Posts

An awkward picture of Eagle Ed Martin and Lindsey Halligan posing in his office.

Letitia James Highlights Eagle Ed Martin Just Before He Goes on a Conspiratorial Rant

/6 Comments/in /by

Vindictive and selective prosecution cases are always nearly impossible to win, because of how narrowly the precedent draws the analysis. To prove vindictive prosecution, the defendant has to prove that the prosecutor who made a charging decision harbored animus to the defendant.

But of course, in Jim Comey and Letitia James’ case, the playacting prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, is just doing what her boss installed her to do. She didn’t act out of animus towards Comey and James, except insofar as such animus is a litmus test for belonging in Trump’s tribe (though her brief stint at the Smithsonian also exposed her as a dumb bigot, which could be relevant in James’ case). She acted out of a corrupt willingness to do anything her boss tells her to do.

Here’s how Lindsey’s Loaner AUSAs argued that Comey had not met that standard in their response to his vindictive and selective prosecution motion.

To start, the relevant analysis is whether the “prosecutor charging” the offense “harbored vindictive animus.” Wilson, 262 F.3d at 316; see United States v. Gomez-Lopez, 62 F.3d 304, 306 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that the focus “is on the ultimate decision-maker”). Here, that prosecutor is the U.S. Attorney. Yet the defendant doesn’t present any evidence that she harbors animus against him. Instead, he says that he doesn’t need any such evidence because his claim “turns on the animus harbored by the official who prompted the prosecution.” See Def. Mem., Dkt. No. 59 at 21. And, according to him, that is the President. See id. As discussed below, the President does not harbor vindictive animus against the defendant in the relevant sense. Before reaching that issue, however, the Court should determine whether the defendant has offered sufficient evidence to find that the President displaced the U.S. Attorney as “the ultimate decision-maker” in bringing this prosecution. See Gomez-Lopez, 62 F.3d at 304. The only “direct evidence” on the issue says otherwise. See Wilson, 262 F.3d at 314.

The defendant’s argument relies on the imputed-animus theory. The Fourth Circuit has never adopted that theory. In fact, when a defendant asked the Fourth Circuit to impute animus from investigating law-enforcement agents, the Fourth Circuit categorically rejected the theory. See United States v. Hastings, 126 F.3d 310, 314 (4th Cir. 1997) (“We will not impute the unlawful biases of the investigating agents to the persons ultimately responsible for the prosecution.”); see also United States v. Cooper, 617 F. App’x 249, 251 (4th Cir. 2015). That is consistent with other circuits’ application of the theory in that context. See, e.g., United States v. Gilbert, 266 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001) (“In all but the most extreme cases, it is only the biases and motivations of the prosecutor that are relevant.”); United States v. Spears, 159 F.3d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1998).

When courts have entertained the imputed-animus theory in other contexts, they have required a significant evidentiary showing: there must be “evidence that the federal prosecutor did not make the ultimate decision to bring the indictment.” Spears, 159 F.3d at 1087.

It is true that Comey and James (in a filing submitted Friday) both did ultimately say Trump ordered up their prosecutions, relying heavily on his tweet ordering Pam Bondi to install Lindsey Halligan to do so.

But they took a different approach in laying out the weaponization of DOJ. Comey, relying on a 60-page exhibit of Trump tweets to demonstrate the President’s animus, focused relentlessly on Trump. He didn’t even mention the now-FBI Director’s equally rabid animus.

Tish James had her exhibit showing how obsessively Trump hates her too; it includes not just tweets, but also speeches, and at 113 pages is almost twice as long as Comey’s exhibit.

But James also focused on the way the Trump Administration, more generally, has been (literally) stalking her, notably in the form of Eagle Ed Martin, as well as Pam Bondi, Stephen Miller, and Bill Pulte (this section is where James includes the Reuters report about firing the FHFA IG to prevent him from sharing information with prosecutors; that footnote and others are at the bottom of this page).

AG Bondi took the President’s mission to heart, and on the first day of her appointment, established DOJ’s “Weaponization Working Group,” with the stated objective to examine “[f]ederal cooperation with the weaponization” by “New York Attorney General Letitia James” to “target President Trump, his family and his businesses,” among other top priorities. 15 Ex. C. The goal was to retaliate against the President’s perceived political enemies, including AG James.

In March, President Trump also issued a Presidential Memorandum, “Rescinding Security Clearances and Access to Classified Information from Specified Individuals,” specifically calling out AG James, claiming “it is no longer in the national interest” for her, along with fourteen of his other perceived political opponents, to have a security clearance or access classified information. Ex. D.

The retribution campaign against AG James had only just begun. Around the same time, another federal agency, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), led by Director William Pulte, was also looking for dirt to use against AG James. By April 14, they had concocted it. Mr. Pulte delivered a criminal referral “[b]ased on media reports” to DOJ against AG James, claiming she had “in multiple instances, falsified bank documents and property records to acquire government backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms.” Ex. F at 1. The criminal referral cherry-picked documents to claim fraud over three properties—one even going back to 1983—none of which was the Peronne Property at issue in the indictment.16 The referral asked DOJ to open a criminal investigation into AG James. See Ex. F at 1. Mr. Pulte also coordinated with Edward Martin—the self-described “captain” of DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group who is President Trump’s close confidante and would later also be named a Special Attorney.17 Reporting even indicates that President Trump had been bypassing his senior DOJ lead regularly telephoning Martin for updates on his work, leaving [DAG Todd] Blanche ‘frustrated and annoyed,’” according to sources.18

Standing outside the White House on the day the referral was released, one of the President’s aides, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, told reporters AG James “is one of the most corrupt, shameless individuals ever to hold public office” and “is guilty of multiple, significant, serial criminal violations” for having “persecute[d] an innocent man,” referring to President Trump.19 President Trump also did not withhold his views about FHFA’s criminal referral to DOJ, attacking AG James directly in several social media posts discussing the referral:

Turns out you can’t have your principal residence in Virginia and be AG of New York. You can’t say your dad’s your husband. Or claim a five-unit is a four. But that’s what Letitia James did—while going after Trump for the same thing. You’ve got to be kidding me

Ex. A. at No. 334;

Letitia James, a totally corrupt politician, should resign from her position as New York State Attorney General, IMMEDIATELY. Everyone is trying to MAKE NEW YORK GREAT AGAIN, and it can never be done with this wacky crook in office.

Id. at No. 333.

On the heels of the referral to DOJ, in May, Mr. Martin admitted that he planned to use his authority to expose and discredit opponents of the President whom he believes to be guilty. 20 He made plain that it did not matter if there were no facts to back up President Trump’s accusations or even if a charge had no merit: “If they can be charged, we’ll charge them. But if they can’t be charged, we will name them. And we will name them, and in a culture that respects shame, there should be people that are shamed.”21 Discussing targets for criminal investigation, Martin stated that the Weaponization Working Group’s prerogative included “Letitia James.”22

And to support this additional prong of animus, James included a second, 12-page exhibit, which includes (among other things), all the creepy pictures Eagle Ed has posted of himself stalking James, including pictures showing him reviewing files with Halligan just before she indicted James or just randomly chatting up someone at FHFA.

It also documents Eagle Ed’s juvenile trolling on Xitter.

It may be an awkward time, for Eagle Ed, to have such a focus on his trollish obsessions.

That’s because he is currently involved in equally pathetic troll campaign targeting a woman that right wing nutjobs have decided must be the Pipe Bomber based off gait analysis — I guess they’ll get around to using phrenology? — and their dislike of how she testified against Guy Reffitt, the first Jan6er to go to trial.

Anna Bower has been spending her weekend documenting how Eagle Ed first posts, then deletes, tweets trying to gin up the frothy mob. In the first such instance, someone — maybe Todd Blanche — made Eagle Ed affirmatively deny the gait-analysis claims as a “fake.”

These tweets show not just that a key cog in the James prosecution — the guy who accepted allegations from Bill Pulte and then ferried them to the woman playacting as US Attorney — is a wild conspiracy theorist happy to magnify any kind of bullshit he gets from frothy right wingers, but also that some babysitter at DOJ knows he is, and is attempting to rein him in.

I’m not sure whether Comey’s more focused approach or James’ wholistic one works better. Given that prosecutors dismissed Comey’s comparators because none had precisely the same role he once did, he certainly has an opportunity to use the opening memo that Tyler Lemons submitted last week which led to these charges to show that the current FBI Director lied his ass off to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he told Mazie Hirono that he had no intention of revisiting history to prosecute Comey.

Senator Hirono (02:18:49):

Do you plan to investigate James Comey, who’s on your list?

Kash Patel (02:18:54):

I have no intentions of going backwards-

The opening memo shows that Kash wasted no time in doing just that — not just chasing the John Durham prosecution predicated of Russian disinformation, but putting Durham’s wildly-conflicted lead investigator in charge, literally finding a lame excuse to revisit the Durham investigation.

The broad or narrow scope may not matter. Indeed, unless the cases get dismissed because Lindsey was just playacting as US Attorney, there’s a non-zero chance these arguments will be appealed through the Fourth Circuit together, which is presumably why Comey had loaded his team with appellate lawyers and scores of people are submitting amicus briefs.

These vindictive and selective prosecution arguments may make new precedent, about whether the President can repurpose the Department of Justice to prioritize jailing his political adversaries.

But Eagle Ed has now made clear that one element of that repurposed DOJ is seizing and stoking baseless conspiracy theories to rile up the base.

15 Ryan Lucas, New attorney general moves to align Justice Department with Trump’s priorities, NPR (Feb. 5, 2025), https://perma.cc/WLU8-FPBL.

16 Mr. Pulte’s conduct demonstrates how far allies of the President would go to carry out his “get James” orders. Public reports indicate that Mr. Pulte “skipped over his agency’s inspector general when making criminal referrals” against President Trump’s political enemies. Reports also indicate he may have bypassed ethics rules in doing so. Marisa Taylor & Chris Prentice, Exclusive: Trump official bypassed ethics rules in criminal referrals of Fed governor and other foes, sources say, Reuters (Oct. 6, 2025), https://perma.cc/HK6Y-LJVR. The FHFA has no generalized crimefighting or anti-fraud authority. It does not even have an express authority to make criminal referrals besides those granted to the FHFA’s Inspector General under the Inspector General Act of 1978. In addition to violations of the act itself, Mr. Pulte may have failed to comply with the FHFA’s own Privacy Act regulations, which require FHFA to “ensure” that records containing personally identifiable information are “protected from public view.” Domenic Powell, Are Pulte’s “Mortgage Fraud” Investigations Legal?, Yale J. Reg.: Notice and Comment (Nov. 1, 2025), https://perma.cc/2U6G-S46X.

