***Note: Since posting this article I’ve read a brand new one from MSNOW with additional information that further clarifies things. I will partially apologize to them, but the caveat is that their new framing is what they should have been doing yesterday**

I’m sure you’re aware of the mess Trump sycophant Lindsey Halligan has made of the Comey case. I’ll get to that but something I heard pundits talking about last night and this morning grabbed my attention. Hurt-Feelings Halligan went public calling out a judge who gave her a rough time in court. Rough time? Asking the prosecution relevant questions about THEIR clear errors is mean?  Anyway, Halligan decided to publicly put the judge on blast for calling her ‘Trump’s Puppet.’  However the judge didn’t do that!

Well, that’s only part of the problem. The second is how this has been framed by journalists and pundits. Oh, they’ve talked about Halligan’s accusation against the judge and speculated on whether it was wise for her to do so. That’s something they can and should do. What they have NOT done is put up text of the actual exchange in question.  They damn well should have from the beginning and sure as hell should do so starting right freaking now. Why? The implication is out there the judge crossed a line,  or at least might have done so when that is NOT the case.

Prior to reading this article from Mediate I couldn’t help but wonder about a judge who would call Halligan Trump’s puppet even ‘in camera’ (one of those private discussions in the judges chambers) much less on the record in open court.  I couldn’t believe a judge would be that boneheaded, but confess that like all of us judges are human and sometimes aren’t as clear as they mean to be.  Even hinting Halligan might be a ‘puppet’ would be wrong for a judge to do.

However if you’ve been watching news about the Comey case since yesterday evening or reading about it as I said at the very least there’s some question. Even Mediate’s own headline to the linked story provides ambiguity on the matter. To me, this is the second and even larger problem. We have a media, even progressive leaning outlets like Mediate or MSNOW that are worried about calling bullshit when they NEED to do so. Granted, the linked article does so but lots of people are pressed for time and ‘headline surf’ so unless you do a little digging and actually find out some FACTS about what was actually said you might have the same concerns I did.

Here’s the thing. Both the headline and the lede of Mediate’s article suggest Halligan lashed out over a ‘perceived courtroom jab’ that ‘insinuated’ she was Trump’s puppet. Well, Comey’s defense could be alleged to have done so but not judge Michael Nachmanoff. HE is the person Halligan lashed out at. Probably because as we sure as hell know she is Trump’s puppet and someone at the WH gave her talking points and told her seek out an outlet so she could attack the judge!

However if you keep reading and get the context of the situation and the actual exchange, the transcript of what the judge actually said it’s clear HE didn’t accuse Halligan of jack. Or suggest or insinuate. The judge simply was clarifying an allegation from Comey’s defense team and giving a chance for the prosecution to deny it:

On Wednesday, Halligan was visibly unhappy with Judge Michael Nachmanoff after some intense moments in the courtroom over an explosive revelation: the full grand jury was never shown the final indictment against Comey.

But in another exchange, the judge clarified a defense attorney’s argument by asking, “So Ms. Halligan was the stalking horse, or to use a different word — a puppet — for the president?”

Justice Department lawyer Tyler Lemons responded later in the hearing by telling the judge, “There’s been no proof that US Attorney Halligan took [Trump’s remarks] as a charge,” and that “Ms. Halligan was not a puppet.”

Context is key my friends. Let’s take that blocked out stuff point-by-point. Halligan was upset about the suggestion FROM COMEY’S ATTORNEYS she was Trump’s puppet. Hey, I know and I’ll bet you do too from personal experience the truth hurts sometimes. Even more so when it gets stated publicly.  Sure, Halligan was upset at hearing in court what she’d been reading/hearing from pundits – that she’s a Trump Toady doing his bidding. (Take a look at the title picture for proof her current sucking up to Trump is nothing new) so it stands to reason she’d be unhappy.

Second, and most importantly judge Nachmanoff did NOT call her a Trump Puppet – he merely as stated clarified an accusation made by the defense.  I’m guessing but I think perhaps even he thought it was over the top and wanted to give Halligan/the prosecution a chance to respond. Which leads me to the third paragraph which states the prosecution did exactly that.

***Since I first posted this I’ve read an article from MSNOW (MSNBC) posted this afternoon, apparently while I was writing the original. They get it right starting with their headline:

Heading for legal loss in Comey case, Halligan makes misleading public case against the judge

THAT is the tone that should have been set from the beginning, and yes I heard some commentary on MSNOW last night that didn’t take this tone.  I urge to read their linked article because it really lays things out. It provides even more context than Mediate eventually did and the additional context is important.  Let’s look at some key things in MSNOW’s piece. Unlike the first article I cited this one wastes little time getting to the heart of the matter:

“Lindsey Halligan fires back at James Comey judge who claimed she’s a ‘puppet,’” read a New York Post headline Wednesday evening, following the hearing that revealed the Trump-installed prosecutor may have improperly indicted the former FBI director. “Personal attacks — like Judge Nachmanoff referring to me as a ‘puppet’ — don’t change the facts or the law,” Halligan told The Post.

