Halligan off to a brilliant start on Comey indictment

[pat_k]

...

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala expressed confusion and surprise at some points during the seven-minute court session...

"So this has never happened before. I've been handed two documents that are in the Mr. Comey case that are inconsistent with one another," Vaala said to Halligan. "There seems to be a discrepancy. They're both signed by the (grand jury) foreperson."

And she noted that one document did not clearly indicate what the grand jury had decided.

"The one that says it's a failure to concur in an indictment, it doesn't say with respect to one count," Vaala said. "It looks like they failed to concur across all three counts, so I'm a little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that are inconsistent."

Halligan initially responded that she hadn't seen that version of the indictment.

"So I only reviewed the one with the two counts that our office redrafted when we found out about the two — two counts that were true billed, and I signed that one. I did not see the other one. I don't know where that came from," Halligan told the judge.

Vaala responded, "You didn't see it?" And Halligan again told her, "I did not see that one."

Vaala seemed surprised: "So your office didn't prepare the indictment that they —"

Halligan then replied, "No, no, no — I — no, I prepared three counts. I only signed the one — the two-count (indictment). I don't know which one with three counts you have in your hands."

"Okay. It has your signature on it," Vaala told Halligan, who responded, "Okay. Well."
..

Okay. Well. Indeed. Ms. Halligan, you are so f-ing far out of your depth it is staggering. Perhaps go back to being an insurance lawyer. You certainly have absolutely NO business attempting to prosecute a shoplifter, much less a former FBI director.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-james-comey-indictment-confusion-trump/

And if you need a little detail on how baseless/incompetent/nonsensical the indictment is, there's a little background on it in this post::

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220678536#post1

[malaise]

1. Holy Shit!

This is madness.
That is all

[pat_k]

4. Correction

Original post was intended as a reply to a different thread.

My reply below applies here too
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220680187#post6

[malaise]

12. Thanks

[Baitball Blogger]

2. Are they really making up their own charges?

They can't even tie it into the grand juries' findings?

[Deuxcents]

5. When did the grand jury convene to bring these charges? This happened so quickly

[Baitball Blogger]

7. Or are they using the results of a grand jury that concluded just the opposite of what they're doing?

[Deuxcents]

8. These charges came within days of statute of limitations, got a grand jury together to charge 2 counts

All within a week? A rush job that can’t get out of the gate and headed up by an inexperienced person who doesn’t or can’t decline the offer to bring the case in the first place because of pride or loyalty.
O, boy! This is gonna be interesting 🤨

[pat_k]

10. The bogus case wouldn't.take long to present

Probably pulled together from what some FOX News shill was accusing Comey of back in 2020.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220680187#post9

[pat_k]

9. I don't know.

There was reporting that the indictment was coming early in the week, so there must have been leaks that Halligan was presenting to a grand jury.

Back in 2020, they were obsessed with discrediting Comey. The ONLY "smoking gun" they could come up with then was the notion that Comey "authorized" McCabe's leak of the status of the investigation into the Clinton Foundation in 2017.

In response to Sen. Ted Fucking Cruz (to use his full name), Mr. Comey stated simply, and by all subsequent investigation, truthfully, that he had never authorized a leak of information.

It was a pretty simple set of facts to present, so wouldn't take long, particularly because what Halligan presented undoubtedly excluded the fact the accusations had already been investigated and dispensed with, or the fact that her predecessor was fired for refusing to pursue an indictment because there was no "there" there.

AI summary:

Leak source and subject: In 2017, it became publicly known that then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe had authorized a leak to a Wall Street Journal reporter in late 2016 regarding the status of the investigation. McCabe was subsequently accused of lying to the DOJ inspector general about authorizing this leak, which eventually contributed to his dismissal from the FBI in 2018.

Inspector general's conclusion: A later investigation by the DOJ inspector general found that while McCabe had shared information, FBI rules allowed the deputy director to speak with the media without authorization. The report also concluded that former FBI Director James Comey had not authorized the leak.

[Justice]

28. Supposedly not about McCabe, about Richman

Here is a summary.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/09/comey-indictment-problem-fbi-trump-revenge/

[pat_k]

30. Oh man! How many dots that don't connect did they...

...need to get to Richman??!!! So, saying you stand by 2017 testimony related to McCabe is somehow a false statement because they suspect he asked Richman to leak something else at some other time?

What a stretch!! Laughable!!

the charges are related to Comey allegedly asking his longtime friend Dan Richman to leak stories to reporters about an FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton. That was not what Cruz had asked about

.

[3Hotdogs]

21. I wonder if the grand jury "No billed" and they wrote up a "True bill" anyway.

Would that surprise anyone?

[W_HAMILTON]

3. MAGA incompetency might be the one thing that saves us from the voter incompetency that elected these dipshits.

[pat_k]

6. Yes. And the level of incompetence is staggering.

We need to stop with talking about the regime like it is this all powerful juggernaut.

47 and the minions in his regime are weak, cack-handed bunglers who are sowing chaos and misery. They are incapable of solving anything more complex than a wordle puzzle.

And 47 has never built anything that benefited anyone but himself or one of the other bullies on his "playground" that he plays sniveling sidekick to.

[malaise]

11. Thanks

[Sneederbunk]

13. Remember, she will be handling cases against real criminals too.

[pat_k]

18. Already, the entire 47 DOJ has lost all credibility with judges ...

At least the vast majority of judges in courts at every level, with the tragic and intolerable exception of the six black-robed traitors on SCOTUS.

[moniss]

14. As I said before, I smell a rat and the judge should

call the jury foreperson in and question them about what all went on.