17 Alan Feuer et al., Trump Demands That Bondi Move ‘Now’ to Prosecute Foes, N.Y. Times (Sept. 20, 2025), https://perma.cc/FC9R-U8TK.

18 Andrew Feinberg, Trump ally probing rivals’ ‘mortgage fraud’ speaks directly with the president – and skips typical DOJ hierarchy, The Independent (Aug. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/4LXUUUAC.

19 Statement of Stephen Miller, White House Homeland Security Adviser and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, to Reporters outside the White House (Apr. 18, 2025), https://perma.cc/9X5GX7YB (emphasis added).

20 U.S. Attorney Ed Martin Holds News Conference, C-SPAN (May 13, 2025), https://www.cspan.org/program/news-conference/us-attorney-ed-martin-holds-news-conference/659817.

Share this entry

The IG Firing that May Matter: FHFA

/9 Comments/in /by

Yesterday, Reuters reported that the Inspector General for FHFA, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, got fired by the White House yesterday.

The ouster of Joe Allen, FHFA’s acting inspector general, follows the agency’s director, Bill Pulte, becoming an outspoken voice in support of the Trump administration. Across the government, the Trump administration has so far fired or reassigned close to two dozen agency watchdogs, who police waste, fraud and abuse. It has also defunded the group that supervises those offices.

The report attracted little notice; Reuters even notes that this is just one among dozens of IG firings. But this firing may blow up sooner rather than later.

That’s because Allen was preparing to share information with EDVA prosecutors.

Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia who was hand-picked for the job by Trump, subsequently indicted James after her predecessor declined to do so, citing a lack of evidence.

Allen received notice of his termination from the White House after he made efforts to provide key information to prosecutors in that office, according to four sources. The information he turned over was constitutionally required, two of them said, while a third described it as being potentially relevant in discovery.

His ouster also came about as he was preparing to send a letter to Congress notifying lawmakers that the FHFA was not cooperating with the inspector general’s office, three of the sources said. These individuals said the FHFA director would typically have been notified of such a letter. Reuters was unable to independently determine whether Pulte was informed.

By the end of the day, the Loaner AUSA in the Letitia James case had submitted a letter stating they would not comply with Judge Jamar Walker’s order, issued during the arraignment, that they turn over evidence on selective and vindictive prosecution.

A grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Defendant on October 9, 2025. Doc. 1. Defendant’s Initial Appearance and Arraignment occurred on October 24, 2025. Doc. 24. At that hearing, the Court ordered Defendant to file her motion to dismiss based on vindicative/selective prosecution by November 7, 2025. Hear’g Tr., 23:18-20. It also indicated its expectation “that the discovery associated with this potential first motion needs to be frontloaded . . . .” Id. at 23:14-16. Consistent with this Court’s instruction, the Government provided newspaper articles to Defendant’s counsel. Defendant’s counsel also indicated that he intends to request substantial discovery from the Government.

The Government provides notice of its intent not to provide vindictive/selective prosecution-related discovery prior to Defendant’s motion because the law does not “allow[ ] a defendant to have discovery on the government’s prosecutorial decisions [until] the defendant . . . overcome[s] a significant barrier by advancing objective evidence tending to show the existence of prosecutorial misconduct. The standard is a ‘rigorous’ one.” Wilson, 262 F.3d at 315 (quoting Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 468). Until Defendant meets her threshold requirements, the Court’s instruction to produce any vindictive/selective prosecution-related discovery is premature.

The letter specifically describes that Rule 16 discovery does not include internal government reports made by government agents in connection with the case — something that would be covered by any review that FHFA’s IG did of this and other Bill Pulte referrals.

FED. R. CRIM. P. 16(a)(2) underscores the limitation to “defense” as it “exempts from defense inspection ‘reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents made by the attorney for the government or other government agents in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case.’”

The filing is not dissimilar from a letter prosecutors sent in the LaMonica McIver case, telling McIver’s attorneys they would not abide by Judge Jamel Semper’s August 26 order to meet and confer about selective and vindictive evidence.

The Government has reviewed your letter of September 3, 2025 detailing the specific discovery requests sought in conjunction with your client’s motion to dismiss based on selective prosecution and enforcement, and vindictive prosecution. As we discussed during our Zoom call yesterday, we believe that the discovery sought in your September 3rd letter is not covered by Rule 16. Discovery in support of selective prosecution and selective enforcement claims is not provided as a matter of right, and we do not believe your client has satisfied the applicable threshold evidentiary showings required by Amstrong/Bass and Washington to compel discovery. We therefore believe that Judge Semper should first rule on your client’s motion for discovery, which we will oppose, and we will revisit the discovery demands outlined in your letter should the Court grant her request.

And while Semper ruled that prosecutors have to provide McIver the communications from Delaney Hall to her, they otherwise appear to have gotten away with this stance.

But two things may lead to a different outcome here.

First, by firing Allen, the White House has made the firing itself an issue, not unlike the Erez Reuveni firing did in the Kilmar Abrego case. At the very least, this news report will add to the bases to claim vindictive prosecution.

But also because Attorney General James shares an attorney, Abbe Lowell, with Lisa Cook. No one has charged Lisa Cook yet — maybe they never will; but nevertheless she has a date at the Supreme Court in January. And that may have the effect of putting several issues before the Court at once (the lawsuit by a bunch of Inspectors General fired at the beginning of Trump’s term is stayed pending all these other cases).

None of that’s to say that SCOTUS will reverse course on letting presidents (or at least this one) fire everyone put in place to exercise some oversight.

Share this entry

Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s Disappearing Agreement to a Litigation Hold

/38 Comments/in , /by

I was disappointed, in the way we here in the peanut gallery sometimes are, that Tish James had to specifically rebut the silly things that Lindsey Halligan’s loaner AUSA, Roger Keller, claimed to try to excuse Lindsey’s stalking of Anna Bower.

Attorney General James’ original request asked Judge Jamal Walker to order the government to do three things:

  1. Abstain from further extrajudicial statements like Lindsey’s Signal stalking of Bower
  2. Follow rules and laws requiring prosecutors (and Federal employees generally) to retain their communications
  3. Create and maintain a log of all contact between any government attorney or agent on this case and any member of the news media

As Lawfare’s excellent trial dispatch from Molly Roberts described, when initially presented with this question, loaner AUSA Keller — “a civil litigation lawyer by training,” Roberts helpfully noted — got hung up on a contact log tracking not just with the reporters Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer spoke to, but also with whom others (this is implicit, but let me make it more obvious) like Eagle Ed Martin did.

Keller responded to this request, that prosecutors follow the rules, by demanding that the defense follow the same rules … which is not how it works, both Abbe Lowell and Judge Walker reportedly responded.

The next motion invites a bit more controversy, or at least confusion. James also filed a motion prior to the arraignment asking the court to order the government to follow rules preventing disclosure of investigative and case materials, as well as to refrain from extrajudicial statements concerning the case to the press and public. This motion was prompted in part by an Oct. 20 article published inLawfare by my colleague, Senior Editor Anna Bower, detailing texts sent to her by Halligan in which Halligan criticizes Bower’s tweets about New York Times coverage of grand jury testimony in the case.

This violated, the filing says, Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It argues that the exchange with Bower and the other instances of apparent disclosure it describes—including pre-indictment reports that prosecutors intended to bring charges—also violate various rules, regulations, and ethical obligations. The motion doesn’t ask for a finding to that effect, only for an order to prevent such conduct in the future.

The judge, mentioning only “a journalist” and “an article published,” notes these oddities of the filing. Anyone hoping for a television-ready showdown in which the defense demands the prosecution be held in contempt is quickly disappointed: Judge Walker has interpreted the filing correctly, confirms Lowell.

The judge determines that leaves the prosecution three options: oppose the motion in its entirety; don’t oppose it at all; or oppose the proposed relief. The Eastern District prosecutors would have to preserve all documents relevant to the trial (a litigation hold) as well as create a log of all contact between its attorneys or agents and the media. The litigation hold doesn’t bother Keller. But he expresses reservations about the log, mentioning that “the defendant is also active on the Internet.” Specifically, he takes issue with her tweeting that she is innocent.

The judge, understandably, appears perplexed. He remarks that it’s unclear what Keller is asking. And it is: A public tweet from James in which she says “I am not fearful, I am fearless” has little to do with contact between her attorneys and the media. The misunderstanding only becomes greater when Keller elaborates that any log requirement for the government should also be a requirement for the defendant, and should cover “statements of innocence before the press.”

Does he mean that James should have to keep a record of any proclamations of her intention to fight the charges against her? Or does he mean she shouldn’t be allowed to make them at all?

Keller seems to be suggesting that the restrictions on the defendant’s public speech should mirror those placed on the prosecution. But this is not how these things work. Prosecutors have unique obligations not placed on defendants, who have First Amendment rights to protest their innocence.

Judge Walker delicately instructs Keller—a civil litigation lawyer by training, as it turns out—to take some time to think about the matter and get back to him. Lowell, for his part, declares that the rules to which government lawyers are held aren’t the same ones that apply to a defendant.

“The court certainly understands the requirements,” responds the judge. It is a little less certain that the prosecutor does. [my emphasis]

Now, when I first read Roberts’ dispatch, I honestly thought Keller’s confusion stemmed from that detail, “a civil litigation lawyer by training.” He just doesn’t know what he’s doing.

But when I started writing an abandoned post on his response, I came to believe he — like Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer — is mostly performing for a one man audience. To understand why I think that, check out how loaner AUSA Keller spends a 17¶¶ response:

  1. Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer and loaner AUSA Keller ask that Walker not impose unilateral requirements to preserve all communications and keep a log [my emphasis]
  2. Background: a grand jury indicted the Defendant
  3. Walker should not impose unilateral requirements to preserve all communications and keep a log and also, US v. Trump! (citing the DC Circuit opinion partly upholding the gag on Trump), because Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer had to protect her client [my emphasis]
  4. Here’s a citation that’s totally inapt but which will allow me to argue Tish James has to shut her yap
  5. If the government has to “preserve all communications with any media person” and also keep a log of those contacts, “the unstated threat that she – at some future point in time – may engage in a ‘gotcha’ game where she brings a sanctions motion” may “chill all Government/media interaction” [my bold, italics original]
  6. “There is no Court-imposed requirement that the Government preserves the records,” but can you imagine if a log of all communications means “all communications”?
  7. If we have to follow the rules, Tish James has to follow rules for prosecutors too (citing US v Trump again)
  8. “Defendant’s right to a fair trial does not give [her] the right to insist upon the opposite of that right – that is a trial prejudiced in [her] favor,” citing US v. Trump again
  9. Because she’s a lawyer, Attorney General James has to adhere to NY rules of professional conduct even if Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer refuses to adhere to any rules of professional conduct
  10. After her arraignment, James said she “will not bow” and there have to be rules against that!
  11. Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer covertly bullying a journalist on disappearing messages is nowhere near as bad as Tish James saying “I will not bow” on a telly that Donald Trump can see!
  12. Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer was just protecting her client — which client I will decline to name — “from substantial undue prejudice”
  13. Grand jury secrecy is no big deal
  14. Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer didn’t explicitly reveal what went on in the grand jury
  15. Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer was merely — and heroically — “protect[ing] her client from unfair prejudice resulting from reporting half-truths”
  16. I’m going to distract from the way Bower caught Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer pretending “thousand(s)” of dollars was not just two thousand
  17. You should tell Tish to shut her yap!

