A federal magistrate judge said on Monday that the criminal case against James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, could be in trouble because of a series of apparent errors committed in front of the grand jury by Lindsey Halligan, the inexperienced prosecutor picked by President Trump to oversee the matter.
The remarkable rebuke of Ms. Halligan came in a 24-page ruling in which the magistrate judge, William E. Fitzpatrick, ordered her to give Mr. Comey’s lawyers all of the grand jury materials she used to obtain the indictment and raised the question of whether “government misconduct” in the case might require dismissing the charges altogether.
Minutes before the first portion of the grand jury notes were to be handed over to Mr. Comey’s legal team, prosecutors filed an emergency request seeking to halt Judge Fitzpatrick’s order. Calling it “contrary to law,” the prosecutors said they wanted to quickly raise objections to the ruling in front Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff, the district court judge who is overseeing the case.
The ruling by Judge Fitzpatrick was only the most recent setback in the Justice Department’s efforts to bring charges against Mr. Comey — a decision that was initially rejected by Ms. Halligan’s predecessor as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik S. Siebert. In an extraordinary move, Mr. Trump ousted Mr. Siebert in September to make way for Ms. Halligan after he suggested there was insufficient evidence to file an indictment against Mr. Comey.
Judge Fitzpatrick’s harsh words came just days after a different judge involved in the Comey case raised doubts about a separate question pertaining to Ms. Halligan: namely, whether Attorney General Pam Bondi had lawfully appointed her to her post as U.S. attorney in the first place. The judge overseeing that issue said she would make a decision on the matter by Thanksgiving.
It is extremely unusual for judges to examine how prosecutors act in front of grand juries, let alone to openly criticize their conduct. But that is exactly what Judge Fitzpatrick did to Ms. Halligan.
She also appears to have made another astonishing error, Judge Fitzpatrick said. In his ruling, he pointed out that she told grand jurors that they did not have to rely solely “on the record before them” to return an indictment against Mr. Comey, but instead “could be assured the government had more evidence — perhaps better evidence — that would be presented at trial.”
The judge also said that Ms. Halligan appears to have botched her efforts to pare down the three-count indictment she had initially sought against Mr. Comey after grand jurors rejected one of the charges. Moreover, he noted that the grand jury transcripts he later received from her did not appear to contain her presentation of the second, two-charge indictment to the grand jury, leaving the record incomplete.
If, however, a second presentation was never made, then the court “is in uncharted legal territory,” he went on.
Since many are so biased as to say things like “You lost me at the New York Times,” let’s look at what the judge actually said.
The following statements are by judge William E. Fitzpatrick.
First, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the Richman Warrants were executed in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the orders of the issuing court.
Second, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government exceeded the scope of the Richman Warrants in 2019 and 2020 by seizing and preserving information that was beyond the scope of the warrants, that is, information that did not constitute evidence of violations of either 18 U.S.C. § 641 or § 793.
Third, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government had the lawful authority to search the Richman materials anew in 2025.
Fourth, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government’s 2025 seizure of the Richman materials included information beyond the scope of the original warrants.
Fifth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the government’s potential violations of the Fourth Amendment and court orders establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law.
Sixth, the facts provide a reasonable basis for the defense to show that they were prejudiced by the government’s use of the Richman materials in the grand jury, particularly if the government’s conduct was willful or reckless, given the centrality of these materials to the government’s presentation.
Seventh, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government took sufficient steps to avoid the collection and review of privileged materials, including the reasons why Mr. Comey was never afforded the opportunity to assert a privilege over his communications until after the indictment was obtained.
Eighth, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether privileged information was used, directly or indirectly, by the government to prepare and present its grand jury presentation. This is particularly troublesome because the government’s sole witness before the grand jury was exposed to a “limited overview” of privileged material shortly before he testified.
Ninth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the disclosure of potentially privileged information establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law. This is particularly significant because Agent-3, after having been exposed to potentially privileged information, chose to testify before the grand jury rather than separate himself from the investigation to contain any further exposure to privileged information and limit any prejudice to Mr. Comey.
Tenth, as discussed in Section IV above the prosecutor made statements to the grand jurors that could reasonably form the basis for the defense to challenge whether the grand jury proceedings were infected with constitutional error.
Eleventh, the grand jury transcript and recording likely do not reflect the full proceedings because, although it is clear that a second indictment was prepared and presented to the grand jury (ECF 3), the transcript and audio recording of the proceedings do not reflect any further communications after the grand jury began deliberating on the first indictment.
VIII. ConclusionThe Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted. However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding. Therefore, in this case, “the Court has before it a rare example of a criminal defendant who can actually make a ‘particularized and factually based’ showing that grounds exist to support the proposition that irregularities may have occurred in the grand jury proceedings and may justify the dismissal of one or more counts of the indictment.” …
Accordingly, the defense request for all grand jury materials is granted.
William E. Fitzpatrick
Constitutional Law Expert Comments
I asked my constitutional law expert friend who has argued many cases before the Supreme Court for comments.
Here goes …
Fitzpatrick is a Magistrate Judge. These are judges who handle administrative matters for District Court Judges. Before trial, you get discovery of each other’s documents and if there are disputes, you go to the magistrate to resolve them.
All of the magistrate’s decisions can be appealed to the District Court judge, who is essentially his boss. The great majority of such appeals from a magistrate’s decision get squashed because the District Judge doesn’t like to deal with administrative stuff, and usually backs his magistrate.
In this case, the district judge is likely to affirm the magistrate. The mistakes discussed in the opinion are incredible.
The entire Comey case is completely fabricated BS. A rookie who has never prosecuted a case apparently got an indictment by lying to the grand jury about its responsibilities with little or no evidence.