[pat_k]

27. My thoughts in this previous post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220680187#post24

[Buddyzbuddy]

15. Was it just a way to get the original charges

that they couldn't get an indictment on, into the record to muddy the waters? Or is she just that dumb and careless?
One is cunning, and the other is clueless. Personally, I hope for one, but be prepared for the other.

[pat_k]

26. My thought in this previous post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220680187#post24

[DET]

16. I Don't Get It

Does this mean that the judge has a document that implies that the jury did not indict on ANY of the counts, and a conflicting document that says that they agreed to indict on two counts? Are they on the same date and time? How is this possible? Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but this would seem to imply that Halligan fabricated one of these documents, presumably the one that shows two indictments by the grand jury. If so, that would have huge repercussions. Damn, this gets confusing.

[spooky3]

23. That's how I read it too--but the story is confusing. Nt

[pat_k]

25. I don't read fabrication into it

More on that here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220680187#post24

I know people like her would probably be happy to fabricate if they thought they could get away with it, but she is so inexperienced she'd just be too clueless about chances of being caught.

[pat_k]

24. I don't read "fabrication" into it.

I'm guessing that she did manage to get 14 of 23 to vote a "true bill" on two of the counts presented, particularly since I have little doubt she excluded the fact the accusations had already been investigated and dispensed with, or the fact that her predecessor was fired for refusing to pursue an indictment because there was no "there" there.

Grand juries are prosecutors instruments. While they can be highly selective in what to present (they are only required to present exculpatory evidence in certain jurisdictions) any prosecutor who gives a shit about convicting on an indictment is motivated to present relevant facts, even if some of those facts could undermine the case. Getting an indictment that will be tossed on the first motion to dismiss that includes those "adverse" facts is not a "win," unless the prosecutor cares only for political "points" scored with the indictment, and cares about nothing else (i.e., can confidently count on getting a pardon when charged with malicious prosecution).

My speculation:
Maybe she got a "no-bill" from one grand jury and submitted a modified case to a new grand jury, got a "true bill" on two of the counts presented, and incompetently got all the paperwork fouled up.

Such resubmissions after a "no-bill" generally require new evidence and approval from the relevant U.S. Attorney's Office. Since she is that relevant office, all bets on needing reasonable grounds to resubmit are off.

[DET]

29. Thank You!

It really helps to get feedback from knowledgeable posters who understand how the process works. I had no idea that you could present to more than one grand jury (with ‘new evidence’) for an indictment. Absent deliberate intention to deceive, I guess you have to conclude that the prosecutor screwed up. Personally, if it was me and this was the biggest test of my professional career, I would have taken every precaution to make sure that I didn’t blow it. This administration continues to surprise with its incompetence.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

17. So, this is the government we deserve?

We've been abandoned. And most don't know it.

[Joinfortmill]

19. Dumber than rocks.

[struggle4progress]

20. " I didn't know we had to tell Your Honor one single consistent story:

I thought we could confuse Your Honor with several different stories and then you'd get a headache and do whatever we asked"

[pat_k]

31. It's a rickety bridge no one in their right mind would try to cross

Weissman predicts Comey's attorney(s) will ask for a speedy trial. And that could be VERY speedy (the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia is famously known as the "rocket docket" ).



https://www.thebulwark.com/p/trump-went-too-far-comeys-pushback

[spooky3]

22. Looks as if lawyering was not her entry in the Miss Colorado talent competition. Nt

[LetMyPeopleVote]

32. James Comey could get Trump's prosecutor outright disqualified from office: expert

Halligan may not have been validly appointed as acting attorney for this district. The statute of limitations has expired and if this indictment is thrown out, then the case against Comey may go away without a trial

James Comey could get Trump's prosecutor outright disqualified from office: expert

— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2025-10-02T00:00:33Z

https://www.rawstory.com/lindsey-halligan-2674146070/

Former FBI Director James Comey has lots of different ways he can defeat the criminal indictment against him for false statements and obstruction of justice, former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade told MSNBC's Melissa Murray on Wednesday — but one of the most scorched-earth methods might be getting Trump's federal prosecutor in charge of the case disqualified.

The prosecutor, Trump's former defense lawyer Lindsey Halligan, was appointed to oversee the Eastern District of Virginia after her predecessor, also a hand-picked Trump appointee, determined there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Comey for statements he made during Senate testimony. Halligan has moved forward per Trump's wishes, but has faced repeated setbacks as she has no significant prosecutorial experience, had to be coached through working with the grand jury, and didn't file the correct charging documents......

"I don't know," admitted McQuade. "You know, I think Jim Comey's got to think strategically here. If he's innocent, he might want to just assert his right to a speedy trial, say, let's go and dare Lindsey Halligan to get ready for this trial and prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I imagine, though, he's going to at least have some conversations with his lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, who's an outstanding lawyer, about filing motions for either selective prosecution, a violation of due process rights to a fair trial, or even challenging the legitimacy of the appointment of Lindsey Halligan."

With respect to that last option, she added, "It appears to violate all of the various ways a U.S. attorney can be appointed ... under the Vacancy Reform Act, and so maybe they want to go after one of those bases to get the case dismissed. But I could imagine Jim Comey saying, 'You know what? Let's go to trial because I am confident I'm going to prevail,' and it will happen quickly and be over. And then he would be fully exonerated and cleared. So that's a strategic decision he's going to have to make."

Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that Alina Habba, another former Trump defense lawyer appointed through questionable procedures to head up federal prosecutions in New Jersey, was unlawfully appointed. A similar ruling came down this week against Sigal Chattah, Trump's choice for acting U.S. Attorney in Nevada.