There's so much bad news in today's/yesterday's dumpster fire (troops to Portland with "full force" orders, ICE in Chicagoland and thumping and detaining people in other places, Hegseth announcing the Wounded Knee merit badges, the Supreme Court folding yet again to Trump's illegal actions, plus other things I am not remembering).
But I want to focus on the indictment of James Comey, and particularly the fact that a completely unqualified Trump stooge named Lindsey Halligan was named U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, after Trump fired his previous appointee, who wouldn't bring charges against Comey.
Why not? Because there wasn't probable cause, an assesment that just about every other attorney in the office agreed with, as well as all other objective legal observers.
Halligan is one of Trump's many personal attorneys. Since he was reelected, she's been hanging out in the White House with some kind of appointment. She's never prosecuted a case. She's an insurance attorney from a Florida law firm, who helped Trump with his case against the FBI after they raided Mar-a-Lago looking for classified documents. What that has to do with insurance, I don't know.
I'm sure she wasn't qualified for whatever appointment she's had since January either. And she's clearly completely unqualified for the job of a U.S. Attorney.
Here's some of what I've learned about her from BlueSky:
It’s hard to convey the insanity of a thirty-something White House staffer getting an interim US Attorney appointment and marching into the grand jury room alone four days later to indict the former Deputy Attorney General and Director of the FBI:
southpaw @nycsouthpaw.bsky.social
It's worse than that. She marched into court with not one indictment but TWO, both signed by her, one with two counts and one with three. Then this exchange occurred:
Paul Graf @paulginva.bsky.social
You left out that she was a Miss Colorado finalist. And went to school with Charlie Kirk's wife. Which shouldn't matter either way, but you know we're critically important to Trump.
@ericb013.bsky.social
As with his demands of Zelensky regarding Biden and the DOJ with election fraud, it seems Trump just wants an announcement of alleged wrongdoing by Comey so that he can be portrayed as corrupt. Weakness of charges are irrelevant. When Comey is acquitted, Trump will blame the judge.
Former judge and University of Michigan law professor Barb McQuade
The fact that DJT has so many personal attorneys to deploy into the federal government is part of the problem. But look at how desperate he was for legal help: parking attorneys (Alina Habba, who he tried to appoint as U.S. Attorney in New Jersey), insurance attorneys (Halligan). They’re not even from applicable areas of law!
@pattho.bsky.social
Trump picks his women attorneys based on their looks, which is obvious. Bondi, Habba, and now Halligan. And their willingness to do whatever he says, which applies to the men as well (though they can be ugly as Satan's cousin, like Emil Bove).
It hasn't been reported much but the single indictment the Virginia grand jury returned against Comey was far from unanimous, and nearly went against Halligan. The jury had 23 members, and only 14 voted to indict (12 were needed to move forward — not even a majority, which seems wrong!).
From RawStory:
"In a grand jury proceeding, the prosecution gets to present its case with no opportunity for the prospective defendant to offer any counterargument. And the grand jury still rejected one of the three counts, and voted only 14-9 to indict on the other two. Sign of a v. weak case," [journalist James Surowiecki] wrote on X.
Others noted that the low number of those willing to indict could speak to a rough future for the case.
"So only 14 of 23 jurors thought there was enough to indict after hearing a one-sided presentation? Not promising for unanimous verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt after vigorous defense at trial," Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow Ed Whelan wrote on X.
"This case won’t even make it to a jury. Rule 29 permits judge to grant motion to acquit for lack of evidence," commented University of Michigan Law School professor Barbara McQuade.
No comments:
Post a Comment