost of living, and I’m looking forward to working together to deliver on that affordability agenda.

President Trump: Got a lot. I got a lot of votes. One more, go ahead. One or two more. Go ahead.

Mamdani’s focus on Trump voters became a way to dodge very contentious questions.

Mr. Mamdani: I appreciate all efforts toward peace, and I shared with President Trump, when I spoke to Trump voters on Hillside Avenue — including one of whom was a pharmacist that spoke about how President Trump’s father actually went to that pharmacy not too far from Jamaica Estates — that people were tired of seeing our tax dollars fund endless wars.

By the end, Trump spoke of the way he himself (thinks he) picked up Bernie voters.

Mr. Trump: We agree on a lot more than I would have thought. I think he’s — I want him to do a great job, and we’ll help him do great job. You know, he may have different views, but in many ways, you know — we were discussing, when Bernie Sanders was out of the race, I picked up a lot of his votes, and people had no idea, because he was strong on not getting ripped off in trade and lots of the things that I practiced, and been very successful on.

Tariffs, a lot of things. Bernie Sanders and I agreed on much more than people thought, and when he was put out of the race — I think quite unfairly, if you want to know the truth — many of the Bernie Sanders voters voted for me, and I felt very comfortable frankly seeing that and saying that. And you know, it just turned out to be a statistical truth.

Perhaps the most fascinating reflection came when Trump appeared to parrot Mamdani’s shift of discussions about ICE into a question about crime, whence Trump immediately addressed building.

Mr. Trump: What we did is, we discussed crime. More than ICE, per se, we discussed crime. And he doesn’t want to see crime, and I don’t want to see crime, and I have very little doubt that we’re not going to get along on that issue. And he wants to — and he said some things that were very interesting, very interesting, as to housing construction, and he wants to see houses go up. He wants to see a lot of houses created, a lot of apartments built, et cetera. You know, we actually — people would be shocked, but I want to see the same thing.

Trump repeated that progression later, and specifically said Mamdani told him things Trump had not seen in coverage.

He wants to see no crime. He wants to see housing being built. He wants to see rents coming down, all the things that I agree with. We may disagree on how we get there. The rent coming down — I think one of the things I really gleaned very, very much today, he would like to see them come down ideally by building a lot of additional housing. That’s the ultimate way. He agrees with that, and so do I.

But, if I read the newspapers, and the stories — I don’t hear that. But I heard him say it today. I think that’s a very positive step. Now, I don’t expect — I expect to be helping him, not hurting him. A big help, because I want New York City to be great.

Look, I love New York City. It’s where I come from.

None of Mamdani’s success should be that surprising. He’s a rock star in whose aura Trump would like to bathe.

Mamdani simply managed Trump the same way everyone does: by getting alone in a room with him and making him adopt your ideas as his own.

Kirill Dmitriev continues to cultivate the people alone in the room with Trump

Which brings us to the latest Ukrainian “piece” plan, a 28-point plan to force Ukraine to capitulate to Russia on threat of losing US intelligence and arms (though Cristo Grozev believes there are two bullets that Russia did not release publicly).

Phillips OBrien announced, hopefully prematurely, that this was the long-awaited denouement of Trump’s long con of pretending he cares about Ukraine.

Instead, what actually happened on November 21 was that the Trump Administration came for Ukraine—as they always intended to do. The Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, a very close associate of VP JD Vance, went to Kyiv and tried to bully the Ukrainians into accepting Trump’s 28 Point Plan to neuter Ukraine. Driscoll formally presented the plan to divide Ukraine now, and end it later, and the reality of what Ukraine and Europe was facing finally sunk in. Here was how the Atlantic story on the meeting began.

Dan Driscoll kept everyone waiting. The United States secretary of the Army had been due to arrive earlier today at the U.S. ambassador’s residence in Kyiv to speak with diplomats from NATO member states. The guests were eager to hear about the 28-point peace plan Driscoll had delivered on behalf of the Trump administration to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But what they heard when Driscoll finally got there left some of the Europeans infuriated. “I feel nauseous,” one diplomat told us afterward. “It’s like the world is shattering around us, and we are watching it in real time.”

The most depressing thing from the above story was that the diplomat was surprised at what the administration was doing; or I should say that the unnamed diplomat had fallen for the Trump Administration’s long con. The long con was that they would ever do anything meaningful to hurt Putin and help Ukraine, that somehow they were honest brokers in this war. They never were. They have always wanted Putin to get the best deal possible and they have always wanted to severely weaken Ukraine. Whatever steps the administration took to seem to help Ukraine were performative; steps that were designed to make it look like they would be tough on Putin, but in the end never were more mirage-like than anything else.