I admit, the first time I read this filing, I read in terms of obvious bullshit to rebut, like I imagine lawyers do.

But when you lay it out like this, paragraph by paragraph, the pressing question becomes whether these people — not just Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer, Donald Trump’s defense attorney, but also loaner AUSA Keller — think Donald Trump, and not the US of A, are their client, a client demanding that his minions ensure that Tish James doesn’t become a rock star because of this prosecution.

Because otherwise, why demand that Tish James bow down? Why cite US v. Trump so prominently?

James addressed both these questions. She asked, Who exactly do these people think their client is?

Third, the government’s assertion that Ms. Halligan was only trying to protect “her client” raises the question of who she believes “her client” to be. Her “client” is neither the President, nor the Attorney General, nor the Administration, nor even her Office. It is the United States, as the case caption makes clear, and “[t]he United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts.”2 The point remains true regardless of whether the outcome is the one that the government favors. “Justice is done” when its “citizens in the courts” receive a fair trial. And in any event, a defendant’s fair trial rights decidedly trump any so-called “unfair prejudice” to the government’s case from public reporting. Courts have held that extrajudicial statements and comments by attorneys may be restricted to protect a defendant’s fair trial rights and the integrity of judicial proceedings—which override any desire by government prosecutors to “attempt to protect [Ms. Halligan’s] client from unfair prejudice.” Opp. at 6. See, e.g., Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 361 (1966); Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1066 (1991).

2 DOJ, Remarks as Delivered by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-deliversremarks-office-access-justices-gideon (Mar. 17, 2023).

The insistence that “fair trial rights decidedly trump any so-called ‘unfair prejudice'” is, I hope, an intentional double entendre.

James’ citation for the quote, “[t]he United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts,” is more subtle. The footnote cites this speech by Merrick Garland, a tribute to public defenders and defense attorneys generally, in which he emphasized the import of rule of law.

It reaffirmed that the law protects all of us – the poor as well as the rich, the powerless as well as the powerful.

In so doing, it reaffirmed this country’s commitment to the Rule of Law.

And trust in the Rule of Law is what holds American democracy together.

But the words, “[t]he United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts,” are not Garland’s words (though that was not the only speech where he used them). They were spoken by Willliam Taft’s Solicitor General, Frederick Lehmann, and they are inscribed on the building at DOJ. Judge Walker (a former AUSA) will presumably recognize that; Keller the loaner AUSA should: but Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer may see only a citation to Garland and worry about her boss — her client — again.

Then there’s James’s treatment of Keller the loaner AUSA’s inapt reliance on US v. Trump. She uses that to recall Trump’s misconduct as a defendant, something she knows well.

The government’s reliance on United States v. Trump, 88 F.4th 990 (D.C. Cir. 2023)—a case affirming a limited gag order placed on then-defendant Donald Trump in response to his public statements threatening witnesses, participants, and the judiciary during litigation—to defend Ms. Halligan’s interactions with the reporter is entirely misguided. Opp. at 3–4. Trump is relevant only to the extent that it proves the relative strength of a criminal defendant’s First Amendment rights and the extraordinary circumstances required to justify any burden on such rights. See id. (“[A] criminal defendant—who is presumed to be innocent—may very well have a greater constitutional claim than other trial participants to criticize and speak out against the prosecution and the criminal trial process that seek to take away his liberty.”). The Trump court set out facts justifying the order in vigorous detail, including a timeline of President Trump’s extensive attacks on witnesses, court officials, judges, law clerks, and other government personnel. See id. at 1010. It also catalogued the violent and threatening responses resulting from President Trump’s statements. See id. at 1011.

Even under those extraordinary circumstances, the court still found that “Mr. Trump [was] free to make statements criticizing the current administration, the Department of Justice, and the Special Counsel, as well as statements that this prosecution is politically motivated or that he [was] innocent of the charges against him.” Id. at 1028. Attorney General James’ speech, including following her initial appearance, cannot be reasonably compared to the statements that led to the United States v. Trump gag order, and regardless, would have been outside of its reach.

And James invoked Trump’s “almost weekly … disparaging comments against her” to suggest the government won’t win a war of the lesser wrong.

The comparison that the government now offers is to a public statement by a defendant who has faced almost weekly assertions by the President, or those carrying out his bidding, calling for her prosecution and conviction or making other disparaging comments against her. The government’s argument appears to be that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” But the defendant has not contravened the cited rules; the government has. The relief requested in the Motion is intended only to ensure that does not happen again and that, if it does, the government does not delete the evidence of its wrongdoing. That relief should be unobjectionable to the government.

The James prosecution is not functionally necessary for Donald Trump’s witch hunt — it is discrete punishment for someone who humiliated Donald Trump by treating him as a garden variety fraudster. That may be why Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer only got one loaner AUSA for this case, as compared to two overt ones for the Comey case (plus at least one more guy writing the filings), which is one part of the larger project. So maybe this is all about the posturing, an attempt to ensure that nothing about this prosecution backfires on the “client.”

But the focus on Trump — the need to respond to the totally inapt reliance on US v. Tump — distracted from something potentially more important.

Go back to bullet 5 again. Here’s that full quote:

Essentially, Defendant attempts to chill all Government/media interaction with the unstated threat that she – at some future point in time – may engage in a “gotcha” game where she brings a sanctions motion because the Government inadvertently failed to maintain a document or include a contact in its log.

This is an astonishing statement, one James addresses this way:

The opposition’s hyperbolic claim that the Motion seeks something like a gag order, Opp. at 3, fares no better. Government counsel and their agents have an ongoing obligation to refrain from certain types of extrajudicial statements and disclosures that may jeopardize a fair trial in this case. James Mot. at Sec. I. The defense is not asking the Court to “chill” all the government’s interaction with the media; it concedes that many statements that “a reasonable person would expect to be further disseminated by any means of public communications” are permissible.1 James Mot. at 9 (quoting Loc. Crim. R. 57.1(C)). Rather, the defense is seeking the Court’s assistance in assuring that the government adheres to the rules it has set for itself.

1 Another red herring, based on nothing in the Motion, is the government’s suggestion that Attorney General James is “attempt[ing] to chill all Government/media interaction” to later play “a ‘gotcha’ game” over the government’s failure to maintain a document or include a contact in its log. Opp. at 3. Following long-standing rules on extrajudicial statements is not “gotcha,” it is basic to the government’s obligation to protect fair trials.

These are prosecutors, wailing about being asked to retain documents! The government complains about being asked to preserve documents five times, plus the requirement that it maintain documents in its chill comment. And loaner AUSA Keller makes those complaints after having agreed to a litigation hold at the arraignment, something James notes in the first paragraph.

[A]s government counsel acknowledged at the October 24, 2025, initial appearance and arraignment, the government agreed to comply with the litigation hold request made in the Motion to prevent any further deletions and to preserve any other extrajudicial communications that may have been made.

Loaner AUSA Keller outright states that it would “chill” … something if prosecutors are asked to retain all their documents, something that normal prosecutors do as a matter of course, at least until a matter is concluded. This is like Trump demanding that he get to wipe every phone involved in this prosecution on a daily basis, after spending years misrepresenting what happened after Mueller team members left that team.

It’s not a “gotcha” if, as a prosecutor, you start deleting documents willy nilly. It is a real violation. It should be. Especially in a case like this one where the President accidentally issues orders on his social media site intended to be private. Is there a whole stash of Truth Social DMs about this case that have been deleted?

So I get the point of replying to the issues loaner AUSA Keller raised, including the inapt nod to the indignities that Donald Trump suffered after he got indicted and then threatened to kill witnesses (including the witness he almost got killed on January 6).

But that repeated complaint about merely retaining all your communications, particularly coming after already orally agreeing to do so, has me wondering if something much bigger than Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s stalking problem is going on.

Update: Judge Walker has issued the litigation hold but not required prosecutors to log their contact with journalists. He even extended his admonition on complying with Local Rules to James’ legal team as well as prosecutors.

The Court also ORDERS all counsel to comply with Local Rule 57.1, whichprohibits any “lawyer, law firm, or law enforcement personnel associated with the prosecution or defense” from making or authorizing4 certain extrajudicial statements, including offering “[a]ny opinion as to the accused’s guilt or innocence or as to the merits of the case or the evidence in the case,” subject to their professional obligations. E.D. Va. Crim. R. 57.1(C)(6). Any “lawyer who is participating . . . in the . . . litigation of [this] matter” may also have an ethical duty to refrain from making extrajudicial statements that pose a risk of prejudicing the proceeding. See ABA Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.6 (2023).5

The footnotes to this passage decline to extend the local rules to Tish James herself, but does extend them to anything her attorneys advise her to say.

3 In its opposition to the motion, the government argues that the alleged statements regarding the grand jury proceedings do not “rise to the same level” as the defendant’s public statements proclaiming her innocence. ECF No. 30 at 5. The Court does not believe a comparison of the defendant’s public statements and the government’s interactions with the media does much to resolve any question presented here.

4 The parties do not discuss this point in their briefing, but the Court observes that the Local Rules’ prohibition on ‘authorizing’ extrajudicial statements would appear to apply to public statements a defendant might make with the advice of counsel—though Rule 57.1 binds only the lawyer, not the defendant.

5 The government argues that the defendant herself is subject to certain restrictions on her communication with the media because she is a “lawyer.” ECF No. 30 at 4 (quoting E.D. Va. Crim. R. 57.1(C)). But the Court finds that “lawyer” within the meaning of the Local Rules refers to a person practicing law in this district, not to any individual with a juris doctor degree or a bar license. Accordingly, this Order does not extend to the defendant’s speech as a defendant. But see supra n.2.

And he cites US v. Trump back at loaner AUSA Keller (making several copy and paste errors in the process) for the principle that defendants have more right to speak than the attorneys on the case.

