Posts

Pam Bondi Replaces Her Embarrassing Reading Comprehension Failure with a 4A Violation

/17 Comments/in , /by

When Judge Cameron Currie surprised Pam Bondi’s Counselor, Henry Whitaker, on Thursday with a question about whether DOJ believes Aileen Cannon wrongly dismissed Trump’s stolen documents case, Whitaker claimed what distinguished Jack Smith from Lindsey Halligan is that Halligan is closely supervised.

I do think that mostly what was driving Judge Cannon’s decision in that case was sort of the unique and broad authority that the special counsel possessed sort of free of supervision, which, of course, is an element that we do not have here.

He said that, mind you, even while conceding that Pam Bondi had claimed to ratify the Comey indictment even though the transcripts didn’t show how Halligan instructed the grand jury, yet.

MR. WHITAKER: Well, it’s true that — it is true, Your Honor, you’re right, that we didn’t have the intro and back end of the grand jury transcripts when we presented that.

Between that day, on October 31, when Pam Bondi claimed to ratify Lindsey’s work without noticing she couldn’t see that work, and yesterday, several things have happened.

We’ve gotten a lot more details about the suspected Fourth Amendment and Attorney-Client privilege violations Jim Comey’s investigators committed. First, Rebekah Donaleski told Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick that Jim Comey’s team believed investigators had worked off material seized from Dan Richman that was not responsive to the four warrants used to investigate him. Effectively, a general warrant.

[D]id the agents preserve nonresponsive copies or nonresponsive materials for five years? Because the Fourth Circuit has said that’s not reasonable. Did that happen? Because the prolonged retention of nonresponsive electronic data can render an initially lawful search unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit has said that. That’s what appears to have happened here.

[snip]

We need to know was this a narrowly tailored responsive set or did they just mark the entire iCloud responsive, thus rendering it a general warrant. We don’t know the answers to those questions.

Then, the FBI agent who realized he was reading privileged material described that he had been given the “full Cellebrite extraction” of Dan Richman’s phone to review, precisely that general warrant Donaleski feared. His supervisor said that the original agent had prepped the grand jury team with “a two-page document containing limited text message content only from May 11, 2017,” designed to avoid any taint. But Miles Starr appears to have presented eight pages of those texts to the grand jury; the Bates stamp for those texts include only a number, nothing to indicate they post-dated a privilege review by Richman.

After that, the Loaner AUSAs confessed that they had no fucking clue whether the material used to investigate Jim Comey had been scoped for responsiveness (though Comey’s team described that it looked like these were “raw returns for the search warrants at issue, unscoped for responsiveness and filtered for Mr. Richman’s privileges”).

The Order also required the government to provide, in writing, by the same deadline: “Confirmation of whether the Government has divided the materials searched pursuant to the four 2019 and 2020 warrants at issue into materials that are responsive and non-responsive to those warrants, and, if so, a detailed explanation of the methodology used to make that determination; A detailed explanation of whether, and for what period of time, the Government has preserved any materials identified as non-responsive to the four search warrants; A description identifying which materials have been identified as responsive, if any; and A description identifying which materials have previously been designated as privileged.” ECF No. 161 at 1-2.

Despite certifying on November 6 that it had complied with the Court’s Order, ECF No. 163, the government did not provide this information until the evening of November 9, 2025, in response to a defense inquiry. The government told the defense that it “does not know” whether there are responsive sets for the first, third, and fourth warrants, or whether it has produced those to the defense, and said that in that regard, “we are still pulling prior emails” and the “agent reviewed the filtered material through relativity but there appears to be a loss of data that we are currently trying to restore.”

Then, in one of their response briefs, the government effectively threw out half their evidence, including all the texts from Richman’s phone.

At the earlier hearing, Fitzpatrick warned the government not to use any violative material.

THE COURT: The Court authorized you to search and to seize, or to seize primarily, a very specific subset of information; that’s it. It’s the government’s burden to comply with that court order. You need to confidently explain to me how you have done that. You need to confidently explain how you have complied strictly with the Court’s order. If you can do that, then I suspect that that narrow window of time, you probably still can review, at least pending the outcome of the other motions.