I guess the silver lining around having Donald Trump running the DOJ is that the only people who will work for him are no talent, inexperienced lawyers willing to say or do anything Trump wants.
This is the kind of stuff for which lawyers get disbarred.
Disturbing Pattern
“The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted. However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps.”
There is a disturbing pattern here, and not just about the Comey case.
Trump absolutely does not care about the law. He has targeted people he wants prosecuted and does not care whether there is evidence or not.
Scored of people in the Justice Department were fired for refusing to go along with such BS.
I am not defending Comey. I am attacking the blatantly illegal methods Trump is using to get what he wants.
All of these political witch hunts by Trump will implode. Some of them may implode due to a recognizable pattern of Judicial overreach even if there is an actual case.
Lawfare Irony
Some will say Trump is getting revenge for what was done to him. Sorry, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Ironically, Trump was aided by the lawfare against him. Now Trump’s lawfare will blow up in his own face, much the same way.
There is no integrity in this administration. The only requirement to get or keep a job is to do what Trump wants, no matter how blatantly illegal.
Stupid Lawyers Department
Let’s now return to the Texas Gerrymandering case that went against Trump.
“DOJ Asked Texas to Engage in Unlawful Racial Gerrymandering,” Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote for the 2-1 majority. The DOJ is appealing to the Supreme Court.
The Law Dork has an important snip that I was not aware of.
Here’s what Brown — quoting the Texas Attorney General’s Office — wrote about the letter:
How the Texas Attorney General described the DOJ letter: Legally unsound, baseless, erroneous, ham-fisted, and a mess. That was a piece from the Law Dork that I was not aware of.
As a result, there is a genuine chance the Supreme Court agrees but lets the California gerrymandering continue. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?
Meanwhile, please reflect on the quality of Trump’s DOJ and Trump’s blatantly illegal lawfare tactics by rookies who have never even prosecuted a case.
Yes, it’s totally reckless. There is no other reasonable conclusion.
ThreeBlindMice: “That’s not the issue on the table, or how our laws work. I ask my fellow citizens, if you defend this when your side is in charge, how will you react if the same powers are held by those you despise?”
Correct!
And I even anticipated whataboutism with my clear statement: “I am not defending Comey. I am attacking the blatantly illegal methods Trump is using to get what he wants.”
Yet, two people responded with whataboutbidenism
One was somewhat surprising because I am sure he knows better.
And this 100% is lawfare. Scores of DOJ attorneys resigned because they would not do what Trump wanted. I will discuss that in a further post.
“Yet, two people responded with whataboutbidenism”
Well that’s because you triggered them Mish. When someone is triggered common symptoms include sudden fear, panic, anger, or sadness, as well as physical reactions like a racing heart, rapid breathing, or shaking. Individuals may also experience flashbacks, feelings of helplessness, or dissociation, where they feel disconnected from reality.
You are a powerful figure Mish and triggering these mentally ill people has consequences so they run to their one and only baby pacifier to sooth themselves and that’s the whataboutbidenism and sometimes whataboutobamaism.
With great power comes great responsibility Mish, use it wisely and cautiously.
You’ve just been awarded 2-Star Mishelin for this post, enjoy.
Mish daily shocks and insults train his readers for “stress tolerance”. Reading Mish is like training your mind in the gym. We build stress muscles. We benefit from him. We learn to counter attack, to breath better, to reduce blood pressure and heart rate and to ignore. Mish blogs gave him cancer and heart disease. His shocks made him more vulnerable and weaker !
Good. Aside from the insult and the poorly argumented points he made, the amount of posts he did that were impossible to link to the topics at hand were getting out of hand.
I expect the Comey case to be tossed. there is new info, even more damning.
Under sharp questioning by U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanov, Donald Trump’s former lawyer turned first-time prosecutor Lindsey Halligan admitted that the full grand jury never saw the document that became Comey’s indictment.
reminds me of Mao making engineers and doctors do stoop labor and the illiterates running China.
Mike
13 days ago
Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, who was appointed to a three-judge U.S. District Court panel hearing the case, said the 2–1 majority opinion of Nov. 18 invalidating the map was the “most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed.”
The majority opinion “has dramatic political consequences by meddling in the orderly processes of a duly-elected state government,” he said.
“The main winners from Judge [Jeffrey V.] Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law,” Smith said.
Dissenting Opinion
Smith said he was given inadequate time to respond to Brown’s 160-page opinion, which means the dissenting opinion is “far from a literary masterpiece.”
“If, however, there were a Nobel Prize for Fiction, Judge Brown’s opinion would be a prime candidate,” Smith said.
Not giving Smith enough time to prepare has the effect of “diminishing the impact of the dissent,” the judge said, because the majority could not address Smith’s concerns in its opinion. Because Smith was unable to assemble his dissent in time for the release of the majority opinion, it had to be listed separately in the court docket, making it less accessible to the public, the judge said.
Smith said the question at hand was whether Texas state lawmakers carried out a “mid-decade congressional redistricting to gain political advantage,” or “to slash the voting rights of persons of color.”
Because the “obvious reason” for the redistricting was “partisan gain,” Brown “commits grave error in concluding that the Texas Legislature is more bigoted than political,” Smith said.
Smith also suggested Brown acted hastily in issuing the injunction blocking the new map instead of waiting for the Supreme Court to rule in Louisiana v. Callais, a case in which Smith said the high court is poised to resolve the tension between the federal Voting Rights Act and racial-gerrymandering jurisprudence.
Trump has some sort of anti-charisma that lets him get away with bs like this, but everyone around him gets ruined. The end of the road is going to be really ugly for Pam Bondi, Lindsey Halligan and all the other flakes, flunkies and losers Trump has surrounded himself with.
