Lindsey Halligan, Interim U.S. Attorney for the eastern District of Virginia might have self-enabled herself into a club she won’t want to be part of. It got to be a running gag about Trump lawyers needing lawyers after he lost the 2020 election. As is the case with satire there was some unpleasant (for some) truth to it. Some of Trump’s lawyers who pushed his whole election denial strategy have been disciplined by the Bar in states where they held law licenses including some Disbarments.
I started wondering about Halligan after the Comey indictment and now with the pile-on indictment of Letitia James Halligan I think she’s painted another target on herself. She is so far out of her league, yet seems oblivious to that fact. She’s young (early 30s), and worked for a law firm in Florida that specialized in defending insurers against claims. Then she met Trump. Being tall and blonde that was enough for Trump to hire her after she chatted him up at Mar A Lago. However, she had never prosecuted a single criminal case or even been in a federal courtroom for a legal proceeding when Trump named her to her current job. Her only qualification was total loyalty to Trump and as this article from Alternet explains that could wind up costing her her legal career long before she’s even forty years old!
Halligan did what her predecessor would not. She presented (herself, which is highly unusual) a case to a grand jury and managed to (barely) secure an indictment against Comey. We’ve learned one count was rejected by them and of the two counts she got through only 14 of the 23 grand jurors agreed. I wondered then if she hadn’t screwed around with the facts of the case. Or to be more blunt withheld information the grand jury should have been given or even flat-out lied to them. Then she botched the filing in court and the judge had to explain to her what she’d done wrong.
You’d think that would have given her pause. Seibert listed to his career prosecutors and having had a career as one himself knew the Comey case was a loser. So he got forced out and she got her job promising to Trumpty she’d by god ‘git er done.’ And the case as I said is already mired deep in you-know-what. You’d think she’d take a little time to get her sh*t together but no, her boss has an enemies list and is DEMANDING indictments. So, as you know she’s obtained a second one of someone high on Trump’s Hit List that career prosecutors thought was a loser! The odds makers in Vegas are having fun setting the betting line on who will be next and how quickly.
In the meantime a LOT of smoke that’s more of a cloudy Trump ‘shart’ about the charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James. She’s now been hauled up on federal charges over alleged mortgage fraud. As I said the case is at best weak and like Comey’s might get dismissed. As with Comey that would be too bad because just how weak the case is would expose the evil nature of Trump’s retribution tour.
This is a documents case, that also requires proving ‘intent’, as in what was in James’ mind when she took out a mortgage on a property in the Norfolk, Virginia area where her niece lived. From what we know, in the various forms that had to be filled out on ONE, just one of them James checked a box saying it would be her own primary residence. She realized it and corrected the error. Much is being made about her getting a slightly better interest rate by not identifying it as a rental/investment property. That too is pretty lame because of the reason I already noted – James was helping out her niece providing her a house to live in.
It gets even worse for the government because it turns out more than one grand jury looked at this. Down in Norfolk James’s niece testified that she’d never paid any rent to her aunt. However she lived there for years. It’s unclear it she still does. I’ve seen reporting that neighbors say they don’t know the family that’s living there now. However, as Lawrence O’Donnell noted on his show last week the point where it mattered was long past. It’s also worth mentioning that the prosecutors down in Norfolk didn’t do two things – call James’ niece back for additional testimony after learning she’d live in the property rent-free for years to learn if she still did. Or when she moved out. They also, despite knowing what Trump wanted try to secure an indictment.
That’s what’s making this case a little more murky and even a little weird. Halligan is said to have thought it would be better to prosecute down in Norfolk assuming the jury pool would be more Trump friendly. Yet she presented the case in Alexandria, across the river from DC. Hmmmmm. THAT is where someday this could all come back to bite her. In fact take a huge chunk of of her legal career’s hind-end.
Two things matter. The indictment states that James lied on mortgage documents that would have, because of the interest rate save her about $19k over the life of the loan. However as I’ve stated James corrected the error on that one document so the lender knew all along that it wouldn’t be James’ residence. It’s likely she informed them who would be living there for the foreseeable future as well and that’s why the prosecutors in Norfolk didn’t try for an indictment.
In legal terms that’s called exculpatory information. Having said that you know the old saying about prosecutors being able to indict a ham sandwich. Typically they provide only enough evidence to secure an indictment, and since it’s just them and a defense attorney isn’t allowed to come in and present an argument against what the prosecutors tell grand juries it is pretty easy to get indictments. Witnesses and even defendants called have to leave their lawyers out in the hall. Yes, they can go out and consult with their lawyer but that’s not a good look. The point is that the ONLY lawyers allowed to speak in a grand jury (unless it’s a defendant who’s a lawyer) are prosecutors.
I mentioned prosecutors like to only present enough evidence to get an indictment. However, the DOJ has rules of federal procedure and they REQUIRE prosecutors to present any exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. In lay terms if they have credible evidence that says the defendant isn’t guilty of what the prosecutor alleges then that has to be presented as well. From the linked article:
Lawfare Senior Editor Anna Bower posted on X that she suspected prosecutors “used the other grand jury for testimony, then moved things over to Alexandria to seek indictment.”