Michael Weiss catalogs all the signs that the deal was, instead, Kirill Dmitriev successfully manipulating the press.

What struck me as odd about this whole affair was that for such a multi-authored, monthlong project, no one from the American side was willing to go on the record to talk about it. Everything was on-background comment — except for Dmitriev, who was only too happy to gibber. Moreover, the State Department was silent; all journalist inquiries directed at Foggy Bottom were not even redirected to the White House, which is highly abnormal on matters of foreign policy sensitivity. Then, late Wednesday night, Rubio, under his personal account, tweeted this: “Ending a complex and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive exchange of serious and realistic ideas. And achieving a durable peace will require both sides to agree to difficult but necessary concessions. That is why we are and will continue to develop a list of potential ideas for ending this war based on input from both sides of this conflict.”

To anyone on nodding terms with diplomatese, this sounded like the whirr of the backpedal, Rubio’s way of trying to downplay expectations created by Dmitriev and Axios and the resulting press frenzy. An “extensive exchange of serious and realistic ideas” was not, after all, a signed, sealed, and delivered plan of action, which Politico’s Dasha Burns had described (citing a “senior White House official”) as a “fait accompli,” cobbled together without the input or consent of Brussels. “We don’t really care about the Europeans,” said that same senior White House official, even though the EU and NATO will have an outsize say in determining the future of Ukraine and Europe, from sanctions relief to security assistance.

[snip]

Was Trump really acquainted with the deal in all its details? What did his “support” for Witkoff amount to? Recall that the preliminaries for the doomed Anchorage summit consisted of Witkoff misinterpreting what the Russians were offering (easy enough to do when you rely on an SVR translator) and making it seem as if they’d conceded things they hadn’t. This caused some dyspepsia in the Oval, and Trump later “jokingly” dismissed Witkoff’s ability to parlay with the Russians.

Could this be happening again? And could it be even worse now that Trump (distracted with his imploding MAGA coalition at home, a flush-worthy approval rating, a battering at the polls on Nov. 4, and bloodlust for the domestic opposition) is too busy to care about the finer points of his big, beautiful peace deal for Ukraine? “Sure, Steve, sounds great, keep going” sounded like what amounted to the Trump seal of approval here, but we don’t know because no one bothered to ask this question (or, at least, no one managed to have it answered).

[snip]

Politico now clarified that “a number of people who would have normally been informed of such a plan at the White House and State Department were also not consulted about Witkoff’s renewed push,” with one U.S. official saying there was “zero interagency coordination.” You don’t say.

Reuters (including Erin Banco revisiting her past reporting on Dmitriev’s efforts to do precisely this in Seychelles in 2017) describes some of the machinations in Miami that went into this production.

U.S. officials and lawmakers are increasingly concerned about a meeting last month in which representatives of the Trump administration met with Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian envoy who is under U.S. sanctions, to draft a plan to end the war in Ukraine, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

The meeting took place in Miami at the end of October and included special envoy Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Dmitriev, who leads the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), one of Russia’s largest sovereign wealth funds.

The most telling development, however, are competing and quickly evolving stories from Senator Mike Rounds (who would lead opposition to such a plan in the Senate) and Marco Rubio about whether this is a US plan.

Rubio reassured Senators mobilizing opposition to this development that it wasn’t a done deal, but then backtracked to avoid losing his place in the room.

As Yaroslav Trofimoev quipped,

Foreign nations now have to deal with rival factions of the U.S. government who keep major policy initiatives secret from each other and some of which work with foreign powers as the succession battle for 2028 begins, is how one diplomat put it.

One thing that’s happening is that Marco Rubio has survived in the Trump White House as long as he has because he is very good at mirroring, usually passively so. He says, and his State Department says, what his State Department babysitters say, people like Darren Beattie and Christopher Landau. But Rubio has generally remained in the room even at key times, and particularly with Ukraine, has thus far managed to prevent the worst from happening.

Importantly, though, Dmitriev’s tremendous success at manipulating the other people in the room with Trump comes at a time when Tom Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene — neither big backers of Ukraine — showed how to beat Trump: by bypassing Mike Johnson to force a politically difficult vote, and to do so with enough success to force the Senate’s hand.

Brian Fitzpatrick and Don Bacon, both staunch backers of Ukraine in the House, have initiated an effort to replicate that approach.