Rogerroger
14 days ago
Wow reading all these post. It seems to me the general trend goes as follows. Everyone in trumps orbit seems to become a causality at some point. With their life in shambles. Trump tends to use his people up and discards them. .
I’m sure “the Donald” will fire Bondi for incompetence. And his followers will see him as strong and just.
Rogerroger
14 days ago
Well the goal might just be to drag his enemies through the mud finically
Something is brewing in ca around someone in newsomes orbit. Trying to follow it across the channels. Npr / conservative talk radio and the local mostly center right news. Havent been able to catch the whole thing. Looks like doj sent letters people know they were wire tapped.
I dont have trouble with rooting out corruption. With the current doj and administration i can help but wonder where the idea for investigation arose from. Maybe produce some warrants or something.
Will be watching. I would not be surprised with this adm it was done illegally. .
Mike
14 days ago
They got Capone on tax evasion.
Seibert resigned. I expect he would have been fired for cause & not doing his job. His team was unable to find any crime with Comey or fraud with Letitia James.
Rob
14 days ago
If only he told us who we was before the election.
TEF
14 days ago
Does anyone know, if someone is disbarred, can they still be still the US AG? In the press conference today, I have never seen a more timid, frightened, lost, thoroughly addled, deer-in-the-headlights AG Bondi. It appears that she may have lied in a written legal document in the Comey case in federal court, and is acutely aware of the legal and public embarrassing consequences that’s directly in front of her.
in trumplandia the us ag need not be a lawyer. he’s like chairman mao. hiring morons to run the country and putting smart people on plantations to work menial jobs. i think the empire will last, but the states will be nullifying lots of the idiotic federal edicts coming out of the cult of trump.
The US Constitution does not require the US AG to have a license to practice law. The Senate confirms an AG, so there is supposed to be some assurance the person knows the law.
KPStaufen
14 days ago
Trump’s contempt for the law is off the charts. This should surprise no one! Donald Trump, the citizen, showed blatant contempt for virtually all institutions (marriage, laws, and common decency) all of his life. Voters twice gave one of our most well-known narcissists and cereal grifters the enormous power of the U.S. Presidency. Absolutely no one should be surprised by any of his actions because, for him, the ends always justify any means.
Stu
14 days ago
– First, can the Defense challenge “How the Warrants were specifically executed”? Why Yes They Can!
– Second, can the Defense challenge “Exceeding of The Scope”? Why Yes They Can!
– Third, can the Defense challenge “Authority for The Search”? Why Yes They Can!
– Fourth, can the Defense challenge “Exceeding of The Scope”? Why Yes They Can!
– Five, can the Defense challenge “Violations of The Fourth Amendment”? Why Yes They Can!
– Sixth, can the Defense challenge “Prejudice by The Government?” Why Yes They Can!
– Seventh, can the Defense challenge The “Efficiency of the Collection of Material”? Why Yes They Can!
– Eighth, can the Defense challenge “How Privileged Information was Used”? Why Yes They Can!
– Ninth, can the Defense challenge “The Disclosure of Information”? Why Yes They Can!
– Tenth, can the Defense challenge “The Proceedings Constitutionality”? Why Yes They Can!
– Eleventh, can the Defense “Question The Transcripts Authenticity” Why Yes They Can!
> I don’t care if this was your First or Last Case, every single one of these, would/should be standard questions to ask, if you felt or even sensed anything amiss, that would “Help Your Case” Shame on them if they didn’t, and more importantly the Teachers that taught Her/Him… These all seem like fair enough questions to ask, based upon the charges, to me anyway…
“Fifth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the government’s potential violations of the Fourth Amendment and court orders establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law.”
or the 14th not mentioned: Comey is singled out for something rarely if ever prosecuted, fair treatment?
Let’s start with the Fourth as your first one. So tell me what part of this amendment are you referring to, as there are several. Once you have figured that out, then what did he/she break within that section of the Fourth Amendment? Then I can probably agree or have a reason why I don’t at least…
You also say: “Comey is singled out for something rarely if ever prosecuted, fair treatment?”
100 people murdered at once by one person, would be rare “If Ever” prosecuted too, so should they let the Murderer in this scenario be “Free to Go” because it was so “Rare & Unusual”
I highly doubt that would be the outcome…
phleep
14 days ago
That’s what one gets whenever one hires a bunch of hacks based exclusively on loyalty.
DangerFed
14 days ago
Remember The Lion King? The evil lion and the more evil hyenas surrounding him? I think the hyenas are about to consume the lion …. Nixon all over again. Never repeats but rhymes …
Michael Engel
14 days ago
Walmart E is more important than NVDA E.
Michael Engel
14 days ago
The mentally ill Biden reduced unemployment by increasing gov jobs and importing millions of illegal truck drivers from Bangladesh. Those truck drivers, who can’t speak English, kill people on the road. The DJI made a new all time high, but DJT, a lower high. Biden’s truck drivers bubble is hurting AMZN, FDX and UPS. When it deflates unemployment will rise.
Google AI says there are around 3.5 million truck drivers in the USA (or about 1% of the total population, so more seems unlikely). Does it pass the eye test that millions of those are illegal Bangladeshi? “Millions” means at least 2 million, so that would be 57% of truck drivers in the USA that are illegal Bangladeshi who can’t speak English and kill people.
There must be a truly florishing network of business catering to these non-English speaking millions, and the amount of kills must be huge too, but I bet the Deep State keeps covering it up. We know they’re good at covering things up now that Trump is president from the Epstein files.
/sarc
Michael Engel
14 days ago
Was Judge Fitzpatrick involved in the fisa court ???
Hopefully. That would mean the good guys wearing the white hats are still in the fight.
Phil in CT
14 days ago
The only redeeming quality of this administration is their utter and complete incompetence which severely hamstrings their ability to achieve their cruel and stupid intentions.
