SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
james comey
'Craven and Corrupt': DOJ Launches Criminal Probe Into E. Jean Carroll, Who Won Civil Cases Against Trump
"It never ends with Trump and his revenge tour and actual weaponization of the DOJ," said journalist Mehdi Hasan.
May 28, 2026
President Donald Trump appeared to be out for what one human rights advocate called "outrageous revenge" late Wednesday as it was reported that the Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation into former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll, who won two civil judgments against the president after accusing him of sexual abuse and defamation.
CNN first reported that, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the situation, the DOJ is investigating whether Carroll committed perjury in her civil lawsuits against Trump.
The probe reportedly centers on a 2022 deposition Carroll gave in which she said she received no outside funding for her lawsuit. It was later revealed that Reid Hoffman, a co-founder of LinkedIn who has been critical of the president, paid some legal fees and expenses.
Before Carroll's sexual abuse case went to trial in 2022, Trump's lawyers told the court that the disclosure of Hoffman's funding raised "significant questions" about Carroll's credibility and accused her of trying to "conceal the truth."
Carroll's lawyers countered that the plaintiff had nothing to do with obtaining the outside funding and that Hoffman's decision to provide financial support was irrelevant to Carroll's accusation that Trump had sexually abused her in a New York City department store dressing room in the 1990s.
A jury awarded her a $5 million judgment in the case, and in 2024 Carroll won $83.3 million in damages in a separate civil case in which she accused Trump of repeatedly defaming her when he said she had filed her first case against him in an effort to sell books and was perpetrating a "hoax."
A three-judge panel on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously rejected Trump's request for a new trial in the sexual abuse case, saying the president had “not demonstrated that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings.”
An appeals court panel also upheld the $83.3 million defamation judgment, but this month Trump was permitted to delay his payment for now, as he has appealed to the US Supreme Court, asserting that he has "absolute immunity" for disparaging comments about Carroll that he made while he was president.
The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that Trump has "absolute immunity" for "official acts" taken while he is in office.
The investigation into Carroll is being conducted by US Attorney Andrew Boutros in the Northern District of Illinois; a nonprofit associated with Hoffman is based in Chicago.
The probe appeared to be Trump's latest effort to use the DOJ to enact revenge on his political enemies, a number of observers said late Wednesday.
"He’s using the power of the DOJ to go after his own victims," said US Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). "It’s a vile attack on the rule of law and a disgusting insult to victims everywhere."
Last month, acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel announced an indictment of former FBI chief James Comey, a longtime opponent of Trump. They accused him of “knowingly and willfully [making] a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon” the president; a year earlier, Comey had posted a photo on Instagram of seashells grouped together in a pattern, reading, "86 47." The indictment garnered criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike.
Federal prosecutors also indicted Comey as well as New York Attorney General Letitia James last year, in cases that were thrown out by a judge. James won a $450 million judgment against Trump, plus interest, in a civil fraud case against Trump and his business in 2022.
At the news of the investigation into Carroll, journalist Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo News wrote on social media, "Sheesh, it never ends with Trump and his revenge tour and actual weaponization of the DOJ."
Elisa Batista, campaign director at the women's rights group UltraViolet, said, "We believe E. Jean Carroll, just as a jury of her peers did."
“Donald Trump has been caught bragging about assaulting women, and was found liable for sexual abuse,” said Batista. "The DOJ’s investigation is nothing more than another craven and corrupt attempt by Trump to silence survivors and his personal opponents.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Tragic Transformation of Todd Blanche
Someday Blanche’s progeny may ask him why—as the chief law enforcement officer in the United States—he helped a rogue president run roughshod over the rule of law.
May 03, 2026
During President Donald Trump’s first term, he bemoaned the failure of his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to protect him from the Justice Department’s investigation of Russia’s efforts to elect Trump in 2016.
“Where’s my Roy Cohn?” Trump erupted, referring to his notorious former fixer who had also been Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s hatchet man during the 1950s Senate hearings into communist activity. Trump later fired Sessions.
For a time, Attorney General William Barr was the answer. But the two men parted ways after Barr told him repeatedly that no evidence supported Trump’s obsessive claims that voter fraud had cost him the 2020 election.
In Trump’s second term, it appeared that Pam Bondi fit the bill. She tried valiantly to meet Trump’s every legal need. She transformed the Justice Department into Trump’s personal tool, prosecuted Trump’s perceived enemies, and tried to protect Trump from the fallout over the scandal involving Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking of minors.
Bondi's Deputy, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, is now auditioning to remove the “Acting” from his title. He hopes to succeed where his predecessors have failed—to become Trump’s enduring Roy Cohn.