He even ordered them not to review any materials seized from those search warrants until further order of the Court.

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

In the middle of this, Comey argued that if Halligan presented unlawfully seized material to the grand jury, then Pam Bondi’s review of the grand jury materials — the first one, on October 31 — might also constitute a violation of Comey’s Fourth Amendment.

2 Concerns about taint arising from the improper use of potentially privileged and unconstitutionally-obtained materials are heightened because of the government’s continued use of the materials obtained pursuant to the warrants and grand jury transcripts. On October 31, 2025, the Attorney General purported to ratify the indictment based on her review of the grand jury proceedings. ECF No. 137-1 at 2-3. If that review entailed further improper use of privileged or unconstitutionally-obtained materials insofar as they were presented to the grand jury, it casts further doubt on the propriety of the government’s conduct of this case. The government produced the grand jury materials on November 5, 2025 to Judge Currie for in camera review, and thus could quickly produce the same materials to the defense. See ECF No. 158.

So to sum up so far: Jim Comey said, you violated my Attorney-Client privilege and my Fourth Amendment rights. And it’s likely that when Pam Bondi reviewed that transcript where unlawfully seized materials were presented, she did too.

And then Pam Bondi — after her Counselor assured Judge Currie that Halligan is closely supervised — reviewed the grand jury transcripts again.

The ones that likely rely on unlawfully seized materials.

Share this entry

Spill! The EDVA Case against Jim Comey Could Well Harm the Even More Corrupt SDFL Case

/13 Comments/in , /by

It looks increasingly likely that because someone snuck a peek into Jim Comey’s privileged communications — or, because Tyler Lemons cares enough about his bar license that he disclosed that someone snuck a peek into Comey’s privileged communications — Comey may get a ruling that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights, throwing out some of the material used in the government’s filing laying out the theory of their case.

The exhibits to that filing which were seized from Dan Richman include a bunch of communications sent from two different Columbia University emails, as well as texts sent on Richman’s phone.

  • January 2, 2015: Letter stating that Richman would not comment on matters he “work[s] on for the Bureau” [1st Columbia email]
  • October 29, 2016: Text saying, “The country can’t seem to handle your finding stuff” [2nd Columbia email]
  • October 30, 2016: Richman offering to write an op-ed for NYT [2nd Columbia email]
  • November 1-2, 2016: Comey suggests perhaps Richman can make Mike Schmidt smarter [2nd Columbia email]
  • November 2, 2016: Richman noting story about Hillary [2nd Columbia email]
  • February 11, 2017: Richman recruiting Chuck Rosenberg for article [1st Columbia email]
  • April 23, 2017: Email to Richman thanking him [Columbia email]
  • May 2017: Texts between Schmidt and Richman [Dan Richman’s phone]

As Rebekah Donaleski described the warrants in Wednesday’s hearing, the Columbia emails likely came from a warrant served on the university in October 2019, whereas the texts should have only been available via the fourth warrant on Richman’s phone, but as I’ll show, may have instead come from unlawful searches from the hard drive seized with the first warrant in August 2019.

  • August 29, 2019: FBI seizes Richman’s hard drive. The government does a privilege review of that, not Richman.
  • October 2019: FBI obtains emails from Columbia. Richman withheld privileged or sensitive (from students), but conducted no responsiveness review.
  • January 2020: FBI obtains Richman’s iCloud. His attorney did a privilege review. The warrant specifically said it could not seize privileged material.
  • June 4, 2020: FBI gets warrants to access iPhone and iCloud back-ups on the original hard drive.

The arguably legal emails don’t prove DOJ’s case

Aside from the fact that the FBI accessed them without a warrant tailored to the current investigation, the two bolded emails were clearly responsive to the investigation into whether Richman leaked the SVR materials in advance of the April 22, 2017 story about them. But as I noted here, they don’t help the government prove that Comey lied to Ted Cruz about authorizing Richman, while he was at FBI, to be an anonymous source for a story about the Hillary investigation because:

  • There’s no evidence of Comey’s involvement in the story in advance
  • The emails unquestionably post-date Richman’s departure from FBI (Anna Bower expanded on the work I did to show that Richman was arguably never formally “at FBI” in this period)
  • Richman was a named source in the story

The January 2, 2015 email might be legal, but who cares? It doesn’t help the government’s case at all (and most likely was used to mislead grand jurors about the time frame of Richman’s relationship with the FBI).