I believe Comey directed Daniel Richman to leak information about Trump, but Bondi certainly appointed a hack to present the case. Halligan isn’t qualified to do my laundry. It’s almost as if Trump doesn’t want Comey to be found guilty for some weird reason.
Yeah, but she’s hot. So any heterosexual male judge should find for her, right? Trump would. He represents real, American manhood. And hot chicks always get a pass. Any deeper thoughts than that and you’re probably a homo, like Roy Cohn.
Harris would have looked like a genius compared to this shit show. You’re kidding yourself if you think different. You might not have liked Harris’s policies, but she wouldn’t have led a circus like this. Depending on your point of view that could be good or bad. Watching Trump attempt the stupid and/or evil shit he wants to do, I’m constantly relieved by how incompetently he goes about it.
Phil, ease back on the mind-altering drugs, broski.
Hating Trump with a passion is totally fine, but please for the love of Baby Jesus don’t delude & embarrass yourself by expressing this sort of love for Comrade Kamala.
People around here, even those that hate Trump as much as you do, are going to start to think your Bat S Crazy.
BenW seems to offer honest assessments that although mostly favor Trump, not always.
I expect the Comey case to be tossed. there is new info, even more damning.
Under sharp questioning by U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanov, Donald Trump’s former lawyer turned first-time prosecutor Lindsey Halligan admitted that the full grand jury never saw the document that became Comey’s indictment.
I believe Trump appointed her directly.
She didn’t work for DOJ.
El Trumpedo
14 days ago
This is what it looks like when the GOP is sock puppeted by a dementia case.
Anthony
15 days ago
this is what happens when you have a real estate lawyer with zero criminal law experience spearheading a high profile criminal case.
the weird thing is she presumably had access to actual criminal trial lawyer and could have relied on them. Mayeb she didn’t trust any as members of the deep state (also known as career employees who know their jobs).
It did not appear that any of the career prosecuters (who hadn’t resigned) would help Halligan, and I would guess it was because none of them were willing to be disbarred for Trump.
Neil
15 days ago
I cannot think of a clearer example of lawfare, and the way they do not even care about using the law is just incredible. Great post Mish, well argumented
Tony Frank
15 days ago
One of the largest understatements I have ever read.
Phil
15 days ago
The courts now suddenly care about certain peanut galleries. They are as bad as Trump.
MPO45v2
15 days ago
“Since many are so biased as to say things like “You lost me at the New York Times,”
Well I welcome people self-identifying as too stupid to read or make any kind of rational thinking judgement so it makes it easy to find them and ridicule on occasion.
But the broader disturbing pattern in all of this is just how dumb every Trump appointee, lawyer, associate, or servant is these day. Incredibly dumb and these are the people running the government. Easy to see why the economy and markets will eventually crash.
I have the NYT Games apps on my phone. I like Wordle and occasionally Connections.
Tom Bergerson
15 days ago
This is not lawfare. That view is incorrect. Comey is a member of the Evil Ones and it is undeniably clear he undertook illegal actions time and time again as head of the FBI. He should be glad they are actually using the Justice system to go after him rather than just dumping him in the ocean.
Comey is pretty far down the list of the most Evil. Maybe they are just getting some practice for the bigger more important cases down the road
And I have to call BS on your “constitutional Law expert friend”. Disbarred? Really? And what does he think about the INSANE lawfare done by the Biden Administration in the 4 or 5 cases undertaken to prevent Trump (who I really do not support) from becoming President? Should ALL of the “lawyers” involved in that, and the judges, also be disbarred? If his answer is no, then his opinion is worthless.
And that goes for EVERY lawyer, DoJ principally, and all the judges also involved in the J6 cases. Disbarment would be the kindest outcome for those traitors.
Unlike you, my friend does not gage in massive “Whataboutism”.
You mark yourself as a biased fool when you do that.
I know you are capable of better form previous posts.
And he also said disbarment is a very low probability event, a statement I accidentally cut off.
The Comey irony, which you fail to note, is that without Comey’s last-minute bombshell, Hillary would have won in 2016. Somewhere along the line they had a feud and this is the sorry result.
Regardless, spare me the sap about Biden.
I seem to recall Trump is president now. This case is about what Trump is doing now, not about what Biden did then.
If you want some valid whataboutism read that last sentence and get a grip on reality.
I have no problem with whataboutism. Comey is in the group that has ALREADY destroyed the Rule of Law, which is the very foundation of the US system and The West. It is possible that the attorney is doing a bad job. I do not care. Comey is GUILTY of a conspiracy engaged in Treason. How they get to him is irrelevant. And with the “Justice” system already destroyed by those in the Biden puppet administration what follows is also irrelevant. I am not pleased with how Trump goes about things. Nor am I a fan of Pam Bondi. But I have already resigned myself to the likelihood that the Republic is not going to be recoverable. That Martin Armstongs computers prediction that the US form of government changes around 2032 is likely correct.
I wish it were otherwise but I HIGHLY doubt the system can be recovered.
Mish, you are absolutely correct! Without Comey announcing an investigation into Hillary a week before the election, she was on course to win with a sizable margin. Not enough investigation was done into why he would have broken protocol and done that. I believe that there is a good chance that Rudy Gulianni played a direct role in how that unfolded.
Surely this comment is satirical? After reading Mish’ post which is very clear on the arguments where the government has been wrong in this, you ignore them all and simply claim all is well because no one has ever been more evil than Comey? No rebuttal of the arguments made whatsoever to then conclude that this is not lawfare at all? Amazing.