But she bungled the Epstein files. She tried but failed to prosecute two key targets on Trump’s vengeance list: New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey. She savaged her own reputation but could not save her job.
Bondi’s deputy, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, is now auditioning to remove the “Acting” from his title. He hopes to succeed where his predecessors have failed—to become Trump’s enduring Roy Cohn.
From Democrat to Trump Enabler
Blanche began his legal career in 1999 as a paralegal in the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Working days and attending Brooklyn Law School at night, he graduated in 2003. After a stint as an associate in the Davis Polk firm and two federal court clerkships, he returned in 2006 to the US Attorney’s Office as a prosecutor and eventually became co-chief of the violent crimes division.
In 2014, Blanche joined the WilmerHale firm as a partner before moving to another big New York firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft. In 2019, he represented Paul Manafort on state mortgage fraud charges similar to federal crimes for which Manafort had already been convicted in 2018. (Trump pardoned Manafort in December 2020). Blanche got the state law claims dismissed on double jeopardy grounds.
But in April 2023, Cadwalader balked when Blanche, then a registered Democrat, sought to represent Trump in the hush-money case involving payments to Stormy Daniels. So Blanche left Cadwalader and started his own firm. The jury eventually convicted Trump, but for Blanche it began a profitable relationship that generated over $3 million from Trump’s Save America PAC in the new firm’s first year alone.
Blanche went on to represent Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case and in the election obstruction case involving Trump’s efforts to overthrow the 2020 election. In 2024, Blanche switched his registration from Democrat to Republican.
Trump’s Latest Roy Cohn
Blanche is no longer Trump’s personal attorney, but you wouldn’t know it from his conduct in office.
Although he was the No. 2 official in the Justice Department, in July 2025 he tried to quiet the MAGA backlash over Trump’s breach of an election pledge to release the Justice Department’s Epstein files. Blanche went to Florida where Epstein’s co-conspirator Ghislane Maxwell was in prison and interviewed her personally. Openly seeking a pardon, Maxwell said that she had never seen Trump do anything inappropriate.
Mission accomplished.
Shortly thereafter, Maxwell was transferred to a “club fed-type” prison camp—even though her conviction had rendered her ineligible for such placement under Bureau of Prisons policy. Blanche said that threats against her were the reason for the transfer.
As acting attorney general, Blanche has now picked up where Bondi had failed to put Comey behind bars. At an April 28, 2026 press conference, he announced Comey’s indictment alleging that in posting an Instagram photo of sea shells that formed “86 47” on a North Carolina beach, Comey “knowingly and willfully made a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States.”
A sea-shell death threat via Instagram.
“So, I think it's fair to say that threatening the life of anybody is dangerous and potentially a crime,” Blanche said indignantly as he explained that the charges against Comey came with a 10-year potential prison sentence. “Threatening the life of the President of the United States will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice.”
Blanche continued, “[W]hile this case is unique and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute.”
Really? How about these?
“Hang Mike Pence”—Trump pardoned more than 1,500 January 6 insurrectionists, some of whom may have been responsible for the sign carrying that message and the gallows accompanying it. The statute of limitations on such “threats” is five years. Where was that indictment?
“86 46”—Anti-Biden Trump social media personality Jack Posobiec posted this in January 2022. It also appeared on T-Shirts, caps, and Republican fundraising messages.
Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) posted this in February 2024: “We’ve now 86’d: McCarthy, McDaniel, McConnell. Better days are ahead for the Republican Party.”
Wasting Taxpayer Money
Prosecutors face a daunting task proving Comey’s subjective intent to harm Trump. Even longtime Trump apologist Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, acknowledged that the indictment “is unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny. If it did, it would allow the government to criminalize a huge swath of political speech in the United States.”
When asked at his press conference how he would prove intent, Blanche said “with witnesses, with documents, and with the defendant himself,” adding: “It's very premature for me to do that today.”
That non-answer won’t suffice when Comey’s lawyers provide evidence that this is just another vindictive prosecution on Trump’s behalf at taxpayer expense.
Someday Blanche’s progeny may ask him why—as the chief law enforcement officer in the United States—he helped a rogue president run roughshod over the rule of law.
He probably won’t tell them about Roy Cohn.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Comey Indictment Called 'New Low' for White House 'At War with First Amendment'
"This is embarrassing for America," said one First Amendment advocate.