At this stage of the litigation, the Court does not find that a restriction on the defendant’s own speech is necessary to ensure a fair trial for both sides. The Court certainly has the power to “control the speech and conduct even of defendants in criminal trials when necessary to protect the criminal justice process,” United States v. Trump, 88 F.4th 990, 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (citing Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. 539, 553–54 (1976)). But so far, the government has not demonstrated that the defendant’s speech has risen to the level that it must be dampened in spite of her First Amendment rights in order to preserve a just legal process. See id. at 1008 (recognizing that “a criminal defendant—who is presumed to be innocent—may very well have a greater constitutional claim than other trial participants to criticize and speak out against [t]he prosecution and the [criminal] trial process . . . .”).

One of the funniest part of Judge Walker’s opinion his how he refers to Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s unlawful role.

The motion criticizes alleged communications between a government attorney1and a member of the media via the encrypted messaging app Signal.

1 The status of the government attorney who made the alleged statements is the subject of a motion pending before the Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie. ECF No. 22. Thus, the Court will avoid referencing the role of the attorney in this case. Additionally, this Court generally does not refer to government attorneys by name. It will not depart from that practice here

Share this entry

“The Indictment Signer:” Lindsey Halligan’s Time in the Grand Jury

/55 Comments/in /by

The loaner AUSA in the Tish James case, Roger Keller, has responded to Attorney General James’ request that they be ordered to follow the rules (he even authored his own document, unlike the Comey loaner AUSAs). I’ll come back to it but it is … inadequate to the task, though it cites liberally and faithlessly from the DC Circuit opinion upholding part of the gag on criminal defendant Donald Trump.

In any case, that may be far less important a development than the order that Judge Cameron McGowen Currie gave in both the James and Comey cases.

As happened with the other challenges to Trump’s unlawfully appointed US Attorneys, Currie (a senior judge from another District within the same Circuit) was appointed by Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Albert Diaz to preside over the challenge to Lindsey Halligan’s appointment. While Comey included Halligan’s appointment paperwork in his challenge, James (who filed hers before she got any discovery) did not.

In any case, Currie wants more. She ordered DOJ to file, “all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts.”

The undersigned has been appointed to hear this motion and finds it necessary to determine the extent of the indictment signer’s involvement in the grand jury proceedings. Accordingly, the Government is directed to submit, no later than Monday, November 3, 2025, at 5:00 pm, for in camera review, all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts. In camera review is appropriate given the secrecy requirements applicable to grand jury proceedings. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2).

Currie may need these simply to understand what the remedy would be if she ruled for Comey and James. As far as we know (and as news reports cited in both motions claim), unlike other challenges to Trump’s unlawful US Attorney appointments, Halligan was the only one present for the presentment, meaning if her appointment is unlawful, the indictments have to go away. Both Comey and James are arguing for dismissal with prejudice, though the argument is less compelling in James’ case (because unlike Comey, the statute of limitations did not expire). So Currie needs to understand how much of the case relies on Halligan’s presence.

Whatever Currie’s goal, reviewing these transcripts will likely to be exceedingly damning for Halligan, whom Currie refers to not as the “interim US Attorney” or even (as James referred to her) as the “purported interim US Attorney,” but as the “indictment signer.”

After all, they will show that Dan Richman gave testimony that debunked the very premise of the indictment against Comey; such a review may show that Halligan simply neglected to share that transcript with grand jurors. More damning still, it’ll reveal the testimony of James’ great-niece, Nakia Thompson, describing that she has paid almost nothing in rent since she lived in the home James bought for her in 2020, undercutting the entire claim that Attorney General James was intending to use the house as an investment property. It’ll reveal that Halligan got an Alexandria grand jury to indict James, bypassing those grand jurors in Norfolk who had heard Thompson’s testimony.

But Judge Currie may find something else Comey argued compelling: that because Halligan was not lawfully authorized to be US Attorney, Halligan’s mere presence in the grand jury was a violation of grand jury secrecy.

Here, Ms. Halligan’s unlawful appointment tainted the structural integrity of the grand jury process. Absent Ms. Halligan’s unlawful title, she would not have been able to enter the grand jury room, let alone present and sign an indictment. Indeed, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow only “attorneys for the government” to be “present while the grand jury is in session,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(d)(1), and define such attorneys to include only “attorney[s] authorized by law to conduct” grand jury proceedings, Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(b)(1)(D) (emphasis added). Those rules implement the longstanding principle “that the proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings”—a principle that “is ‘as important for the protection of the innocent as for the pursuit of the guilty.’” United States v. Sells Eng’g, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 424 (1983) (citations omitted). By limiting participation to government attorneys “authorized by law,” Rules 1 and 6 maintain the secrecy of the grand jury proceeding and reinforce that an unlawfully appointed attorney’s presentation to the grand jury undermines the structure of that proceeding. The fundamental error here thus allows a presumption that Mr. Comey was prejudiced, “and any inquiry into harmless error would [require] unguided speculation.” Bank of Nova Scotia, 487 U.S. at 257.

Judge Currie may have very modest reasons for requesting these transcripts. But they will, almost inevitably, raise larger questions about both Halligan’s conduct, and that of the people who appointed her.

Share this entry

A Tale of Three Footnotes for “Purported Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan”

/33 Comments/in /by

I suppose I should not have doubted that Abbe Lowell would file a request for relief based on Lindsey Halligan’s stalking of Anna Bower.

I mean, I didn’t doubt it.

But I was impatient. I should also have considered the optimal timing for Lowell to do that: the evening before the arraignment.

What a way for Lindsey Halligan to start out on the wrong foot with Judge Jamar Walker, with both the request to make Lindsey follow the rules on public comment and notice that Attorney General James (as Lowell refers to his client throughout) intends to move — tomorrow — to disqualify Lindsey on a schedule that will coincide with Jim Comey’s parallel attempt.

The request itself makes ample use of the opening Lindsey gave James to mock her inexperience. It refers to her as the “purported interim US Attorney” (or similar) five times.

Although the government sought and filed the indictment in this case on October 9, 2025—signed only by purported interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—articles issued before the charges were filed indicated that charges would be brought.

What precipitates this motion now is a digital messaging exchange that occurred after the government brought charges, between purported interim U.S. Attorney Halligan and Anna Bower, a senior journalist for Lawfare, published on Monday, October 20, 2025.

[snip]

After confirming Ms. Halligan’s identity, Ms. Bower asked the purported interim U.S. Attorney what she was “getting wrong,” and Ms. Halligan replied: “Honestly, so much. I can’t tell you everything but your reporting in particular is just way off. I had to let you know.”

[snip]

These extrajudicial statements and prejudicial disclosures by any prosecutor, let alone one purporting to be the U.S. Attorney, run afoul of and violate the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Code of Federal Regulations, this Court’s Local Rules, various rules of ethical and professional responsibility, and DOJ’s Justice Manual.

[snip]

Ms. Halligan’s initiation of contact, and then repeated exchanges, with the journalist—a mere two days after filing charges—appear to have violated several of the above-cited rules and codes of professional conduct. As the purported chief law enforcement officer for this District, as well as the individual who alone presented evidence to the grand jury in Alexandria and signed the two-count indictment of Attorney General James, 12 Ms. Halligan should know that she is prohibited by the federal, local, and Department rules governing extrajudicial statements and media contacts from engaging with a journalist about the substance and merits of a charged criminal case and the purported strength of the evidence put before a grand jury. [my emphasis]

It describes how even someone with absolutely no prosecutorial experience like Lindsey should know basic rules.

No prosecutor is exempt from following those rules, but they should be followed to the letter by anyone trying to lead a prosecutor’s office. Rather than follow DOJ’s rules protecting non-public, sensitive information obtained in connection with a criminal case and investigation from disclosure, Ms. Halligan opted to use an encrypted app to text with a journalist and discuss the case, certain evidence, and her views on the strength of the charges brought, while ignoring any concerns of prejudice to the defendant, a fair trial, and rules against extrajudicial statements and pretrial publicity.

It has been reported that Ms. Halligan has no prosecutorial experience whatsoever. But all federal prosecutors are required to know and follow the rules governing their conduct from their first day on the job, and so any lack of experience cannot excuse their violation. While the oftquoted phrase “the bell cannot be unrung” is true for that which has already occurred, the Court can require the government to follow the law going forward by entering Attorney General James’ requested Order and preventing further disclosures of investigative and case materials, and of statements to the media and public, concerning this case and any parties or witnesses.

It lists the many rules Lindsey broke:

  • Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)
  • 28 C.F.R. § 50.2
  • A variety of local rules, starting with Local Criminal Rule 57.1, Free Press – Fair Trial Directives
  • American Bar Associations Model Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
  • Various parts of the Justice Manual, starting with Justice Manual (JM) 1-7.100

And then there are three footnotes which, as footnotes often do, have the meat of the argument.

Though the body of the motion does not mention Federal Records Act, Footnote 11 notes that Attorney General James will pursue the apparent violation of 44 U.S.C. § 2911 (violations of which require disciplinary action) “with the appropriate offices.”

11 In addition to apparently violating the rules addressed in this section, Ms. Halligan admitted in her exchanges with the journalist to a likely violation of the federal records laws and rules around using unapproved electronic messaging accounts. See 44 U.S.C. § 2911 (restricting officer or employee of an executive agency from sending messages using a non-official electronic messaging account). Ms. Halligan acknowledged she was using an unofficial messaging application, Signal, with its “disappearing messages” feature enabled and set to automatically delete after eight hours. Trying to delete the paper trail of improper communications does not mean they did not occur. For this reason, Attorney General James also asks the Court to order government attorneys and agents involved in this case to follow relevant laws around records retention, and to impose a litigation hold preventing the deletion or destruction of any records or communications having anything to do with the investigation and prosecution of this case. Attorney General James will pursue this apparent violation of the law with the appropriate offices.

As for the grand jury secrecy violations, Footnote 5 notes that a court can prosecute or hold someone in contempt for violating grand jury secrecy.

5 The government can and does prosecute knowing violations of Rule 6(e) pursuant to district courts’ contempt powers under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3), as well as pursuant to multiple felony criminal statutes. See Justice Manual, CRM 156 (observing that disclosure of “grand jury material with the intent to obstruct an ongoing investigation . . . may be prosecuted for obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503,” and that an individual who “improperly disseminates grand jury materials may be prosecuted for the theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641”) (collecting cases).

But, Footnote 6 describes, Attorney General James is not asking for that kind of relief — that is, prosecution.

6 Attorney General James is not at this time formally moving for relief pursuant to FRCrP 6(e).

At least, “not at this time.”

And honestly, Lindsey may not be the real target here. One of the things Lowell requests is a log of all contact between “any government attorney or agent on this case and any member of the news media” on this case.

3. Directing government counsel to create and maintain a log of all contact between any government attorney or agent on this case and any member of the news media or press concerning this case.