Nothing like summing up a Trumpian political rant than calling the legal prosecutors of J6 ‘protesters’ “traitors” LOL
In my neck of the woods, these J6 thugs wouldn’t be able to be prosecuted. You swing a bat, flagstick, bear spray, police shield at someone here, you’ll likely get “castle doctrined” with a point-blank gunshot. Lucky for the J6 girl scout troop this happened in DC and not in middle America LOL. Tom, you must live in a gated community
In my neck of the woods the J6 insurrection would have been stopped as soon as the first Capitol Policeman was assaulted by emptying the first clip into the perps.
merv conlan
15 days ago
“could be assured the government had more evidence — perhaps better evidence — that would be presented at trial.” wow Sez a lot!!!! Grand Juries are (period) rubber stamps, but that sentence from a licensed atty is just astonishing.
Sentient
15 days ago
Just because the NYT is routinely full of shit doesn’t mean they’re always full of shit.
That’s not the issue on the table, or how our laws work. I ask my fellow citizens, if you defend this when your side is in charge, how will you react if the same powers are held by those you despise?
“That’s not the issue on the table, or how our laws work. I ask my fellow citizens, if you defend this when your side is in charge, how will you react if the same powers are held by those you despise?”
Correct!
And I even anticipated that kind of response with my clear statement: “I am not defending Comey. I am attacking the blatantly illegal methods Trump is using to get what he wants.”
Mish, this reminds me of the Paper Chase tv series episode where Professor Kingsfield was mugged on the street and his watch was stolen and then the police were investigating and came cross the watch in the perp’s apt beyond …
Comey didn’t lie, at least not based on any evidence the government has put forward so far.
this is why the actual prosecutors appointed by Trump (Siebert) who are actual criminal lawyers chose NOT to indict him because they said there was not enough evidence. So he fired them, and appointed a real estate lawyer.
So prosecutors who know the case better than you do looked at it and said there’s not enough . . . but you know better, right?
Correct. We don’t need evidence or a trial to judge people and punish them. Not in America! And since this is so much fun, let’s just arrest a whole bunch or random people and put them in prison without trial or evidence whatsoever! Why stop at one man? Are any other ‘traitors’ we can put away Edv? Perhaps your neighbour that you never liked? The teacher that gave your kid an F?
Use your brain. if it’s so obvious, why didn’t the first Trump appointed prosecutor indict? Why do you think you know better, when prosecutors who have all the info you do not said the evidence isn’t strong enough to bring a case? you’re just some rando on the internet with zero actual evidence of anything relevant.
ThreeBlindMice: “That’s not the issue on the table, or how our laws work. I ask my fellow citizens, if you defend this when your side is in charge, how will you react if the same powers are held by those you despise?”
Correct!
And I even anticipated whataboutism with my clear statement: “I am not defending Comey. I am attacking the blatantly illegal methods Trump is using to get what he wants.”
Yet, two people responded with whataboutbidenism
One was somewhat surprising because I am sure he knows better.
And this 100% is lawfare. Scores of DOJ attorneys resigned because they would not do what Trump wanted. I will discuss that in a further post.
“Yet, two people responded with whataboutbidenism”
Well that’s because you triggered them Mish. When someone is triggered common symptoms include sudden fear, panic, anger, or sadness, as well as physical reactions like a racing heart, rapid breathing, or shaking. Individuals may also experience flashbacks, feelings of helplessness, or dissociation, where they feel disconnected from reality.
You are a powerful figure Mish and triggering these mentally ill people has consequences so they run to their one and only baby pacifier to sooth themselves and that’s the whataboutbidenism and sometimes whataboutobamaism.
With great power comes great responsibility Mish, use it wisely and cautiously.
You’ve just been awarded 2-Star Mishelin for this post, enjoy.
Great post. I believe anyone that writes – “You lost me at the New York Times,” deserves a hooter of the day.
“… you triggered them” – For me, Triggers are the responsibility of the triggeree – NOT the triggerer – unless people want to give their power away.
Mish daily shocks and insults train his readers for “stress tolerance”. Reading Mish is like training your mind in the gym. We build stress muscles. We benefit from him. We learn to counter attack, to breath better, to reduce blood pressure and heart rate and to ignore. Mish blogs gave him cancer and heart disease. His shocks made him more vulnerable and weaker !
Should I ban this idiot or keep him on for the humor?
Great power, great responsibility. Trust your inner Mish.
Well he taunted me in reply and he is gone.
I put up with more than ZH or Wolf would.
His comment “Mish blogs gave him cancer and heart disease.” was literally begging to get banned. So I did.
thanks
Your inner Mish is always right.
Good. Aside from the insult and the poorly argumented points he made, the amount of posts he did that were impossible to link to the topics at hand were getting out of hand.
I know what I would do! He would be gone.
i block him for a long time. he’s smart but just an obvious troll, screwing up your blog of smart commenters.
Mish, are you channeling St.Thomas More today?
I actually don’t understand the question.
“Blatantly illegal methods Trump is using”, spare me the faux outrage like we have never seen the judiciary system abused.
I expect the Comey case to be tossed. there is new info, even more damning.
Under sharp questioning by U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanov, Donald Trump’s former lawyer turned first-time prosecutor Lindsey Halligan admitted that the full grand jury never saw the document that became Comey’s indictment.
Wow – Lawfare at its finest
she never was a criminal attorney. amazing. long live pax dumbfuckistan.
Now she may be a Criminal, attorney.
reminds me of Mao making engineers and doctors do stoop labor and the illiterates running China.
Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, who was appointed to a three-judge U.S. District Court panel hearing the case, said the 2–1 majority opinion of Nov. 18 invalidating the map was the “most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed.”
The majority opinion “has dramatic political consequences by meddling in the orderly processes of a duly-elected state government,” he said.
“The main winners from Judge [Jeffrey V.] Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law,” Smith said.
Dissenting Opinion
Smith said he was given inadequate time to respond to Brown’s 160-page opinion, which means the dissenting opinion is “far from a literary masterpiece.”