Apr 29, 2026
As the corporate media joins the White House in a new round of accusations against critics of President Donald Trump in the wake of an attempted attack on the White House Correspondents' Association dinner last week—with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche blaming anti-Trump "rhetoric" for the violence at the event—the administration on Tuesday unveiled a new indictment of longtime Trump foe James Comey in what legal experts called a transparent attack on the First Amendment.
At a press conference held by Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel, the officials made the case—without presenting specific evidence—that a federal grand jury in North Carolina had indicted former FBI chief Comey because he'd "knowingly and willfully [made] a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon" Trump in May 2025 in a photo he posted on Instagram.
The picture showed seashells grouped together in a pattern, reading, "86 47."
Trump is the 47th president of the United States, and the slang term "86" means "to get rid of," originating in the 1930s. According to Merriam-Webster, the term began being used as a verb in the 1950s when restaurants and bars used it to mean refusing service to a customer or throwing them out of an establishment. That use of the term is still the most common, according to the dictionary, which wrote: "Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of 'to kill.' We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use."
Comey quickly deleted his post last May, which he said he had shared after finding the seashells in the arrangement during a walk on a beach. The former FBI director said he deleted that post after realizing "some folks associate those numbers with violence," and said he opposes violence "of any kind."
Nevertheless, the indictment handed down on Tuesday reads that the shells were “arranged in a pattern making out ‘86 47,' which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the president of the United States.”
Comey was charged with one count of making threats against Trump and one count of transmitting a threat across state lines.
Federal officials issued a warrant for Comey's arrest, but Blanche did not say whether any court dates had been scheduled in the case.
The indictment was dismissed by several legal experts, with prosecutors within the US Department of Justice reportedly calling it "the flimsiest federal indictment in memory," according to ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl. Building a case based solely on an image of seashells will be an uphill battle for the DOJ, particularly considering First Amendment protections on speech.
New York University law professor Ryan Goodman called the indictment "laughably ludicrous" and a "political act masquerading as an indictment," while US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) condemned the president for using the DOJ as his "personal attack dog, using taxpayer money to settle Trump's petty grievances."
This is the second federal indictment that's been handed down by the DOJ for Comey in seven months. Last September he was indicted on two counts of lying to Congress during a testimony he gave in 2020 regarding the FBI's handling of its investigation into Trump's 2016 presidential campaign's ties to Russia.
The DOJ indicted Comey in that case even though a Trump-appointed US attorney had concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge him; the president later forced the prosecutor out of his job. A judge ultimately threw out the indictment, ruling that the prosecutor's replacement had been unlawfully appointed to oversee the case.
Both cases have come years after Trump, during his first term, fired Comey as FBI director over the agency's investigation into his 2016 campaign.
Conservative lawyer Gregg Nunziata of the Society for the Rule of Law called the latest indictment of Comey "legally deficient" and a "scandalous marker of a president and his administration corruptly using government power to punish dissent."
American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick noted that the administration has "repeatedly pursued criminal charges (or other punishments) against political opponents for their speech, at a level not seen since the most censorious days of the early 20th century," including by attempting to charge members of Congress for reminding service members they are obligated to disobey illegal orders.
"In an administration at war with the First Amendment," said Reichlin-Melnick, "this is a new low."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Tragic Case of a Very Incompetent Lindsay Halligan
From professional whitewasher of American history to one of the most high-profile examples of legal malpractice ever witnessed by a federal prosecutor—all in service to the endless narcissism and corruption of Donald J. Trump.
Nov 26, 2025
In the service of President Donald Trump, Lindsay Halligan, Trump’s second interim appointment as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, may lose her license to practice law.
Who is Halligan?
Competence is a key requirement for obtaining and retaining a law license. But nothing in Halligan’s education, experience, or training qualified her to prosecute federal crimes, much less lead a US Attorney’s office of more than 300 attorneys and staff in four divisions in Alexandria, Richmond, Norfolk, and Newport News. For starters, she has never tried a criminal case. But Trump always prefers loyalty over competence.
Halligan attended a private Catholic high school and a Jesuit university where she studied politics and broadcast journalism. She competed in the Miss Colorado USA pageant in 2009 and 2010 and received her law degree from the University of Miami School of Law. Upon graduation, she went to work in a Miami law firm, representing insurance companies against homeowners and businesses.
Even if Halligan manages to keep her law license, she will never recover her professional reputation. It’s the Trump effect.
Halligan met Trump in November 2021 at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach. In early 2022, he made her part of his legal team on the Mar-a-Lago documents case.
After the election, she worked on Trump’s project to whitewash US history by cleansing the Smithsonian Institution of historically accurate but unpleasant facts. In August, she co-signed a letter instructing eight of the Smithsonian’s museums to replace exhibits that include “divisive or ideologically driven” material with “unifying, historically accurate” displays.