The emails that come closest to proving the government’s case may be out of scope

It’s less clear whether the emails from fall 2016 — the ones that best match the theory of the case — should have been accessible to investigators for the investigation into whether Comey lied to Ted Cruz. That’s because — at least per a November 22, 2019 interview — Richman didn’t learn about the SVR emails until January 2017.

According to Richman, he and Comey had a private conversation in Comey’s office in January 2017. The conversation pertained to Comey’s decision to make a public statement on the Midyear Exam investigation. Comey told Richman the tarmac meeting between Lynch and Clinton was not the only reason which played into Comey’s statement on the Midyear Exam investigation. According to Richman, Comey told Richman of Lynch’s characterization of the investigation as a “matter” and not that of an investigation. Richman recalled Comey told him there was some weird classified material related to Lynch which came to the FBI’s attention. Comey did not fully explain the details of the information. Comey told Richman about the Classified Information, including the source of the information. Richman understood the information could be used to suggest Lynch might not be impartial with regards of the conclusion of the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman understood the information about Lynch was highly classified and it should be protected. Richman was an SGE at the time of the meeting.

Nothing in the hearing on Wednesday describes the date scope of the warrants. But immediately after she described this warrant, Doneleski raised doubts about whether the Columbia emails had been reviewed for responsiveness, with non-responsive emails sealed.

As Your Honor is aware, each of these warrants require the government to conduct a responsiveness review and then seal and not review the nonresponsive set. I don’t know if that happened here, and Mr. Lemons didn’t describe whether the government created a responsive set.

[snip]

MS. DONALESKI: Judge, the government provided us with affidavits describing what happened; and from the affidavits, it sounds like the agents accessed the filtered returns, meaning both the nonresponsive and responsive set, because Mr. Richman’s counsel and Columbia did not conduct a responsiveness review. If that is indeed what they accessed, for the reasons we set forward in our papers, that clearly violates the Fourth Amendment because the government cannot then go back into a nonresponsive set that has not been identified responsive and continue searching pursuant to stale warrants for separate offenses.

If these emails were out of scope according to the 2019 warrants, then they should be sealed, inaccessible to anyone.

The privileged material was prohibited under the previous warrants

Tyler Lemons tried to excuse an agent for having read privileged communications by explaining that in those communications, Dan Richman used the name Michael Garcia.

MR. LEMONS: I don’t know the status — I don’t know if the team knew the status of their relationship. The other complicating factor, Your Honor — and we have two affidavits here that we’ve provided to the defense, and we have copies for the Court as well if you’d like to review it — one of the issues was the conversation that was being reviewed, the telephone name associated with one of the participants was Michael Garcia. And so it wasn’t as if the agent went in reviewing a conversation between James — the defendant and Daniel Richman; it was a conversation between the defendant and Michael Garcia. And so at a certain point, the agent began to understand the topics and the kind of factual — the history of the case; came to the conclusion that Michael Garcia looks like it’s actually Daniel Richman under a pseudonym or whatever it is. And at that point, it kind of brought into focus what, potentially, the conversations that the agent was looking at could be pertaining to.

That’s the name Richman used in texts exchanged with Mike Schmidt about the memo Comey had documenting Trump asking to let the Mike Flynn case go and because of timing — Richman only formally represented Comey after he was fired on May 9 — it’s likely the privileged stuff is the counterpart to this discussion.

It’s unclear whether these texts would have been in scope for the Arctic Haze investigation. In addition to the leak crime, 18 USC 793, the government also investigated using government materials, 18 USC 641, converting government records for personal use. In an interrupted comment, Lemons claimed it was responsive, which it might have been to that second crime. Donaleski wondered how the government filed them if they paused all review.

The government filed, on Monday, text message chats that came from the Arctic Haze warrants.

The question is how privileged texts between Richman and Comey were available in the first place. Lemons blamed the review Richman did.

MR. LEMONS: It would appear that he was — I don’t know for sure, Your Honor, but my assumption and based on him raising his hand on this, is that he was reviewing material that had not been filtered by Daniel Richman or his attorneys.