“If, however, there were a Nobel Prize for Fiction, Judge Brown’s opinion would be a prime candidate,” Smith said.
Not giving Smith enough time to prepare has the effect of “diminishing the impact of the dissent,” the judge said, because the majority could not address Smith’s concerns in its opinion. Because Smith was unable to assemble his dissent in time for the release of the majority opinion, it had to be listed separately in the court docket, making it less accessible to the public, the judge said.
Smith said the question at hand was whether Texas state lawmakers carried out a “mid-decade congressional redistricting to gain political advantage,” or “to slash the voting rights of persons of color.”
Because the “obvious reason” for the redistricting was “partisan gain,” Brown “commits grave error in concluding that the Texas Legislature is more bigoted than political,” Smith said.
Smith also suggested Brown acted hastily in issuing the injunction blocking the new map instead of waiting for the Supreme Court to rule in Louisiana v. Callais, a case in which Smith said the high court is poised to resolve the tension between the federal Voting Rights Act and racial-gerrymandering jurisprudence.
As illustrated by this century hold peom taught at French schools https://www.lieder.net/lieder/get_text.html?TextId=5710
Trump has some sort of anti-charisma that lets him get away with bs like this, but everyone around him gets ruined. The end of the road is going to be really ugly for Pam Bondi, Lindsey Halligan and all the other flakes, flunkies and losers Trump has surrounded himself with.
Wow reading all these post. It seems to me the general trend goes as follows. Everyone in trumps orbit seems to become a causality at some point. With their life in shambles. Trump tends to use his people up and discards them. .
I’m sure “the Donald” will fire Bondi for incompetence. And his followers will see him as strong and just.
Well the goal might just be to drag his enemies through the mud finically
Something is brewing in ca around someone in newsomes orbit. Trying to follow it across the channels. Npr / conservative talk radio and the local mostly center right news. Havent been able to catch the whole thing. Looks like doj sent letters people know they were wire tapped.
I dont have trouble with rooting out corruption. With the current doj and administration i can help but wonder where the idea for investigation arose from. Maybe produce some warrants or something.
Will be watching. I would not be surprised with this adm it was done illegally. .
They got Capone on tax evasion.
Seibert resigned. I expect he would have been fired for cause & not doing his job. His team was unable to find any crime with Comey or fraud with Letitia James.
If only he told us who we was before the election.
Does anyone know, if someone is disbarred, can they still be still the US AG? In the press conference today, I have never seen a more timid, frightened, lost, thoroughly addled, deer-in-the-headlights AG Bondi. It appears that she may have lied in a written legal document in the Comey case in federal court, and is acutely aware of the legal and public embarrassing consequences that’s directly in front of her.
in trumplandia the us ag need not be a lawyer. he’s like chairman mao. hiring morons to run the country and putting smart people on plantations to work menial jobs. i think the empire will last, but the states will be nullifying lots of the idiotic federal edicts coming out of the cult of trump.
The US Constitution does not require the US AG to have a license to practice law. The Senate confirms an AG, so there is supposed to be some assurance the person knows the law.
Trump’s contempt for the law is off the charts. This should surprise no one! Donald Trump, the citizen, showed blatant contempt for virtually all institutions (marriage, laws, and common decency) all of his life. Voters twice gave one of our most well-known narcissists and cereal grifters the enormous power of the U.S. Presidency. Absolutely no one should be surprised by any of his actions because, for him, the ends always justify any means.
– First, can the Defense challenge “How the Warrants were specifically executed”? Why Yes They Can!
– Second, can the Defense challenge “Exceeding of The Scope”? Why Yes They Can!
– Third, can the Defense challenge “Authority for The Search”? Why Yes They Can!
– Fourth, can the Defense challenge “Exceeding of The Scope”? Why Yes They Can!
– Five, can the Defense challenge “Violations of The Fourth Amendment”? Why Yes They Can!
– Sixth, can the Defense challenge “Prejudice by The Government?” Why Yes They Can!
– Seventh, can the Defense challenge The “Efficiency of the Collection of Material”? Why Yes They Can!
– Eighth, can the Defense challenge “How Privileged Information was Used”? Why Yes They Can!
– Ninth, can the Defense challenge “The Disclosure of Information”? Why Yes They Can!
– Tenth, can the Defense challenge “The Proceedings Constitutionality”? Why Yes They Can!
– Eleventh, can the Defense “Question The Transcripts Authenticity” Why Yes They Can!
> I don’t care if this was your First or Last Case, every single one of these, would/should be standard questions to ask, if you felt or even sensed anything amiss, that would “Help Your Case” Shame on them if they didn’t, and more importantly the Teachers that taught Her/Him… These all seem like fair enough questions to ask, based upon the charges, to me anyway…
Has the Trump administration setup Comey for a huge monetary award when he sues for violations of his 4th and 14th amendment rights?
Can you tell me in a sentence (for both), WHY? I’m very curious…
“Fifth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the government’s potential violations of the Fourth Amendment and court orders establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law.”
or the 14th not mentioned: Comey is singled out for something rarely if ever prosecuted, fair treatment?
Let’s start with the Fourth as your first one. So tell me what part of this amendment are you referring to, as there are several. Once you have figured that out, then what did he/she break within that section of the Fourth Amendment? Then I can probably agree or have a reason why I don’t at least…
Let me help… You Stated: “willful or in reckless disregard of the law.”
Which Part? In Regards To Specifically? What was it that was done?
You also say: “Comey is singled out for something rarely if ever prosecuted, fair treatment?”
100 people murdered at once by one person, would be rare “If Ever” prosecuted too, so should they let the Murderer in this scenario be “Free to Go” because it was so “Rare & Unusual”
I highly doubt that would be the outcome…
That’s what one gets whenever one hires a bunch of hacks based exclusively on loyalty.