There are the numbers right now to pass sanctions against Russia: at least 218 in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Those numbers just happen to be similar to the same numbers as it would take to impeach Trump.

Which is to say, the very thing that made it possible for Dmitriev to recruit (ahem) the people in the room with Trump — the flux in the White House now — is also the thing that makes him more vulnerable than he was a month ago.

Exit Marjorie Taylor Greene, for now

There’s a lot about MTG’s departure I’m not much interested in: making Trump the primary actor, making Marge the victim, debating whether she’ll be friend or foe, focusing more on the timing as it relates to getting her pension than as it relates to the healthcare crisis Republicans will soon own.

MTG is far smarter than people give her credit for and she’s very adept at using the tools of right wing politics.

In recent months the good old boys in Georgia and even Trump’s top aides refused to let her run for state-wide office in Georgia, believing she could risk an increasingly purple state.

That was part of, but only part of, the background to her willingness to take a leadership position on Epstein. She does genuinely care about the issue and/or she does recognize its salience among populists.

The part of MTG’s statement that generated the most attention (which appears in ¶¶33 and 34 of her statement) — her prediction Republicans will lose the House and have to stave off a Trump impeachment…

I have too much self respect and dignity, love my family way too much, and do not want my sweet district to have to endure a hurtful and hateful primary against me by the President we all fought for, only to fight and win my election while Republicans will likely lose the midterms. And in turn, be expected to defend the President against impeachment after he hatefully dumped tens of millions of dollars against me and tried to destroy me.

It’s all so absurd and completely unserious. I refuse to be a ‘battered wife’ hoping it all goes away and gets better.

… Comes long after (¶¶4-12) a series of paragraphs that could be spoken by a racist Zohran Mamdani, and with all the charisma and political acumen he has.

No matter which way the political pendulum swings, Republican or Democrat, nothing ever gets better for the common American man or woman.

The debt goes higher.

Corporate and global interests remain Washington’s sweethearts.

American jobs continue to be replaced whether it’s by illegal labor or legal labor by visas or just shipped overseas.

Small businesses continue to be swallowed by big corporations.

Americans’ hard earned tax dollars always fund foreign wars, foreign aid, and foreign interests.

The spending power of the dollar continues to decline.

The average American family can no longer survive on a single bread winner’s income as both parents must work in order to simply survive.

And today, many in my children’s generation feel hopeless for their future and don’t think they will ever realize the American dream, which breaks my heart.

MTG is taking her significant campaign cash and selling high, and promising to be there to buy low after whatever upcoming catastrophe happens.

When the common American people finally realize and understand that the Political Industrial Complex of both parties is ripping this country apart, that not one elected leader like me is able to stop Washington’s machine from gradually destroying our country, and instead the reality is that they, common Americans, The People, possess the real power over Washington, then I’ll be here by their side to rebuild it.

Until then I’m going back to the people I love, to live life to the fullest as I always have, and look forward to a new path ahead.

She rode Trump’s coattails until she decided the coattails weren’t worth the effort anymore.

Threshold issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The drama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Well, let me stop you there.

MR. LEMONS: Yes, sir.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Well, was there a declination memo?

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

THE COURT: And had one been prepared?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. LEMONS: Okay.

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

MR. LEMONS: Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. HALLIGAN: Good morning.

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

MS. HALLIGAN: No, Your Honor.

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

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

THE COURT: I’m familiar with the transcript.

MS. HALLIGAN: Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The oddities of a three-judge docket

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 20: Comey Reply on fundamental ambiguity

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

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

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

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

November 21: Comey Response to government objection to Fitzpatrick order

November 21: Motion to dismiss because there is no indictment

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

November 24: Comey requested response date on MTD no indictment

November 26: Expected Cameron Currie ruling on disqualification

November 26: Comey motion to suppress due

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With another…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When caught lying, troll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They’re trolling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Seventh Circuit Rationale

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

A. The order is overbroad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Standing

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

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

But sure, this insane suggestion is warranted.

C. Irreparable harm to defendants.

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

D. But maybe they’ll issue their own order

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

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

The Bigger Picture

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

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

 

=======

 

Update: I had a suspicion that the panel just typed up a couple of sentences from the defendant’s’ motion. Here’s a link to the 24 page motion and a very long appendix. The brief is signed by Brett Shumate and Yaakov Roth, among others, from DoJ. These guys think they are free to assault my neighbors with no restraints. The ugly tone of this motion is, to my perhaps prejudiced eye, mirrored by the ugly tone of the panel.