Answering Trump’s Call…
Based on the weakness of the cases against former FBI director James Comey and another Trump target, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Trump’s first interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Eric S. Siebert, refused his demand to indict them. Trump responded by declaring that he wanted Siebert “out.” Hours later, he resigned.
With the statute of limitations on charges against Comey expiring in days, Trump told Attorney General Pam Bondi to appoint 36-year-old Halligan—a senior White House staff secretary and special assistant to the President—as Siebert’s replacement.
“Lindsay Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you a lot,” Trump posted in a public message to Bondi.
Two days later, Halligan was sworn in as the new interim US Attorney. Her singular mission was to secure indictments against Comey and James.
Two days after that, on September 24, she succeeded. Halligan presented the case against Comey personally to the grand jury. Federal judges are now exposing her incompetence.
November 17: A federal magistrate judge found that the government may have violated Comey’s constitutional rights and his attorney-client privilege. The court listed 11 bases upon which the government’s misconduct—including Halligan’s statements to and conduct before the grand jury—may have violated the Constitution and require dismissal of Comey’s indictment.
November 19: Halligan admitted to another federal judge that she never showed the final indictment to the entire grand jury after it had rejected her first submission – a remarkable prosecutorial failure.
November 24: In rulings that invalidated the Comey and James indictments based on Trump’s unlawful appointment of Halligan, a third court began its opinion with this shot:
On September 25, 2025, Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, appeared before a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. Having been appointed Interim U.S. Attorney by the Attorney General just days before, Ms. Halligan secured a two-count indictment charging former FBI Director James B. Comey, Jr….
…And Suffering the Consequences
Every attorney requires a license to practice law. The bar examiners who issue and renew those licenses promulgate rules of conduct that every lawyer must follow. Even before the latest judicial revelations, Halligan was defending complaints that she had violated those rules. But with the latest court rulings, she is in a whole new world of hurt. And Trump’s pardons won’t help her.
Here’s a partial list of the Model Rules that could pose problems for Halligan:
Rule 1.1: Competence
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”
[Halligan has never tried a criminal case.]
Rule 3.1: Meritorious Claims and Contentions
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous,….”
[Halligan’s predecessor found that the case against Comey was too weak to pursue.]
Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a)refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;….”
[Here, again, her predecessor found that any case against Comey was a loser for the government.]
Rule 8.4: Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;….”
[The circumstances surrounding Trump’s appointment of Halligan and her subsequent indictment of Comey suggest an abuse of power and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.]
Special rules for federal prosecutors echo and reinforce the Model Rules. They too require probable cause for charges, investigations and prosecutions that are conducted fairly and without vindictiveness, and a ban against politicized or partisan prosecutions.
In fact, the Justice Department has a “longstanding threshold requirement that a prosecutor may commence or recommend federal prosecution only if he/she believes that the person will more likely than not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by an unbiased trier of fact and that the conviction will be upheld on appeal.”
Even if Halligan manages to keep her law license, she will never recover her professional reputation. It’s the Trump effect.
Maybe she can get Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s old job at Fox News.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Tosses Comey, James Cases Over 'Unlawful' Appointment of Trump Prosecutor
"This case was not about justice or the law; it was about targeting Attorney General James for what she stood for and who she challenged," said Letitia James' lawyer.
Nov 24, 2025
A federal judge on Monday threw out criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that President Donald Trump's handpicked prosecutor was illegally installed.
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton appointee, wrote in her Monday orders that former White House official Lindsey Halligan "has been unlawfully serving" as interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and that "all actions flowing" from her appointment "constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside."
Halligan is a Trump loyalist with no prior experience as a prosecutor—something that quickly became apparent as she made glaring mistakes in pursuit of charges against Comey and James, frequent targets of the president's ire. The charges against Comey and James were widely seen as flimsy and politically motivated.
Halligan was installed in late September, just two days after Trump fired off a since-deleted social media post complaining about the lack of action against Comey and James. Currie highlighted the post in her order.
"Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot," Trump wrote, directing his message at Attorney General Pam Bondi. "We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility."
Halligan's predecessor, Erik Siebert, resigned under pressure from the Trump administration for declining to seek indictments against Comey and James. Siebert privately voiced concern that there wasn't enough evidence to pursue charges.
Currie ruled that Halligan's Trump-directed appointment violated 28 US Code § 546 and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The Comey and James cases were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the Trump administration could try to install a new prosecutor to revive the charges—though the statute of limitations in Comey's case expired at the end of September.