Reading her lament out of context, it might look like a noble prosecutor laudably undeterred by the ranting of a rogue judge hell-bent on gratuitously attacking her personally for the crime of doing her job.

But that’s not at all what happened.

I call that OUCH. Bigly. However the author (Jordan Rubin) was just getting warmed up:

As The Post reported, Nachmanoff wasn’t randomly calling Halligan a puppet. Indeed, he wasn’t calling her anything at all. Rather, as the story notes — and I’ll italicize for emphasis here — “Nachmanoff asked Comey’s defense lawyer if he thought Halligan, the prosecutor who brought the indictment against the former FBI boss, was acting as a ‘puppet’ or ‘stalking horse’ of the commander in chief.”

That is, the judge asked Comey’s lawyer a question. The judge wasn’t claiming anything himself.

Luckily for us all Rubin poses, then answers a question that I confess was still nagging at me before reading his article. Why did this even get a mention from the judge in the first place. Hey, if you’ve ever been in a courtroom opposing sides can and do cut loose on each other sometimes but it’s common for a judge to just tell them to calm down and be respectful.  Maybe not like the judge in And Justice For All who pulls out his .45, fires a round into the ceiling then slams it on the bench and says “Gentlemen, may I remind you you’re in a court of law?” but sometimes they are firm. Yet as Rubin helpfully explains there are instances when it’s not just appropriate but required that a judge call attention to something which gets us back to the question Rubin posed of why the judge would get involved in this dustup between the defense and prosecution:

The answer is that it’s directly relevant to whether Comey’s prosecution is unconstitutionally vindictive. As I’ve explained previously, “stalking horse” is a legal term of art used by defendants who argue that their prosecutors are doing the bidding of someone with illegal animus against them. That’s what Comey argues happened here, with Halligan acting as a stalking horse for Trump’s revenge. It’s not a term that Nachmanoff made up. He used “puppet” as a synonym for “stalking horse.” Whether he ultimately decides that she acted as one or not, it’s a legal question, not a personal attack.

THAT explains it and pretty well as far as I’m concerned. There are multiple grounds being argued and considered on why this case should be dismissed. One of the motions is about Vindictive Prosecution (an actual legal term and concept) so it wasn’t just appropriate for the judge to ensure clarity on who was saying what but to CLARIFY a defense allegation so that prosecutors could respond!  Bluntly put the judge did his freaking job and Halligan/DOJ is trying to make it into an excuse for when they ultimately lose. Perhaps before even getting to trial.  Still, this was a brief matter in a much longer hearing that included substantive legal arguments.  It probably would have gone unnoticed.***

There was SOOOOOOO much other goings on during that hearing that drowned out a defense insult and a judge creating a chance for the prosecution to shoot back. That’s all a much longer set of things to talk about. My point is that had Halligan just let it go no one would have talked about it last night and today. Alas, like the bloated fat-assed orange painted whale who’s butt she’s sewn her lips to SHE turned it into a story by publicly going after the judge!  I learned at an early age as most people do that often it’s best to let certain insults to roll off your back, or perhaps offer a quick retort to the insulter right there in the moment and move on.  Trump as we know isn’t one of them and it seems his example has rubbed off on Halligan like a smear of his orange grease paint.

Call me crazy but publicly calling out the judge who has multiple, solid reasons to dismiss a the case YOU screwed up from the beginning (starting with following Trump’s orders to get Comey indicted no matter what or how) pissing off the judge doesn’t seem like a smart strategy.  Then again, we all are watching this case collapse in flames like the Hindenburg. Even Trump has to know it.

Bondi might have crafted a strategy of laying down a marker to, if for any one of several solid reasons dismisses the case to use the BOGUS allegation of judicial bias as the reason.  As for Halligan, if she winds up being tossed under the bus so be it. ETTD comes into play. Hell, given the mess she’s made her legal career when she can no longer work for Trump will be in ruins. That’s assuming she even is able to hang on to her license to practice law.

Well, I hope I’ve managed to explain that Halligan’s diatribe against the judge is bullshit. And do what journalists and pundits have failed to do which is make it clear from the outset that judge Nachmanoff NEVER said/did what Halligan claims, and the aforementioned chattering class meekly suggest might have kind of happened.  Here endeth the lesson.

Friends, I know everyone begs you for money. I promise, among all those asking for spare change, we are the smallest and the hardest working. We’re a group of old, disabled people, except for one writer in his mid-50s. The rest of us are in our sixties and seventies, and this is a labor of love. All we’re asking for is the chance to keep telling the truth about Trump and help ensure democracy survives. If you can help, please do. Thank you. Ursula

Support the site with a subscription today and see no more ads!

Go Ad-free Now!