Remember The Lion King? The evil lion and the more evil hyenas surrounding him? I think the hyenas are about to consume the lion …. Nixon all over again. Never repeats but rhymes …
Walmart E is more important than NVDA E.
The mentally ill Biden reduced unemployment by increasing gov jobs and importing millions of illegal truck drivers from Bangladesh. Those truck drivers, who can’t speak English, kill people on the road. The DJI made a new all time high, but DJT, a lower high. Biden’s truck drivers bubble is hurting AMZN, FDX and UPS. When it deflates unemployment will rise.
Google AI says there are around 3.5 million truck drivers in the USA (or about 1% of the total population, so more seems unlikely). Does it pass the eye test that millions of those are illegal Bangladeshi? “Millions” means at least 2 million, so that would be 57% of truck drivers in the USA that are illegal Bangladeshi who can’t speak English and kill people.
There must be a truly florishing network of business catering to these non-English speaking millions, and the amount of kills must be huge too, but I bet the Deep State keeps covering it up. We know they’re good at covering things up now that Trump is president from the Epstein files.
/sarc
Was Judge Fitzpatrick involved in the fisa court ???
Hopefully. That would mean the good guys wearing the white hats are still in the fight.
The only redeeming quality of this administration is their utter and complete incompetence which severely hamstrings their ability to achieve their cruel and stupid intentions.
Sounds like today’s day in court extended the disaster for the government. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/19/us/politics/comey-vindictive-prosecution-trump.html
I believe Comey directed Daniel Richman to leak information about Trump, but Bondi certainly appointed a hack to present the case. Halligan isn’t qualified to do my laundry. It’s almost as if Trump doesn’t want Comey to be found guilty for some weird reason.
Trump picked Halligan. Bondi rubber stamped it.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/22/bondi-taps-lindsey-halligan-federal-prosecutor-00575547
It’s almost as if Trump is incompetent as a leader and therefore chooses incompetent people to surround him.
Well, Trump is a real estate guy, not an attorney. So when He tells Bondi to appoint Halligan, then I guess she has to go along with it.
Either way, Halligan is a massive dud, and I would agree this is an example of Trump meddling backfiring.
Yeah, but she’s hot. So any heterosexual male judge should find for her, right? Trump would. He represents real, American manhood. And hot chicks always get a pass. Any deeper thoughts than that and you’re probably a homo, like Roy Cohn.
My goodness, incompetent president, is a problem for you, and yet
I would guess you voted for Kamala?
Harris would have looked like a genius compared to this shit show. You’re kidding yourself if you think different. You might not have liked Harris’s policies, but she wouldn’t have led a circus like this. Depending on your point of view that could be good or bad. Watching Trump attempt the stupid and/or evil shit he wants to do, I’m constantly relieved by how incompetently he goes about it.
Phil, ease back on the mind-altering drugs, broski.
Hating Trump with a passion is totally fine, but please for the love of Baby Jesus don’t delude & embarrass yourself by expressing this sort of love for Comrade Kamala.
People around here, even those that hate Trump as much as you do, are going to start to think your Bat S Crazy.
BenW seems to offer honest assessments that although mostly favor Trump, not always.
I expect the Comey case to be tossed. there is new info, even more damning.
Under sharp questioning by U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanov, Donald Trump’s former lawyer turned first-time prosecutor Lindsey Halligan admitted that the full grand jury never saw the document that became Comey’s indictment.
Wow – Lawfare at its finest
Right. It’s beyond a cluster which means somebody’s head is going to roll.
Trump picks prosecutors he would like to bang. The amazing thing is she’s over 15.
I believe Trump appointed her directly.
She didn’t work for DOJ.
This is what it looks like when the GOP is sock puppeted by a dementia case.
this is what happens when you have a real estate lawyer with zero criminal law experience spearheading a high profile criminal case.
the weird thing is she presumably had access to actual criminal trial lawyer and could have relied on them. Mayeb she didn’t trust any as members of the deep state (also known as career employees who know their jobs).
It did not appear that any of the career prosecuters (who hadn’t resigned) would help Halligan, and I would guess it was because none of them were willing to be disbarred for Trump.
I cannot think of a clearer example of lawfare, and the way they do not even care about using the law is just incredible. Great post Mish, well argumented
One of the largest understatements I have ever read.
The courts now suddenly care about certain peanut galleries. They are as bad as Trump.
Well I welcome people self-identifying as too stupid to read or make any kind of rational thinking judgement so it makes it easy to find them and ridicule on occasion.
But the broader disturbing pattern in all of this is just how dumb every Trump appointee, lawyer, associate, or servant is these day. Incredibly dumb and these are the people running the government. Easy to see why the economy and markets will eventually crash.
Got puts?
Got the New York Times Sunday crossword puzzles?
I have the NYT Games apps on my phone. I like Wordle and occasionally Connections.
This is not lawfare. That view is incorrect. Comey is a member of the Evil Ones and it is undeniably clear he undertook illegal actions time and time again as head of the FBI. He should be glad they are actually using the Justice system to go after him rather than just dumping him in the ocean.
Comey is pretty far down the list of the most Evil. Maybe they are just getting some practice for the bigger more important cases down the road
And I have to call BS on your “constitutional Law expert friend”. Disbarred? Really? And what does he think about the INSANE lawfare done by the Biden Administration in the 4 or 5 cases undertaken to prevent Trump (who I really do not support) from becoming President? Should ALL of the “lawyers” involved in that, and the judges, also be disbarred? If his answer is no, then his opinion is worthless.
And that goes for EVERY lawyer, DoJ principally, and all the judges also involved in the J6 cases. Disbarment would be the kindest outcome for those traitors.