Democracy Docket notes that Halligan "is the fourth Trump-appointed acting US attorney deemed to be serving unlawfully."
James, who brought a civil suit against Trump in 2022 for "fraudulent and misleading asset valuations," said Monday that she was "heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country."
"I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day," James added.
Abbe David Lowell, James' attorney, said Monday that "this case was not about justice or the law; it was about targeting Attorney General James for what she stood for and who she challenged."
"We will continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available," said Lowell.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Should Be Immediately Disbarred': Trump-Picked Prosecutor's Blunder in Comey Case Leaves Experts Stunned
"I honestly didn't even know this was a mistake you could make," said one observer.
Nov 19, 2025
Legal experts and reporters reacted with shock on Wednesday after Trump-appointed interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan acknowledged that a grand jury never voted on the operative indictment filed against former FBI Director James Comey.
Politico reports that the admission appears to have put the Comey prosecution "in serious jeopardy," as Halligan told US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff the grand jury never saw the final indictment that was handed down in September that charged Comey with one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding.
The final indictment was a revised version of an originally proposed three-count indictment that needed to be changed after the grand jury rejected one of the proposed charges against Comey.
Former federal prosecutor Ken White attempted to piece together exactly what Halligan did in a post on Bluesky.
"So here’s what apparently happened: they tried to indict Comey on the last day of the statute with a three-count indictment," he explained. "The grand jury rejected one. Rather than cross it out or indicate on the indictment that only two of the three counts were voted upon, Halligan creates a new indictment, which shows only the two counts they true billed, and has the foreperson sign it without presenting it to the grand jury."
Assistant US Attorney Tyler Lemons told Nachmanoff that it was necessary to revise the indictment on short notice after grand jurors no-billed one of the charges since the statute of limitations for Comey's alleged crimes was set to expire within mere hours.
"They really had no other way to return it," he told the court.
Nonetheless, many observers expressed shock that Halligan could make such an elementary error that could singlehandedly get the entire case against Comey dismissed.
"Lindsey Halligan should be immediately disbarred," wrote Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at the Georgia State College School of Law, in a post on X.
Political and leadership consultant Elizabeth Cronise McLaughlin, a former human rights attorney, also believed that Hallingan should face severe consequences for pushing forward with an indictment that had not been voted on by a full grand jury.
"This should result in the interim US Attorney losing her bar license," she wrote on Bluesky. "Never, in almost 30 years as an attorney, have I heard of this big of an intentional fuck up before a grand jury."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) argued that Halligan's actions were enough to justify her termination as interim US attorney.
"In a normal Department of Justice not run by hacks and sycophants and malicious clowns," he wrote, "Lindsey Halligan would resign and the indictment against James Comey would be dismissed."
Quinta Jurecic, a longtime legal journalist who writes for The Atlantic, said that she found Halligan's error to be "impressive" because "I honestly didn't even know this was a mistake you could make."
Anti-Trump attorney George Conway, meanwhile, encouraged his followers on X to "please remember to give thanks to the Lord that Trump and his people are so unbelievably incompetent."
Maya Sen, a political scientist at the Harvard Kennedy School, drew a line between the quality of legal competence in the Comey case and a three-judge panel in Texas shooting down the administration's efforts to redraw Texas' congressional map as part of a mid-decade gerrymandering scheme.
"High levels of incompetence between this and the DOJ-TX gerrymandering situation," she wrote on X. "It's hard to find people with high levels of competence and expertise when maximizing on ideological and personal loyalty, and this is a problem for [Republicans] in the age of educational polarization."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Says Trump's Handpicked Attorney May Have 'Tainted' Case Against Comey With False Statements
"I have never seen a more scathing opinion, with this many errors, in any criminal case I have ever covered," said one legal reporter.
Nov 17, 2025
The attorney handpicked to prosecute President Donald Trump's enemies may have "tainted the grand jury proceedings" against former FBI Director James Comey by making multiple false statements, said a federal judge Monday.
In a 24-page ruling, Federal Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick said that the Department of Justice (DOJ) engaged in a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” when moving to secure the indictment of the former FBI director in September, following a direct order from Trump to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
As a result, Fitzpatrick granted what he called an "extraordinary remedy," requiring all grand jury materials in the case, including audio recordings of the grand jury proceedings, to be made available to the defense. Typically, information from a grand jury indictment is kept secret until it is revealed at trial. But Fitzpatrick said the "unique circumstances" made it necessary to release it "to fully protect the rights of the accused."