Lindsey hasn’t been doing the bulk of that. Eagle Ed Martin has.

And because Lindsey blabbed her mouth, Eagle Ed may, as a result, have to catalog all the times he has leaked about this case.

Share this entry

Eagle Ed Martin and George Santos Just Proved Tish James’ Vindictive Prosecution Claim

/19 Comments/in /by

Donald Trump’s weaponization of government against his adversaries is a catastrophic assault on rule of law.

But in those efforts, he continues to do things that may backfire. I’ve noted repeatedly how poorly he chooses the political martyrs he creates. Just the other day, for example, Tish James got rock star treatment when she introduced and endorsed Zohran Mamdani.

In addition, Trump is conducting his vengeance tour in such a ham-handed fashion that that one after another after another after another after another after another after another prosecutor quit or resigned to much notice. Each will be available as witness to the politicization of DOJ.

Aside from LaMonica McIver (whose arrest the chattering class seem to have forgotten), Trump bolloxed the timing — the sequencing of his attacks — as well.

He indicted the well-lawyered Jim Comey, thus far the shoddiest case, first, and did so in EDVA’s rocket docket. That means that those who follow will benefit from the work — and possibly even precedents — Comey obtains. By the time Attorney General James is arraigned on October 24, for example, both Comey’s motion to disqualify Lindsey Halligan and his motion for selective and vindictive prosecution will be public.

And yesterday, with Trump’s commutation of George Santos’ prison sentence, he botched the timing again.

Trump’s clemency has already featured in motions for selective and vindictive prosecution. Both McIver and Sean Dunn (the sandwich guy) have invoked the Jan6ers that Trump pardoned as people who viciously assaulted cops but were freed. But in McIver’s case, as I laid out here, the government claimed — partly by placing an auto-pen in Trump’s hand — that prosecutors who dismissed the pending cases were left with no discretion after Trump issued his order.

McIver’s claim faces a threshold, insurmountable defect: the January 6 Defendants cannot be considered similarly situated because they all were pardoned. As a consequence, their ongoing prosecutions had to be dismissed without regard to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and they could not be prosecuted for January 6th related crimes thereafter. Because a similarly situated individual is someone that “could have been prosecuted for the offenses for which [the defendant was] charged, but were not prosecuted,” and the January 6 Defendants on their face do not meet those basic criteria, McIver’s motion must fail. See Hedaithy, 392 F.3d at 607 (quoting Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 470); see also Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 469.

But in Tish James’ case, the guy most responsible for her charges — the guy who has been literally stalking her in a dirty old man trench coat — also happens to be the guy who exercised discretion in the commutation of George Santos. Indeed, Eagle Ed Martin, who in addition to serving as Trump’s weaponization czar, also serves as Pardon Attorney, boasted of his role in the commutation.

To be sure, the kinds of fraud with which Eagle Ed charged Tish James are different than the kinds to which Santos pled guilty. Eagle Ed and Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer are effectively attempting to criminalize James’ generosity, her provision of a $137,000 home to her great niece. Even if she did what is alleged (and all the evidence suggests she did not), any benefit to James herself would be less than $19,000.

Meanwhile, Santos defrauded identified victims — some of them vulnerable seniors — of almost $375,000, along with $200,000 in ill-gotten gains himself. The victims include:

  • The Republican Party (which matched funds Santos hadn’t earned)
  • Donors whose credit cards he defrauded
  • Redstone Strategies investors
  • New York State’s Unemployment Insurance
  • Congress

Whereas Trump claims that the fraud for which James prosecuted him had no victims, because the banks ultimately got paid back (true of the loans James obtained as well), Santos’ crimes had a number of real victims, victims who have not yet been made whole.

And Donald Trump made no secret why he sprung Santos from prison: in crafting a false comparison with Richard Blumenthal, Trump declared that, “at least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

Alleged Democratic fraudsters get charges whereas far more dangerous Republican fraudsters win a Get Out of Jail Free card. It couldn’t be more clear.

It’s certainly possible that, if James used Santos as a comparator (along with other Republicans, like Ken Paxton, who haven’t been charged), DOJ would claim Trump may not have known about the various kinds of financial fraud Santos engaged in.

But if he doesn’t know that, it’s the fault of the Pardon Attorney.

The guy in the dirty old man trench coat, who has been stalking New York’s Attorney General all the while.

DOJ might claim that they can’t share any details of Santos’ commutation.

Too late!

In DOJ’s response to McIver, they already exhibited a willingness to share details of the treatment of specific pardons.

10 On September 2, 2025, the undersigned Assistant U.S. Attorneys spoke with the Deputy Pardon Attorney from the Office of the Pardon Attorney who confirmed that: (i) the January 6 Defendants with then-pending cases received pardons under the Pardon and were eligible to receive certificates of pardon, and (ii) that any January 6 Defendant was still considered pardoned even if a certificate of pardon was not requested. Additionally, the Deputy Pardon Attorney provided examples of certificates of pardon issued for January 6 Defendants with previously pending cases who requested a certificate.

I’m sure it seemed very clever, putting Eagle Ed in charge of both hunting Trump’s enemies and freeing his friends. But in this particular case it might get tricky.

At the very same time Eagle Ed was stalking Tish James up and down the Eastern Seaboard, desperately trying to find some crime to charge her with, he was also busy finding a way to free a much bigger, confessed fraudster from prison.

Share this entry

Judge Mark Scarsi’s Umbrage: Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night

/43 Comments/in , , /by

I think that Hunter Biden’s two prosecutions are gone. After he submitted notice of a pardon and David Weiss’ prosecutors complained, Judge Maryellen Noreika issued an order terminating all proceedings.

ORAL ORDER: Having reviewed the parties’ submissions (D.I. 272, 274, 276 ) and in the absence of binding precedent and whereas pursuant to the Executive Grant of Clemency signed by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on December 1, 2024, Defendant Robert Hunter Biden has been pardoned for, inter alia, the offenses for which a jury rendered a verdict in this case (D.I. 275 ), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are hereby terminated. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 12/3/2024.

Judge Mark Scarsi … did something else. He issued a blistering opinion suggesting Hunter’s pardon was partly defective (because the President issued the pardon through the day he issued it, suggesting it attempted to grant four hours of prospective immunity), but that he would terminate the case once someone from the Executive Branch gave him a certified copy of the pardon. Mostly, though, Scarsi accused President Biden of impugning him personally and rewriting history by claiming that Hunter was prosecuted only because he was Joe’s son.

According to the President, “[n]o reasonable person who looks at the facts of [Mr. Biden’s] cases can reach any other conclusion than [Mr. Biden] was singled out only because he is [the President’s] son.” But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the President. (Order on Mots. to Dismiss 32–55); Mem. Opinion 6–19, United States v. Biden, No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN (D. Del. Apr. 12, 2024), ECF No. 99. And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges. In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people.

In short, a press release is not a pardon. The Constitution provides the President with broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1, but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.

This is why I would have preferred Biden not have pardoned his son — because I wanted these verdicts, including Scarsi and Noreika’s rulings that Hunter wasn’t selectively or vindictively prosecuted, to be appealed to judges less intemperate than Scarsi.

Not least because there are several problems with Scarsi’s rant.

First, Scarsi, Weiss’ prosecutors, and Noreika (in her original opinion) are all engaged in navel-gazing. All argued, to one degree or another, that this prosecution could not be political because Biden and his selected Attorney General oversaw it. There were enormous problems with that argument: the degree to which Biden’s adversary was permitted to elicit threats against the prosecutorial team, the unwise retention of David Weiss for a second term, the role that Alexander Smirnov’s alleged attempt to criminally frame Joe Biden played in David Weiss’ decision to first obtain Special Counsel status and then ratchet up charges against Joe Biden’s son. But ultimately, prosecutors argued and judges adopted the claim that because Joe Biden was in charge, the prosecution could not have been political.

But since all that went down, John Roberts rewrote history and vested all the authority over prosecutions in the executive power of the President.

Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 832 (1985), and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President, Art. II, §1

[snip]

The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials.

Under Roberts’ logic, if the President, exercising his executive authority at its zenith, deems this prosecution political, then it was.

Moreover, Scarsi wildly misrepresents the nature of Biden’s comment. The legal opinions that Scarsi cites address whether Hunter’s case met the very narrow legal definitions of selective or vindictive prosecution, as he himself laid out.

Proving selective prosecution “is particularly demanding.” Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 489 (1999). Because “[a] selectiveprosecution claim asks a court to exercise judicial power over a special province of the Executive,” “in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that [prosecutors] have properly discharged their official duties.” Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464 (internal quotation marks omitted).

[snip]

“Particularly when a vindictiveness claim pertains to pretrial charging decisions, the Supreme Court urges deference to the prosecutor. Deference is appropriate for pretrial charging decisions because, ‘in the course of preparing a case for trial, the prosecutor may uncover additional information that suggests a basis for further prosecution.’” United States v. Brown, 875 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted) (quoting Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 381). “[J]ust as a prosecutor may forgo legitimate charges already brought in an effort to save the time and expense of trial, a prosecutor may file additional charges if an initial expectation that a defendant would plead guilty to lesser charges proves unfounded.” Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 380. Thus, “in the context of pretrial plea negotiations vindictiveness will not be presumed simply from the fact that a more severe charge followed on, or even resulted from, the defendant’s exercise of a right.” Gamez-Orduno, 235 F.3d at 462 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Deference to the prosecutorial decision to bring charges, notwithstanding significant pretrial negotiations between the parties to avoid them, is warranted.

Of course, once you adopt Roberts’ logic, then if the President overrides the original prosecutorial judgment of prosecutors, then his view must hold sway. If President Biden says the decisions were unfair, then they were.

Sure. That’s wildly problematic. Welcome to Roberts’ Calvinball.

But as Barb McQuade laid out, whether a prosecutorial decision meets the very narrow definition of selective or vindictive prosecution and whether a prosecution was an unwise exercise of prosecutorial discretion are two different things.

I disagree with McQuade about whether there was evidence of selective or vindictive prosecution. After all, as I noted, Scarsi misrepresented what the record on the comparator of Roger Stone said. Again, that’s why I wanted these cases to be appealed.

But it is also the case that a whole series of events related to this prosecution — Trump’s demand for such an investigation from both Volodymyr Zelenskyy and publicly, DOJ’s laundering of dirt Trump’s personal lawyer obtained, including from a known Russian agent, into this case, efforts by Trump’s debate guest to introduce misleading evidence into this investigation, the way a key witness in the gun case leaked information to affect the 2020 election, and Bill Barr’s subsequent pressure for a prosecution — that were excluded from both judges’ rulings altogether. Both judges simply ignored that David Weiss reneged on his assurances to Hunter’s team that there was no ongoing investigation before he entered into the deal, a detail that was central to any vindictive prosecution analysis. Neither judge addressed how Alexander Smirnov’s alleged attempt to criminally frame Biden himself played into the prosecutorial decisions (I am not sure that was formally before Scarsi, though it was before Noreika).