But the big problem in the testimony, according to legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold, is that Halligan may have excluded this evidence to pad her case against James, which — if proven true — would not go well for her in court.
“Did Halligan present this exculpatory evidence?” asked Gold on X. “… If not, or if she explained it away without proper basis, the government already has a huge problem in the James case.”
It gets better. I mentioned DOJ rules earlier and the article details how things are supposed to work:
Federal rules on the presentation of evidence state that “It is the policy of the Department of Justice … that when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury before seeking an indictment against such a person.”
The rules further state that appellate courts “may refer violations of the policy to the Office of Professional Responsibility for review.
I like that last part. Judges also can make their own referrals for review and potential disciplinary action. Of course, Bondi would shut down any review to protect the administration. However referrals for review and potential disciplinary action can be made to entities over which Trump has no control – State Bar Associations. Lawyers are loathe to discipline their own but as we saw with some of those lawyers from the first Trump administration they will sometimes take action. Abuse of prosecutorial power is something that WILL get the attention of any state bar where Halligan holds a law license.
If a judge or appellate court slaps her down and makes a referral they won’t blow it off. Nor I think would they blow off any complaints from grand jurors who upon learning they hadn’t been told things they should have been told feel duped. LIED to. And that gets to an even bigger question. Shading the truth is what lawyers do. They are trained to present the combination of law and facts in a manner most favorable to their case. However while it might often not seem so there ARE rules. They often say one thing on the courthouse steps, as in sling b.s. but once in front of a judge they sing a different tune! We saw that over and over again in the aftermath of the 2020 election. Rudy and others made all kind of wild claims OUTSIDE court but IN court didn’t dare make the claims we saw in news clips.
In official proceedings in court, be it a grand jury or in front of a petit (trial) jury or in hearings lawyers who don’t abide by the rules find themselves getting slapped down and even referred to the Bar for action. Omitting exculpatory evidence that DOJ rules say should have been presented crosses the line from shading things into outright misrepresentation. And what if Halligan, who presented both cases to grand juries herself (again, almost unheard of for a U.S. Attorney) flat-out LIED?
As one of the experts cited above said if Halligan withheld information she should have presented to the grand jury, or worse outright lied it won’t go well for her in court. If that happens as I’ve said Bondi will make sure DOJ doesn’t do anything to Halligan, but by then things will be in the public record. I can’t imagine state Bar Associations won’t find themselves with formal complaints, and given how much publicity will be attached to this mess as Team Trump lawyers from his first administration found out the hard way there WILL be a price attached.
The difference is that the idiots from last time had made a pile of money already and were if not at retirement age well along. Halligan is in her early thirties. I’m sure she made a nice living as an insurance lawyer but unless she came from money she has I’m sure been counting on several decades of legal practice (someday returning to the private sector, leveraging her service to Trump) and making a small fortune. Like so many before her she assumed that ETTD wouldn’t apply to HER. Put a pin in this because in a couple of years or so her legal career might be over.
And finally, to answer the question in the title picture since she won’t be winning any convictions of Trump enemies she indicts (instead she will have provided them immunity on double jeopardy grounds) she will NOT get a bigly paying job in the Trump Org. Or anywhere else. What high-end conservative law firm want a Disbarred (even if she gets her license back) on their letterhead? Also, having failed Trump not even the RWNJ news outlets will give her a pundit gig. I won’t have one ounce of sympathy for her and neither should you.
1. Trump will blanket pardon his staff & cabinet
2. They all have insider stock money and crypto, so they will b so rich they won’t need to b concerned about being on the Bar walls of shame
M aking
A ttorneys
G et
A ttorneys
Actually if the Court becomes aware of the prosecution withholding known facts from the defense and the Court then in all likelihood the case will be dismissed with prejudice. If you recall the Ammon Bundy case that was heard in the Las Vegas Court and was dismissed with prejudice for exactly that same reason.
As I’ve said more than once since Comey’s indictment this is a tough choice for him. Via his lawyer Fitzgerald he can torment Trump and his minions like a BDSM Master working over a submissive and ignoring the safe word. It would be a sight to see, especially if the stodgy federal judiciary would finally relent and allow cameras in the courtroom. SCOTUS at least allows live audio sometimes. THIS would be a good time to try it out in a federal District Court.
On the other hand while Comey won’t be headed for the poor house the kind of defense headed up by someone like Fitzgerald is awfully expensive. Just getting this over with as quickly as possible and a dismissal with prejudice has to seem like something Comey would also want. Violating DOJ policy and rules of procedure in withholding exculpatory evidence to the grand jury is the easiest bar to clear to have the case dismissed. However it’s not the only grounds for dismissal. Selective or Vindictive Prosecution is a much higher bar to clear and seldom works but legal experts looking at this case says this is one of those rare instances where it could happen.
I think Comey’s initial reaction of “Let’s have a trial” was a genuine ‘bring it on asshole’ reaction. But knowing he’s evidently allowed his lawyer a motion to dismiss indicates Comey wants all this to be over and getting the case dismissed with prejudice would mean it truly is over. It’s hard to fault him for that, even though I think he OWES us spending the money to go through a trial and subjecting Trump to a legal ritual humiliation is the least he can do given his role in sticking us with Trump in the first place.