The most glaring of these missteps were made by Lindsey Halligan, the interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Despite being a former insurance lawyer who'd never prosecuted a criminal case, she singlehandedly brought the indictment before the grand jury, which accused Comey of lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020 about whether he authorized someone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding the bureau's investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Despite her lack of experience, Halligan—a former contestant in one of Trump's beauty pageants—was plucked from obscurity to serve as the interim US attorney for Comey's home district after Trump pushed out her predecessor, who refused to bring charges against Comey due to lack of evidence.
Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, another of Trump's enemies who Halligan has brought charges against, last week successfully got a different judge to hear their argument that Halligan was unlawfully appointed to her position.
Fitzpatrick said his decision to open up grand jury materials in the Comey case came in part because of two "fundamental misstatements of the law" made by Halligan, that he said "could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process" and potentially rise to the level of "misconduct."
Halligan asserted that Comey did not have the Fifth Amendment right not to testify, which Fitzpatrick wrote “ignores the foundational rule of law that if Mr. Comey exercised his right not to testify, the jury could draw no negative inference from that decision."
He also said that a separate statement made by Halligan, which remains redacted, "may have reasonably set an expectation in the minds of the grand jurors that rather than the government bear the burden to prove Mr. Comey's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the burden shifts to Mr. Comey to explain away the government's evidence."
Fitzpatrick said the prosecutor also made the highly unusual argument that the grand jury did not have to rely solely on evidence presented in the government's indictment—which was a measly page-and-a-half long—to determine probable cause. Instead, Fitzpatrick said, Halligan suggested the jury "could be assured the government had more evidence–perhaps better evidence–that would be presented at trial."
That interpretation aligns with the criticism Fitzpatrick voiced at a hearing earlier this month, calling out the Trump DOJ's “indict first, investigate later” approach to these political prosecutions.
Fitzpatrick further suggested that Halligan and the DOJ violated the Fourth Amendment by relying on evidence sourced from FBI search warrants executed in 2019 and 2020 during a separate case against one of Comey's former attorneys, Daniel Richman, whom the indictment alleged was the source Comey authorized to speak to the media.
"Under long-standing Fourth Amendment precedent," Fitzpatrick wrote, "the government may search for and seize only those materials expressly authorized by the terms of a search warrant issued in connection with specific predicate offenses."
Fitzpatrick also wrote that an FBI agent called to testify before the grand jury may have exposed information subject to attorney-client privilege between Comey and Richman, which he called a "highly irregular and a radical departure from past DOJ practice."
"I have never seen a more scathing opinion, with this many errors, in any criminal case I have ever covered," said Sarah Lynch, who covers the DOJ for Reuters.
The order may result in the case being thrown out of court entirely before even getting to trial, and the DOJ would be unable to bring it again, with or without prejudice, as the statute of limitations has expired.
If it is found that Halligan was improperly appointed to her position, the case would also fall apart since she was the only attorney who signed the indictment, though Bondi has retroactively claimed she reviewed the document even though she never signed it. It would also potentially derail the case against James.
MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner said that "given today’s ruling... it’s becoming increasingly difficult to see how the indictment does not get dismissed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Files Bar Complaint Against Trump Prosecutor on Comey, James Cases
Along with "vindictively" harming the defendants, the group leader said, Lindsey Halligan "is singlehandedly undermining—maybe irrevocably—the public's confidence in the impartiality of the Department of Justice."
Nov 11, 2025
As former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James work to have the criminal charges against them dismissed, a watchdog group on Tuesday filed a bar complaint against Lindsey Halligan, who is spearheading the cases as interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Campaign for Accountability (CfA) sent the complaint to the Florida Bar and the Virginia Bar, which both have jurisdiction because Halligan is a Florida-licensed lawyer practicing in Virginia. She previously served as a defense attorney for President Donald Trump, and before her current job, she had no prosecutorial experience.
In September, shortly after Halligan took over for Erik Siebert, who declined to bring charges against Comey or James, the ex-FBI director was charged with lying to Congress—and Trump vowed that "there'll be others." In early October, James—who successfully prosecuted Trump for financial crimes before his second term—was indicted for mortgage fraud. Critics argue both cases are part of the administration's broader effort to punish the president's "enemies."
The CfA complaint outlines how Halligan may have violated Virginia's rules for attorneys that require candor to the court and competence, and prohibit extrajudicial statements, the prosecution of a charge the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause, and conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
"We are asking the Virginia and Florida bars to investigate, making clear that a government appointment is not a hall pass for unethical behavior."
In addition to violating the Virginia and Florida rules for lawyers, Halligan may have violated her oath to "support the Constitution of the United States" and to "faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law," the document explains. "More generally, Ms. Halligan's actions appear to constitute an abuse of power and serve to undermine the integrity of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and erode public confidence in the legal profession and the fair administration of justice."