So while it is a fact that two judges credited the arguments made by prosecutors whose claims Biden has now overridden on the selective and vindictive prosecution issue, it is also a fact that a great deal of evidence of politicization was excluded from all consideration. Biden’s judgment incorporated a great deal of things specifically and surgically excluded from the selective and vindictive prosecution analysis.

Finally, though, there are the ways that Scarsi himself rewrote history to get to his selective and vindictive prosecution decision.

As I laid out here, Scarsi made much of errors that Abbe Lowell made in his selective and vindictive prosecution argument. For example, after pointing out that Lowell misquoted coverage of David Weiss’ comments about threats elicited by political pressure on the case, Scarsi simply ignored the role of threats on prosecutorial decisions, because those “significant threats” were not publicly described as death threats. Importantly, as Noreika did in her opinion, after (correctly) catching Lowell misstating the timeline, Scarsi himself fiddled with the timeline so as to permit himself only to look at the prosecutorial decision in December 2023, not the decision to renege on the plea agreement in June and July 2023.

Scarsi’s treatment of this passage from Hunter’s motion deserves closer consideration:

Mr. Biden agreed to plead guilty to the tax misdemeanors, but when the plea deal was made public, the political backlash was forceful and immediate. Even before the Delaware court considered the plea deal on July 26, 2023, extremist Republicans were denouncing it as a “sweetheart deal,” accusing DOJ of misconduct, and using the excuse to interfere with the investigation.13 [2] Leaders of the House Judiciary, Oversight and Accountability, and Ways and Means Committees (“HJC,” “HOAC,” and “HWMC,” respectively) opened a joint investigation, and on June 23, HWMC Republicans publicly released closed-door testimony from the whistleblowers, who, in the words of Chairman Smith, “describe how the Biden Justice Department intervened and overstepped in a campaign to protect the son of Joe Biden by delaying, divulging and denying an ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes.”14 Then, one day before Mr. Biden’s plea hearing, Mr. Smith tried to intervene [4] to file an amicus brief “in Aid of Plea Hearing,” in which he asked the court to “consider” the whistleblower testimony.15

13 Phillip Bailey, ‘Slap On The Wrist’: Donald Trump, Congressional Republicans Call Out Hunter Biden Plea Deal, USA Today (June 20, 2023), https://www.usatoday.com/.

14 Farnoush Amiri, GOP Releases Testimony Alleging DOJ Interference In Hunter Biden Tax Case, PBS (June 23, 2023), https://www.pbs.org/.

15 United States v. Biden, No. 23-mj-00274-MN (D. Del. 2023), DE 7. [brackets mine]

Here’s how Scarsi treats this passage laying out what happened between the publication of the plea and the failed plea hearing:

The putative [sic] plea deal became public in June 2023. Several members of the United States Congress publicly expressed their disapproval on social media. The Republican National Committee stated, “It is clear that Joe Biden’s Department of Justice is offering Hunter Biden a sweetheart deal.” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media platform, “The corrupt Biden DOJ just cleared up hundreds of years of criminal liability by giving Hunter Biden a mere ‘traffic ticket.’” Phillip M. Bailey, ‘Slap on the wrist’: Donald Trump, congressional Republicans call out Hunter Biden plea deal, USA Today (June 20, 2023, 11:17 a.m.), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/06/20/donald-trump-republicans-react-hunter-biden-plea-deal/ 70337635007/ [https://perma.cc/TSN9-UHLH]. 28 On June 23, 2023, the Ways and Means Committee of the United States House of Representatives voted to publicly disclose congressional testimony from the IRS agents who worked on the tax investigation. Jason Smith, chair of the Ways and Means Committee, told reporters that the agents were “[w]histleblowers [who] describe how the Biden Justice Department intervened and overstepped in a campaign to protect the son of Joe Biden by delaying, divulging and denying an ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes.” Farnoush Amiri, GOP releases testimony alleging DOJ interference in Hunter Biden tax case, PBS NewsHour (June 23, 2023, 3:58 p.m.), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/gop-releases-testimony-alleging-dojinterference-in-hunter-biden-tax-case.29 One day before the plea hearing in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Mr. Smith moved to file an amicus curiae brief imploring the court to consider the IRS agents’ testimony and related materials in accepting or rejecting the plea agreement. Mem. of Law in Support of Mot. for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Br., United States v. Biden, No. 1:23-mj-00274-MN (D. Del. July 25, 2023), ECF No. 7-2; Amicus Curiae Br., United States v. Biden, No. 1:23-mj-00274-MN (D. Del. July 25, 2023), ECF No. 7-3.30

28 This source does not stand for the proposition that “extremist Republicans were [1] . . . using the excuse to interfere with the investigation.” (Selective Prosecution Mot. 5–6.) Of Mr. Weiss, Mr. Trump also wrote: “He gave out a traffic ticket instead of a death sentence. . . . Maybe the judge presiding will have the courage and intellect to break up this cesspool of crime. The collusion and corruption is beyond description. TWO TIERS OF JUSTICE!” Ryan Bort, Trump Blasts Prosecutor He Appointed for Not Giving Hunter Biden ‘Death Sentence,’ Rolling Stone (July 11, 2023), https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-suggests-hunter-bidendeath penalty-1234786435/ [https://perma.cc/UH6N-838R].

29 This source does not stand for the proposition that several leaders of house committees “opened a joint investigation.” (Selective Prosecution Mot. 6.) [3]

30 The docket does not show that the Delaware district court resolved the motion, and the Court is uncertain whether the court considered Mr. Smith’s brief. [brackets mine]

First, Scarsi uses an ellipsis, marked at [1], to suggest the only reason Lowell cited the USA Today story was to support the claim that Republicans moved to intervene in the investigation, when the sentence in question includes three clauses, two of which the story does support. The sentence immediately following that three-clause sentence [2] makes a claim — OGR, HWAM, and HJC forming a joint committee, that substantiates that claim. Scarsi’s complaint at [3] is not that the cited article does not include Jason Smith’s quotation; rather, it’s that Lowell has not pointed to a source for the formation of a joint investigation (a later-cited source that Scarsi never mentions does include it). Meanwhile, Scarsi applies a measure — whether Judge Noreika considered Smith’s amicus, not whether he tried to file it — that Lowell doesn’t make (and which is irrelevant to a vindictive prosecution motion, because Noreika is not the prosecutor); Smith did succeed in getting the amicus unsealed, including the exhibits that Hunter claimed include grand jury materials. Whether or not Judge Noreika considered the content of the amicus, that Smith filed it is undeniable proof that Smith tried to intervene, which is all Hunter alleged he did.

Meanwhile, Scarsi relegates Trump’s Social Media threats — which Scarsi later corrects Lowell by noting that they came during precisely this period — to a footnote.

Here’s one thing I find most interesting. Scarsi’s two most valid complaints about Lowell’s filing are that, in one part of his timeline but not another, he misrepresented Trump’s pressure as happening after the plea failed, and that Lowell claimed that Weiss testified he had gotten death threats when instead the cited source (and the Weiss transcript I assume Lowell does not have) instead say that Weiss feared for his family. He acknowledges both those things: Trump attacked Weiss, and Weiss got threats that led him to worry for the safety of his family.

But he never considers Weiss’ fear for his family’s safety in his consideration of what happened between June and July. He never considers whether those threats had a prejudicial [e]ffect on Hunter Biden.

And aside from that correction regarding the safety comment, nor does Scarsi consider the most direct aspect of Congress’ intervention in the case — that Congress demanded Weiss testify, and he did so just weeks before he filed the charges actually before Scarsi.

In other words, Scarsi accuses Lowell of making a post hoc argument, claiming that he is simply pointing to prior events to explain Weiss’ subsequent actions. Except he ignores the impact of the two most direct allegations of influence.

And in Scarsi’s own fiddling with the timeline, he found a way to ignore how Donald Trump’s threats and direct intervention by Congress may have infected the decision to renege on the plea deal, and instead focused solely on the later decision to indict.

We’re in a post-truth world and Scarsi’s intemperate rant will certainly get the attention of those looking for Trump judges to promote.

But the fact of the matter is that Scarsi did precisely what he accuses the President of, rewriting the history of the Hunter Biden prosecution.

Share this entry

America Just Failed the Test of Responding to Trump’s Politicized Prosecutions

/62 Comments/in , /by

Let’s imagine that, two years from now, Pam Bondi rolls out charges against some onetime adversary of Donald Trump. To the extent that journalists will still be employed and reading court filings, to the extent that prosecutors under Emil Bove (who at SDNY oversaw a team sanctioned for discovery violations) comply with discovery requirements, the adversary in question learns the following about his prosecution:

  • The case started when an investigator started looking into a transnational trafficking network
  • The investigator discovered that the prominent adversary had paid one of the sex workers trafficked in the network
  • Rather than pursuing the traffickers, the investigator used the payment for sex as cause to open an investigation
  • Of course, no one is going to charge a John … so the investigator starts pulling divorce records and four year old tax returns to try to move from that payment for sex work to something that can be charged
  • Then the investigator started incorporating oppo research from Peter Schweizer into his investigation
  • Kash Patel’s FBI set up protected ways to accept tips from Trump supporters who’ve doctored documents to create a crime
  • Trump called up Bondi and told her to take more aggressive steps
  • Trump called up foreign leaders asking for help on this prosecution
  • Bondi then set up a way to launder that information from foreign sources, including known spies, into the investigation of the adversary
  • Patel’s FBI asked a partisan informant to fabricate claims against the adversary
  • Trump publicly called out prosecutors — resulting in them and their children being followed — because they had not yet charged his adversary
  • Ultimately, the adversary got charged on 5-year old dirt, and only then, after charging, did prosecutors quickly do the investigative work to win the case at trial

Now, as I’ve described it, you surely imagine you’d say, wow, that looks like a thoroughly corrupt prosecution, a clear case of Trump using DOJ to punish his adversaries.

Right?

It’s not so much that investigators didn’t, after the fact, find a crime to charge. They did. If you investigate most high profile people long enough, you’ll find something to charge, particularly if multiple people come to DOJ with doctored evidence to help create that crime.

It’s that someone found the name of an adversary in the digital records of crimes that were more important to investigate, and instead of pursuing that crime, used the electronic record as an excuse to keep looking until they found some evidence of a crime against Trump’s adversary.

Everyone would recognize that’s what happened, right?

Of course not. Of course no one would recognize that that was a political prosecution.