But given Donaleski’s mention of that original warrant, the one for which Richman did not do a filter, I wonder if DOJ got unfiltered content by accessing the unfiltered backup (which is effectively how prosecutors got the most damning texts used against Hunter Biden at his trial).

However investigators got to the privileged texts, it doesn’t fix the problem because they still accessed stuff from Comey before he had had an ability to make privilege determinations. And Donaleski argued anything privilege was not permitted to be seized, so anything reviewed now would be unlawful.

the warrants themselves specify that the government could only seize non-privileged materials

[snip]

MS. DONALESKI: And so to the extent the government now wants to look at materials that Mr. Richman’s counsel identified as privileged, those were never within the scope of the warrants, so they were never properly seized by the government, so no one can look at those materials. They weren’t seized five years ago. The government’s filter team didn’t challenge those designations, so no one can look at them. There’s no case law that says the government can go back five years later under stale warrants for separate offenses to look at things that were not seized five years ago.

Here’s where things get interesting, though.

The Comey memos are unresponsive to this investigation

Comey’s team has until the 19th to submit a Fourth Amendment challenge to this material. I imagine their argument may include the privilege problem and the responsiveness problem.

But then there’s the issue of proving that these texts are relevant to this investigation.

The Comey memos are undoubtedly responsive to the conspiracy conspiracy Trump is attempting to put together in Florida. This entire privilege effort seems to be an effort to clean up the material for the other investigation, not this one (which may be why James Hayes is on all the most important filings in this fight). The Florida case seems focused on claiming that by releasing the memo with the intent of precipitating a Special Counsel investigation, Comey unfairly harmed Trump.

But to argue these texts are responsive to this investigation, prosecutors would have to claim that they’re still relevant even after Comey admitted he had shared the memo via Richman, way back in 2017. Republicans have known that detail for years. His public admission of that fact is central to their claim that Trump had legitimate cause to worry about Comey leaking.

But to make that claim, they have to rely on the same false claim prosecutors (one of the filings that metadata attributes to James Hayes) made last month: that the act of sharing a memo that Comey understood to be unclassified was a criminal leak. (Starting in 2020, the government began to have problems charging 18 USC 641 in this context and precedent may rule it out any longer.)

That is, if prosecutors have to get a warrant for this material, it’s not clear they could get one for the EDVA case. If they tried for the Florida case, it could well blow up that case.

This whole effort started when, in the wake of the taint, prosecutors decided to use this case to quickly force though access to the privileged texts they saw. But thus far, the effort may make it harder to access material for both this case and that one.

Share this entry

As Spacemen Stalk Jim Comey, Loaner AUSA Tyler Lemons Doxed Him

/17 Comments/in /by

On October 20, in response to a Gateway Pundit article reporting on Judge Michael Nachmanoff’s decision not to accelerate the government’s bid for a privilege review, a guy writing under the moniker Spaceman Chuck claimed “we already have a team on” making sure that Comey “go[es] down” if he is not convicted.

A month earlier, in response to John Brennan’s criticism of the Comey indictment, Spaceman Chuck commented that their safety is not guaranteed.

As CourtWatch reported, Spaceman Chuck, AKA Greg Formicone, was arrested Wednesday for these threats, as well as others targeting Letitia James (also in response to a Judge’s decision) and Hunter Biden.

That very same day, in a hearing regarding the very same topic as that Gateway Pundit article — that is, the government’s bid to breach Jim Comey’s privileged communications — there was an exchange that hinted at how Loaner AUSA Tyler Lemons had made it easier for nutjobs like Spaceman Chuck.

Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick started the hearing by discussing warrants used to seize material from Dan Richman over five years ago. He asked whether the original warrants could be unsealed.

Rebekah Donaleski, representing Comey, asked to be able to propose redactions before the warrants are unsealed. She explained they were primarily hoping to seal things like email addresses.

THE COURT: Are your redactions simply limited to PII information or are they substantive in nature?

MS. DONALESKI: We expect that it will be primarily PII information or things of that nature, so email addresses, ID numbers, things —

But those kinds of things, Fitzpatrick noted, are already required to be sealed under court rules.