Along with laying out Halligan's actions in the Comey and James cases, the complaint notes her related correspondence on the messaging application Signal with Lawfare's Anna Bower, which the journalist reported on in detail.
"Ms. Halligan's actions with respect to the prosecution of Mr. Comey and Ms. James, and her Signal exchange with Ms. Bower, appear to represent a serious breach of her ethical obligations," the complaint says. "Her conduct undermines the integrity of the DOJ, appears to have violated multiple provisions of the Virginia and Florida rules of professional conduct, and undoubtedly will erode public trust in the legal system if permitted without consequence."
"The committee has a responsibility to stop Ms. Halligan from abusing her position and her Florida bar license for improper purposes," the document stresses. "Failing to discipline Ms. Halligan under these egregious circumstances will embolden others who would use our system of justice for their own political ends."
"Campaign for Accountability respectfully requests that the Committees in both states conduct a thorough investigation into these allegations, determine if any violation occurred and, if so, impose appropriate disciplinary measures," the complaint concludes.
The group's executive director, Michelle Kuppersmith, said in a statement that "it is difficult to overstate the damage wrought by Ms. Halligan's actions. In addition to unjustly and vindictively inflicting direct personal harm on Mr. Comey and Ms. James, she is singlehandedly undermining—maybe irrevocably—the public's confidence in the impartiality of the Department of Justice."
"Ms. Halligan appears to have violated numerous rules of professional conduct for lawyers," she added. "We are asking the Virginia and Florida bars to investigate, making clear that a government appointment is not a hall pass for unethical behavior."
CBS News noted that while Halligan and the DOJ did not respond to requests for comment on the complaint, Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly praised her the week that Comey was indicted, writing on social media: "This was a big week at the Department of Justice. Our EDVA US Attorney Lindsey Halligan did an outstanding job. We will continue to fight for accountability, fairness, and the rule of law because the American people deserve nothing less."
Bondi, also of Florida, has faced her own bar complaint—filed in June by Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, Lawyers for the Rule of Law, and dozens of individual attorneys, law professors, and former judges, who collectively accused her of engaging in "serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice.”
In the wake of another prosecutor charging Trump’s ex-adviser John Bolton, Reuters/Ipsos polling published late last month showed that a majority of American adults think the Republican president is using US law enforcement "to go after his enemies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Majority of Americans Agree Trump Is Weaponizing DOJ to Target Political Enemies
"The American people see exactly what's happening: Trump has corrupted the Department of Justice, turning it into his personal revenge machine," said the Not Above the Law coalition's co-chairs.
Oct 24, 2025
As President Donald Trump's ex-adviser John Bolton, former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, and Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James fight the various charges against them, polling published Thursday shows a majority of American adults think the Republican leader is using US law enforcement "to go after his enemies."
Reuters/Ipsos asked 4,385 adults on October 15-20 whether Trump was abusing federal law enforcement in this way. Fifty-five percent of all respondents said yes, including 85% of Democrats, 29% of Republicans, and 55% of adults who identified as "other." Just 26% of all respondents said no. The other 19% said they didn't know or skipped the question.
The Not Above the Law coalition's co-chairs—Praveen Fernandes of the Constitutional Accountability Center, Kelsey Herbert of MoveOn, Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen, and Brett Edkins of Stand Up America—have forcefully spoken out against Trump's abuse of the US Department of Justice (DOJ). They responded to the survey results in a statement.
"The American people see exactly what's happening: Trump has corrupted the Department of Justice, turning it into his personal revenge machine," they said. "When 55% of Americans—including 3 in 10 Republicans—recognize that the president is abusing law enforcement to prosecute his enemies, it's clear this isn't a partisan issue anymore. It's a threat to the rule of law that transcends party lines."
"The pattern is undeniable: James Comey, Letitia James, John Bolton—all Trump critics charged after he publicly demanded their prosecution. DOJ has been co-opted to serve the president, not the public," the co-chairs continued.
Trump-appointed US Attorney General Pam Bondi, who leads the DOJ, and FBI Director Kash Patel, whose bureau is in the department, have both been accused of abusing their positions and politicizing their agencies for the president.
More than half of Americans, including about three in 10 Republicans, believe President Donald Trump is using federal law enforcement to go after his enemies, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.www.reuters.com/world/us/maj...