We need no further proof than the fact that none of those very same details showed up in any of the coverage of the Hunter Biden investigation. Not now that he has been pardoned. Not when all these details came out last year. Not in any of the retrospectives of the times Trump demanded investigations on his adversaries.

What will happen instead is that a bunch of self-important DC scribes will chase the most salacious allegations, provide endless headlines about sex workers and wild parties. The DC scribes will ignore every detail about the legal investigation — every one!! — and instead use the prosecution as an opportunity to sell political scandal. And also, they will point to their Tiger Beat coverage as proof, they say, they are not politically biased.

Rather than diligently rooting out the obviously politicized prosecution, the press will be complicit in it.

And rather than deciding that the adversary was the target of an obviously politicized prosecution, American public opinion would instead decide that the adversary was icky, and because he is icky, his statements about Trump cannot be credited.

That is what political prosecutions look like. That is, of course, precisely what the Hunter Biden prosecution was (ignoring the assurances from prosecutors who say no one with the fact set Hunter faced would be charged). Every single bullet has an analogue in the Hunter Biden case. That obviously political prosecution is what happened.

Once the GOP got the House majority, they did nothing else but platform these claims, which a different set of self-important scribes treated as an interesting process story, not an obvious case of a great abuse of government power.

And now that Biden has pardoned his son, the very same self important scribes who ignored all the signs this was a political prosecution, are giving non-stop coverage to a pardon that — unlike those of Trump’s Coffee Boy, National Security Adviser, campaign manager, personal lawyer, and rat-fucker — are not about self-protection, most with no mention of all the evidence Trump ordered up this prosecution to target Joe Biden.

The question is, what are we going to do about this, now that we have rock solid proof the press establishment is not only incapable, but wildly uninterested, in rooting out this kind of politicized prosecution — at least not when they can instead sell scandal?

In the face of seeing Pam Bondi and Kash Patel preparing to redouble efforts to find politicized prosecutions against Donald Trump’s adversaries, Joe Biden chose to end the process, with his son, at least.

I’m actually on the record opposing the pardon — but not for the reasons everyone else is. I don’t think pardoning Hunter in this circumstance is corrupt. I take Biden at his word that he changed his mind about pardoning Hunter. I’m far more interested in Trump admitting he was lying about his plans to implement Project 2025 than that Biden reneged on assurances no one much believed anyway.

I oppose the pardon because it eliminates Hunter’s standing to appeal and with those appeals to begin telling the story that the media chose to ignore. I oppose the pardon because if we don’t start laying out how Trump already politicized DOJ while there’s a good base of legitimate judges in place, it’ll be far too late.

And don’t get me wrong. I think Biden fucked this one up. Not just for saying he wouldn’t pardon Hunter, but for not taking action far earlier — like firing David Weiss the day he was inaugurated, citing Trump’s first impeachment, or pardoning Hunter and firing Weiss on November 6 — to do something about this. I think Merrick Garland shouldn’t have given Weiss himself SCO status (not least, because Weiss continues to investigate crimes — the alleged attempted framing of Joe Biden by Alexander Smirnov — to which he is a witness). I think Garland’s supervision of Special Counsels allowed the abuse of the system, repeatedly.

I’ve never, as far as I’m aware, spoken with Hunter Biden. I have, however, spoken to a good number of the people who were and who would be politically prosecuted in Trump’s second term (not including myself, of course). And the thing I’ve learned from them is because the press is complicit in their politicized prosecution, it guarantees they’ll be isolated, regardless of guilt or innocence. Because the press has unquenchable thirst for lazy dick pic sniffing, they don’t do the work of reading the court filings. Because the press thirsts for a false appearance of both sides neutrality, they’re always on the hunt for something to fit into their both sides scandal box.

And meanwhile, those very same self-important scribes were largely silent in 2020 when Trump pardoned his way out of Russian trouble, and even more silent in 2024 when they could have explained to voters that he had done so.

Whatever else you think about the Hunter Biden case and the way Joe Biden pardoned him, it is crystal clear proof that the thing defenders of democracy swear they’ll do in a second Trump term — rise to the defense of those targeted for political prosecution — they already failed to do. Whatever you think about the Hunter Biden case, the vast majority of people talking about it have absolutely no clue that it is precisely what people fear in Trump’s second term, not (just) because Hunter was charged in two indictments when others would not be, but because Trump and his people repeatedly ordered up this prosecution.

Update: Peter Baker, who wrote an otherwise thorough piece during the election about Trump’s corruption which ignored Hunter, claims to be unable to tell whether Biden’s claim that Hunter’s prosecution was politicized is true or not.

Update: Here’s a copy of a white paper Hunter’s attorneys released to describe the politicization of the case. It adds the Parnas and Scott Brady allegations to the stuff in the selective prosecution motions.

Share this entry

David Weiss Dons His “Let’s Go Brandon” Frame

/13 Comments/in , , , /by

In a bid to defeat a motion in limine from Alexander Smirnov prohibiting mention of his nine lawfully owned guns, David Weiss’ prosecutors revealed that they only want to use the guns, if necessary, to prove ownership of other things found in a search of Smirnov’s home, including an anti-Biden hat.

On February 21, 2024, after securing a search warrant signed by United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler, FBI agents executed a search of the defendant’s residence in Las Vegas. During the search, agents found nine firearms. Agents also found other items, including electronic devices, and other evidence, such as a hat emblazoned with an anti-Public Official 1 euphemism. These items are directly relevant to the charges in this case. For example, the government plans to introduce communications found on the defendant’s electronic devices that similarly evidence bias again Public Official 1. And the hat seized from his residence demonstrate the same bias, which bears on the defendant’s motive in providing the FBI with false derogatory information about Public Official 1, who was a candidate for President of the United States, in the months leading up to the 2020 election.

On one level, by all means, show us Alexander Smirnov’s Let’s Go Brandon hat! It’ll work wonders in Los Angeles!

On another level, I can’t help but think that David Weiss’ team has just given Smirnov (who might well get a pardon anyway after Trump is inaugurated) a case for selective prosecution.

Smirnov, recall, is accused of lying to the FBI and in so doing causing the filing of a false report.

But these very same prosecutors — Derek Hines and Leo Wise — were in the last year faced with witnesses with an anti-Biden bias, the guy who sold Hunter Biden a gun in 2018 and the Delaware cop who first spoke to the gun shop owners, the former of whom (according to a filing from Abbe Lowell) similarly caused a false document to be filed, the gun purchase form to which his staffer belatedly added a claim that Hunter had provided a second form of ID when he purchased the gun. Hines and Wise have not charged those people, even though they reportedly sent WhatsApp texts during the 2020 election in an effort to publicize the gun purchase, the same kind of biased messages that Hines and Wise intend to submit to prove their case against Smirnov.

It also reveals a now-exposed attempt by the gun store to fabricate a false narrative about the gun sale. Palimere said the addition of the seller transaction serial number (“5,653”) may have been added on October 26, 2018. (TAB 4, Palimere FD-302 at 4). He said the vehicle registration reference was added in 2021. Yet, the government provided WhatsApp communications from October 2020 and February 2021 between Palimere, friends of his, and then-Delaware state trooper Vincent Clemons3 (see TABs 6 – 6C), all of which refer to the form, a plan to send it to others, needing to get their stories straight about what occurred in 2020, and wanting the gun sale issue and the form exposed during the Presidential campaign.

3 Not to be lost is the fact that Clemons was the Delaware State Police officer who first arrived at Janssens’ grocery store on October 23, 2018 when Hallie Biden threw a bag containing the handgun into a trash can in front of the store. It was Clemons who took statements about the handgun from both Hallie and Hunter Biden and was part of filling out an official police report on the issue. Two years later, he is in the communications with Palimere about the Form 4473, one of which states: “Yep your side is simple – Hunter bought a gun from you, he filled out the proper forms and the Feds approved him for a purchase.” (emphasis added). Palimere later responded, “I’ll keep it short and sweet as well: Hunter bought a gun. The police visited me asking for verification of the purchase and that’s all I can recall from that day. It was over 2 years ago.” (TAB 6B, 10/26/20 Palimere-Clemons Texts at 4, 6.) The reference to filling out the “proper forms” is not lost on defense counsel given what transpired thereafter. And, despite the importance of Clemons (e.g., the person who actually took the statements), the Special Counsel is foregoing him as a witness to call two other Delaware officers instead.

I’m at a loss to imagine how Hines and Wise would distinguish the doctored gun form from the FD-1023 from Smirnov they claim is false. Both were an effort to criminalize the Biden family during the 2020 election. If anything, the retroactively doctored gun purchase form was more dangerous. And yet Hines and Wise charged Smirnov but didn’t charge the gun shop owner. Indeed, they successfully buried precisely the kind of texts showing bias they want to use against Smirnov.

This apparent double standard regarding doctored forms comes even as prosecutors are trying to prevent Smirnov from invoking Hunter’s failed plea hearing to claim (falsely) that Hunter got a sweetheart plea deal. In a filing signed by Wise, prosecutors claim that Smirnov was not mentioned at Hunter’s failed plea hearing, and so he would have no evidentiary reason to rely on the transcript.

[C]ontrary to the defendant’s representation, in the 110 pages of transcript attached to his motion, there is not a single reference to (1) the defendant or this prosecution, (2) “the sitting President,” (3) any accusations against the defendant, (4) the defendant’s “loyal service” to the FBI, or (5) that the defendant was a “Russian Spy.”

I asked Weiss’ spox whether Leo Wise was really claiming that Smirnov went unmentioned. “We will decline to comment beyond our statements and filings in court,” he replied.

But when Leo Wise responded to Judge Maryellen Noreika that, yes, even though Hunter Biden had been assured a month earlier there was no ongoing investigation, that there was in fact was an ongoing investigation,

THE COURT: All right. So you said there might be additional charges. Are you at liberty to tell us what you’re thinking those might be or is that just a hypothetical that there might be?

MR. WISE: It was a hypothetical response to your question.

THE COURT: Is there an ongoing investigation here?

MR. WISE: There is.

THE COURT: May I ask then why if there is we’re doing this piecemeal?

MR. WISE: Your Honor may ask, but I’m not in a position where I can say.

And then said he could still charge FARA violations,

MR. WISE: So I can tell you what I think we can’t charge. I can’t tell you what the ongoing investigation is. So, for instance, I think based on the terms of the agreement, we cannot bring tax evasion charges for the years described in the factual statement to the Plea Agreement. And I think we cannot bring for the firearms charges based on the firearm identified in the factual statement to the Diversion Agreement.

THE COURT: All right. So there are references to foreign companies, for example, in the facts section. Could the government bring a charge under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?

MR. WISE: Yes.