Unlike you, my friend does not gage in massive “Whataboutism”.
You mark yourself as a biased fool when you do that.
I know you are capable of better form previous posts.
And he also said disbarment is a very low probability event, a statement I accidentally cut off.
The Comey irony, which you fail to note, is that without Comey’s last-minute bombshell, Hillary would have won in 2016. Somewhere along the line they had a feud and this is the sorry result.
Regardless, spare me the sap about Biden.
I seem to recall Trump is president now. This case is about what Trump is doing now, not about what Biden did then.
If you want some valid whataboutism read that last sentence and get a grip on reality.
you are replying to someone who is ranting against the “Evil Ones”. Why?
I have no problem with whataboutism. Comey is in the group that has ALREADY destroyed the Rule of Law, which is the very foundation of the US system and The West. It is possible that the attorney is doing a bad job. I do not care. Comey is GUILTY of a conspiracy engaged in Treason. How they get to him is irrelevant. And with the “Justice” system already destroyed by those in the Biden puppet administration what follows is also irrelevant. I am not pleased with how Trump goes about things. Nor am I a fan of Pam Bondi. But I have already resigned myself to the likelihood that the Republic is not going to be recoverable. That Martin Armstongs computers prediction that the US form of government changes around 2032 is likely correct.
I wish it were otherwise but I HIGHLY doubt the system can be recovered.
THANK YOU
Mish, you are absolutely correct! Without Comey announcing an investigation into Hillary a week before the election, she was on course to win with a sizable margin. Not enough investigation was done into why he would have broken protocol and done that. I believe that there is a good chance that Rudy Gulianni played a direct role in how that unfolded.
Surely this comment is satirical? After reading Mish’ post which is very clear on the arguments where the government has been wrong in this, you ignore them all and simply claim all is well because no one has ever been more evil than Comey? No rebuttal of the arguments made whatsoever to then conclude that this is not lawfare at all? Amazing.
Nothing like summing up a Trumpian political rant than calling the legal prosecutors of J6 ‘protesters’ “traitors” LOL
In my neck of the woods, these J6 thugs wouldn’t be able to be prosecuted. You swing a bat, flagstick, bear spray, police shield at someone here, you’ll likely get “castle doctrined” with a point-blank gunshot. Lucky for the J6 girl scout troop this happened in DC and not in middle America LOL. Tom, you must live in a gated community
In my neck of the woods the J6 insurrection would have been stopped as soon as the first Capitol Policeman was assaulted by emptying the first clip into the perps.
“could be assured the government had more evidence — perhaps better evidence — that would be presented at trial.”
wow
Sez a lot!!!!
Grand Juries are (period) rubber stamps, but that sentence from a licensed atty is just astonishing.
Just because the NYT is routinely full of shit doesn’t mean they’re always full of shit.
it isn’t routinely full of shit. it’s reporting is factual, and in the rare cases where it isn’t it corrects the stories itself.
their opinion pieces are another thing.
So, Mish… did Comey lie???
Go ahead… defend him.
Can you read? Think?
Are you a Trump parrot or brainless?
All of the above?
“I am not defending Comey. I am attacking the blatantly illegal methods Trump is using to get what he wants.”
Is there something about that statement you fail to understand?
That’s not the issue on the table, or how our laws work. I ask my fellow citizens, if you defend this when your side is in charge, how will you react if the same powers are held by those you despise?
“That’s not the issue on the table, or how our laws work. I ask my fellow citizens, if you defend this when your side is in charge, how will you react if the same powers are held by those you despise?”
Correct!
And I even anticipated that kind of response with my clear statement: “I am not defending Comey. I am attacking the blatantly illegal methods Trump is using to get what he wants.”
Yet two people responded with whataboutbidenism
I view that as a hopeful sign that they’ve finally worked through their Obama trauma.
He was complicit…. I am waiting for “you people “. To figure this out. He needs to come to justice.
Moron. You probably think Honest Abe is a hero. How little you know. A true traitor and murderer.
Have a nice day
Triggered!
Mish, this reminds me of the Paper Chase tv series episode where Professor Kingsfield was mugged on the street and his watch was stolen and then the police were investigating and came cross the watch in the perp’s apt beyond …
Yeah right. Tell that to Hillary. Sounds like you’d like to defend her.
Wrong was committed. Even treason!
Why don’t you root that out???
That’s the Issue!!!
Comey didn’t lie, at least not based on any evidence the government has put forward so far.
this is why the actual prosecutors appointed by Trump (Siebert) who are actual criminal lawyers chose NOT to indict him because they said there was not enough evidence. So he fired them, and appointed a real estate lawyer.
So prosecutors who know the case better than you do looked at it and said there’s not enough . . . but you know better, right?
Comey committed a crime. End of story. It’s time for him to squirm.
He’s a traitor. Lock him up
Correct. We don’t need evidence or a trial to judge people and punish them. Not in America! And since this is so much fun, let’s just arrest a whole bunch or random people and put them in prison without trial or evidence whatsoever! Why stop at one man? Are any other ‘traitors’ we can put away Edv? Perhaps your neighbour that you never liked? The teacher that gave your kid an F?
You are showing your glaring ignorance of history and what happened in America over the last. X. Years.
The list of traitors is endless. You don’t know your history.
Try for once, just once to read history.
“end of story”? thankfully it’s not up to you.
Use your brain. if it’s so obvious, why didn’t the first Trump appointed prosecutor indict? Why do you think you know better, when prosecutors who have all the info you do not said the evidence isn’t strong enough to bring a case? you’re just some rando on the internet with zero actual evidence of anything relevant.
And you are blind.
Really pathetic
Just keep ignoring all the flaws in your arguments that others point out. Calling them names is much more convincing indeed than rebutting arguments.