THE COURT: Anything like that, under court rules, are already going to be sealed. So anything having to do with emails, phone numbers, anything like that is never going to be unsealed with respect to this. But with respect to any of the substantive information, the more factual information, do you still want a chance to review that?

In a follow-up, Donaleski suggested that “the government has a different position” on whether those things are PII.

MS. DONALESKI: We would appreciate that. And, Your Honor, with respect to the PII, I understand the government has a different position on what is PII, so I appreciate Your Honor’s view that email addresses and phone numbers should be redacted as PII.

Lemons responded by suggesting that phone numbers and email addresses are not PII under Local Rules (which will surely go over well with Fitzpatrick).

There was basically a discussion between Defense and the government as exactly what is required to be redact — what is considered PII under Local Rule 47 and then the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49, and telephone numbers and email addresses are not considered that, but per the Defense’s request, when they requested us to redact that information, we did make that redaction, and we think that is the appropriate way to proceed going forward to make sure both parties are having a collegial conversation and redacting what needs to be redacted; and if there are any lingering issues that remain after that, it’s something appropriately brought to the Court prior to anything being filed on the docket.

Neither Donaleski nor Lemons mentioned what this discussion about PII referenced. But it is undoubtedly a reference to the way Lemons released exhibits in support of a filing earlier that week, leaving email addresses and phone numbers unredacted. Even after the first round of redactions, a phone number for Comey remained unredacted (it has since been redacted), though well before Comey and Richman’s PII was redacted, prosecutors had redacted an FBI email.

I’m fairly certain the threats from Forticone were nowhere near the first credible threats targeting Comey. Yet instead of minimizing such a threat, Lemons fueled it.

Share this entry

Jim Comey Prepares to Prevail at SCOTUS

/26 Comments/in /by

On Nicole’s podcast today, I said that many of the criminal issues that will arise from Trump’s politicization of DOJ won’t be all that controversial at SCOTUS (and SCOTUS is least awful on criminal justice issues). But I said one area would likely break new ground: selective and vindictive prosecution.

Jim Comey’s prosecution — and that of everyone else Trump is pursuing — fits poorly in the existing precedents for selective and vindictive prosecution, even while they clearly are vindictive.

Plus, I noted, that Trump’s penchant for yapping about legal cases even as DOJ attempts to protect him from liability in them conflicts with the language of Trump v. USA that — recklessly — puts the President in a prosecutorial function.

And the Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693; see United States v. Texas, 599 U. S. 670, 678–679 (2023) (“Under Article II, the Executive Branch possesses authority to decide ‘how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.’” (quoting TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 429 (2021))). The President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Art. II, §3. And the Attorney General, as head of the Justice Department, acts as the President’s “chief law enforcement officer” who “provides vital assistance to [him] in the performance of [his] constitutional duty to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.’” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 520 (1985) (quoting Art. II, §1, cl. 8).

Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 832 (1985), and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President, Art. II, §1. For that reason, Trump’s threatened removal of the Acting Attorney General likewise implicates “conclusive and preclusive” Presidential authority. As we have explained, the President’s power to remove “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed” may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts. Myers, 272 U. S., at 106, 176; see supra, at 8. The President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

Either Trump is properly in a prosecutorial role, in which case he needs to be at the center of these cases (and interventions like the Eric Adams bribery case), exposed to discovery. Or, his interventions are improper.

The current state of affairs, where DOJ claims the President is immune from discovery, permitted to speak endlessly about criminal cases, yet order up criminal prosecutions, is fundamentally inconsistent with rule of law.

Which is why I’m interested in four people Comey has added to his defense team (while also getting permission to submit a 45-page selective and vindictive prosecution brief, 15 pages extra).

Comey has added:

Donaleski is interesting enough, not least given the loaner AUSA bid to play games with filter teams. Plus, she would have overlapped with Maurene Comey at SDNY (and with some of Jim Comey’s old pals when she first got there, probably).

But the others, especially Dreeben, signal that Comey is going into this with a plan and the expectation that he will have to argue this case before SCOTUS.

This team is a signal that Comey intends to reverse some of the damage done by Trump v. USA.

Share this entry