And then got Special Counsel status that would only be required if Weiss were pursuing something implicating Joe Biden — like Smirnov’s bribery claim — he almost certainly was invoking Alexander Smirnov.

Wise made that claim even while Smirnov was still fighting to obtain material on David Weiss’ decision to chase the Smirnov allegation (there was a hearing on this yesterday, but nothing is docketed on it yet).

The Defendant requested communication related to the request that U.S. Attorney David Weiss’s team “assist” with “an investigation of allegations” related to the FD-1023. The government refuses to produce this material and ignores that fact that the government chose to include the following language in the Indictment: “In July 2023, the FBI requested that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware assist the FBI in an investigation of allegations related to the 2020 1023. At that time, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware was handling an investigation and prosecution of Businessperson 1.” Accordingly, not only did the government, in its Indictment, place the communications at issue, it is clear that the communication are relevant and discoverable. This request has been outstanding since March 5, 2024.

And the apparent double standard comes as Smirnov is attempting to put the conduct of Smirnov’s FBI handler — the guy who didn’t take alarm when Smirnov sent him already debunked Fox News disinformation — at issue.

The dispute over the handler’s conduct is taking two forms. First, prosecutors are trying to exclude Smirnov’s expert witness Gregory Scott Rogers, a former FBI agent who would testify to errors that Smirnov’s handler made. They’re also trying to exclude the content of three reports on the handling of Smirnov.

It has, predictably, declined into a display of prosecutorial dickishness.

In their motion to exclude Rogers, for example, the same prosecutorial team who claimed sawdust was cocaine made much of the that Smirnov’s expert witness said “upmost” instead of “utmost.”

Next, the disclosure states, “A CHS providing the type and amount of information provided by Smirnov should be handled with the upmost [sic.] diligence.” Disclosure at 5. According to Merriam-Webster, “upmost is frequently used as a mistaken spelling of utmost in its adjective and noun forms.” https://www.merriamwebster.com/grammar/utmost-vs-upmostdifference#:~:text=In%20its%20dictionary%20sense%2C%20upmost,its%20adjective% 20and%20noun%20forms (last viewed by author on November 1, 2024). The government assumes that Rogers meant to say “utmost,” but the fact that he can’t even produce an error free disclosure speaks to the quality of his proposed testimony. In any event, like his opinion that the defendant was “poorly handled,” his opinion that the defendant should have been handled with the “upmost diligence” is also undefined. So what does “upmost diligence” mean? The disclosure doesn’t tell us.

Of course, these prosecutors aren’t above making their own typos, as when a filing signed by Leo Wise uses “again” instead of “against.”

For example, the government plans to introduce communications found on the defendant’s electronic devices that similarly evidence bias again Public Official 1.

Yet they want to treat far more significant errors made by Smirnov’s handler as “essentially ministerial errors.”

Among the errors documented in the Source Reports include getting Smirnov’s name and birth country wrong.

The reports are also critical to the defense, including based on the anticipated testimony of the Defendant’s noticed expert. For example, in the February 13,2013, Field Office Annual Source Report, FOASR, the following deficiencies were noted:

1. The Handler failed to give the CHS extraterritorial travel admonishments;

2. The Handler allowed the CHS to conduct otherwise illegal activity, OIA, outside of approved time periods;

3. The Handler documented the CHS’s true name in the wrong CHS subfile;

4. The Handler placed an unrelated CHS’s NCIC record in this CHS’s file;

5. The Handler identified the wrong country of birth for this CHS in his file;

6. The Handler failed to document appropriate receipts for payments to the CHS;

7. CHS was allowed to conduct personal international travel without appropriate approval and documentation in his file.

In a later Standard Validation Report covering 2013-2021 it was noted:

1. HA continued to fail to appropriately obtain approval and document CHS’s international travel;

2. Derogatory information reported about the CHS and more unreported/undocumented otherwise illegal activity, OIA.

In the Source Validation Report for the period March, 2021-November, 2023 FBIHQ recommended that FBI Seattle, the office where the HA had transferred to from FBI San Francisco in 2019 and brought Smirnov’s file with him, stop operating the CHS noting that they believed that the CHS was no longer fully under the HA’s control, may be committing unauthorized illegal activity, UIA, and concern that the media’s reporting of the CHS’s information concerning the Biden family’s influence peddling in Ukraine would vitiate his ability to continue to function as a CHS. In that same document, it was recommended that CHS be polygraphed. Based upon the records provided by the government, it does not appear that a polygraph of Mr. Smirnov was ever scheduled or conducted.

Smirnov claims he can prove that he said and did things with his handler that did not get documented. If he can prove that, then it’s going to be hard for prosecutors to prove that Smirnov’s claims are lies rather than that the FBI agent fucked up.

That said, there’s something more interesting about the validation reports on Smirnov: They go through November 2023 and still treat him as a viable informant. November is when, on November 7, David Weiss said the Brady side channel would only appear in his final report. November is when, on November 15, Abbe Lowell asked for discovery on the side channel. And November is when, on November 16, CNN reported that the FBI had dropped its pursuit of FARA and bribery allegations.

Smirnov’s lawyers are right there’s a tie between how Hunter Biden was treated and why he was charged. But they’ve got the emphasis wrong.

All the evidence suggests that prosecutors had to charge him or risk their Hunter Biden case too.

Filings

September 26: Smirnov motion to continue

September 27: Weiss response on motion to continue

October 14: Smirnov warns of motion to compel

October 15: Judge Otis Wright denies continuance

October 28: Government response to discovery

October 31: Smirnov reply on discovery

October 31: Smirnov motions in limine

November 1: Government motions in limine

November 4: Renewed bid to continue trial based on delayed discovery

November 5: Motion to dismiss for discovery violations

November 5: Opposition to renewed bid to continue

November 8: Judge Wright denies motion to compel

November 12: Response to motion to dismiss on discovery violations

November 15: Defense response to motions in limine

October 31: Government response to motions in limine

Share this entry

In Bid to Withhold Laptop and Hard Drive Forensic Reports, Derek Hines Misstates Hunter Biden’s View on Authenticity of Data on Laptop

/24 Comments/in /by

As I noted in this post, I wrote a letter to Judge Maryellen Noreika asking her to release several documents, the more interesting of which are the forensic reports on the laptop attributed to Hunter Biden and the hard drive with John Paul Mac Isaac’s purported copy of the laptop.

Abbe Lowell had no problem with the release of the forensic reports.

Mr. Biden has no objection to the release of either item requested by the journalist—the motion for miscellaneous relief at DE 167 and/or the expert disclosure of Michael Waski at DE 120-2.

Derek Hines did. He said that because he never filed the forensic reports, they are not judicial records before Judge Noreika.

However, his disclosure was never filed with the Court because the defendant agreed that the information derived from his laptop was authentic. Therefore, the expert disclosure was not included as an exhibit for ECF 120 because the certification itself sufficiently supported the motion. Moreover, since there was no dispute about the authenticity of the information derived from the defendant’s laptop, the government did not call Mr. Waski as an expert witness at trial. Accordingly, the expert disclosure is not a judicial record and is not a record before this Court that the Court could unseal.

There are several problems with this response.

First, as I wrote in my letter, nothing in the certification mentioned the laptop or hard drive it certified.

Mr. Waski’s certification, as docketed, does not by itself certify that the laptop was among the devices extracted. While the MIL describes that Mr. Waski’s certification pertains to, “two backup files from laptop and hard drive” (DE 120 at 3), Mr. Waski’s certification itself mentions neither. Instead, it references a “Digital Forensics Report and [an] Extraction Report,” singular. Compare Robert Gearhart’s certification at DE 120-1, which lists the four iCloud backups described in the MIL, “Apple Backup 1, Apple Backup 2, Apple Backup 3, Apple Backup 4,” which in turn match the warrant. (20-mj-165 DE 3 at 2) To confirm that Mr. Waski’s certification pertains to the laptop and hard drive incorporated into the summary and described in the warrant (19-mj-309 DE 3) requires inspecting the Disclosure.

There is no way the public — or Judge Noreika herself — can be certain that the “Digital Forensics Report and Extraction Report,” singular, mentioned in the certification describes the forensics of both (or either!) the laptop and the hard drive. We need to see the description of that report in the Disclosure itself.

The certification relies on the Disclosure to even identify what it is certifying.

More importantly, Hines blatantly misstates Hunter Biden’s view on the authenticity of the data on the laptop. In Abbe Lowell’s response to Hines’ motion to bypass any expert witness, he specifically debunked that claim.

Defense counsel has numerous reasons to believe the data had been altered and compromised before investigators obtained the electronic material from Apple Inc. and The Mac Shop, such that the Special Counsel’s claim that the underlying data is “authentic” (id. at 4) and accurately reflects “defendant’s Apple Macbook Pro and [] hard drive” (id. at 2) is mistaken.

Mr. Biden’s counsel told the Special Counsel on May 10, 2024 it agrees not to challenge the authenticity of the electronic data the Special Counsel intends to use with respect to it being what law enforcement received on December 9, 2019 from John Paul Mac Isaac (owner of The Mac Shop), and from Apple on August 29, 2019 and in a follow-up search on July 10, 2020. (Mot. at n.3.) However, Mr. Biden cannot agree this electronic data is “authentic” as to being his data as he used and stored it prior to Mac Issac obtaining it.

He pointedly did not agree that the data derived from the laptop (and hard drive, which I suspect has more irregularities) was “authentic” as to being his own data.

One reason I’m interested in the hard drive is because Hines himself revealed that the “backup” of it is 62% bigger than the laptop of which it purports to be a copy. Understanding why that is so might go a long way to explain anything John Paul Mac Isaac did with Hunter Biden’s data.

As I noted in my letter to Judge Noreika, Congressman Dan Bishop suggested in a deposition on the laptop last year that if the FBI, “has conducted a forensic investigation and has suppressed the results,” people shouldn’t defer to the FBI. This was an opportunity for the FBI to show it’s work.

It — or at least, David Weiss — doesn’t want to.

Update: Corrected misspelling of Hines’ last name. My apologies to him.

Update: Judge Noreika has now docketed my reply. Among other things, I noted that the creation date for the PDF of Waski’s certification post-dates the day when it was sent to Hunter Biden’s team on April 24.

 

The other certification is dated April 23.

Update: Judge Noreika has, unsurprisingly, granted the request to docket the Hallie Biden related filing, but denied the Disclosure on the laptop and hard drive.

ORAL ORDER re: D.I. [247], IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Sealed Motion (DI [167]) is hereby unsealed. The expert disclosure of Michael Waski is not part of the record of this case or in the Courts possession. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not address further informal requests made by letter rather than appropriate motion. Ordered by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 7/18/2024. (as)

 

Share this entry