[image or embed]
— Brad Heath (@bradheath.bsky.social) October 23, 2025 at 10:17 AM
Comey pleaded not guilty earlier this month. His legal team is seeking the dismissal of charges stemming from his congressional testimony, arguing that the case is politically motivated and that Trump "defectively appointed" Lindsey Halligan, a former insurance lawyer, as interim US attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.
James—who successfully prosecuted Trump for financial crimes—pleaded not guilty to mortgage fraud charges Friday morning, a day after her attorneys told the same court that she is also seeking to have her case dismissed and challenging "the unlawful appointment" of Halligan.
After James' Friday arraignment, Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey said: "Let's be clear: The Department of Justice is targeting Attorney General James because she dared to hold Trump accountable and won. Meanwhile, the Department turns a blind eye as Trump and his cronies cash in on the presidency, even when they're caught red-handed taking $50,000 in exchange for promised government contracts."
"Trump is acting like a wannabe dictator—trying to jail his political enemies, defying the courts, and deploying the military against his own people. That’s not leadership, it's tyranny," Harvey stressed. "This isn't just about one case or one prosecutor. The weaponization of the justice system is a threat to every American. If Trump is allowed to abuse the DOJ to punish his critics, then no one is safe."
Halligan is not handling Bolton's Espionage Act case in Maryland, which began under the Biden administration. While he has also pleaded not guilty, experts have pointed out that, as University of Alabama law professor and former US attorney Joyce Vance put it, "instead of the factually deficient indictments we're seen in the other cases, this is the sort of detailed indictment we are used to seeing in a serious matter."
Regardless of how those cases play out, the coalition co-chairs said that "this poll confirms what we've been warning about: Trump's abuse of power is eroding faith in federal institutions as neutral enforcers of the law and deepening the divisions tearing our country apart. Trump's actions threaten the freedom and safety of all Americans."
The poll also found that Americans are increasingly concerned about "US political division and conflict"—43%, up from 39% two years ago. Additionally, 61% of respondents believe ongoing redistricting efforts aimed at next year's midterm elections are bad for democracy, and the same percentage said it is no longer possible to draw political maps fairly.
In addition to the DOJ prosecuting Trump's political enemies and Republican state lawmakers gerrymandering in the middle of the decade to appease him, the president has designated antifa—an anti-fascist movement with no central organizational structure or leaders—as a domestic terrorist group and, relatedly, issued National Security Presidential Memorandum 7.
While dozens of congressional Democrats warned last week that "the sweeping language and broad authority in these directives pose serious constitutional, statutory, and civil liberties risks, especially if used to target political dissent, protest, or ideological speech," Congressman Lance Gooden (R-Texas) urged the DOJ to investigate the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) for "close ties with left-wing extremists and domestic terrorist organizations like antifa."
Responding on Thursday, the group said that "we all know that this is not the first time the NLG has faced political attacks from the US government. Since our founding in 1937, NLG members have been at the frontlines of defending those who challenge fascism and have been the target of state repression. This is a history we are proud of... The NLG will continue to speak out in support of activists and movements most targeted by state repression."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Prosecutor Handpicked to Go After Trump's Enemies Attacked Journalist in Bizarre Texts
Some observers speculated that US Attorney Lindsey Halligan may have violated federal law by sending "disappearing messages" about an ongoing case.
Oct 21, 2025
Lindsey Halligan, the US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who was hand-picked by President Donald Trump to bring criminal charges against his political rivals, left a legal journalist befuddled earlier this month when she sent unsolicited text messages containing sensitive details about one of her highest-profile cases.
On Monday night, Anna Bower, a senior editor at Lawfare, published the full text message exchange, which pertained to the prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James, against whom Halligan brought charges for mortgage fraud earlier this month.
The case against James has been widely criticized as politically motivated, as James had previously brought a case against Trump for financial crimes, which resulted in a finding against him in a civil fraud trial in 2022.
The president appointed Halligan, a former insurance lawyer who has never prosecuted a criminal case but previously worked as a personal attorney for Trump, to take over for her predecessor, Erik Siebert, who was forced out for declining to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey on what he believed to be flimsy charges.
Halligan first messaged Bower on October 11, just two days after the indictment against James had been handed up by the Department of Justice (DOJ), accusing her of misrepresenting how she intended to use a rental property in Norfolk, Virginia, to secure a better mortgage rate in 2020, allegedly by claiming that it was for personal use as a "second home" when she was actually renting it to a family of three.
Even before Halligan's texts, Bower said she was "among the skeptics" of the case's merits, noting that the type of mortgage agreement signed by James not only allowed her to rent the property after a year, but that the indictment "provides scant details about the circumstances of the supposed rental arrangement" James supposedly made with clients in violation of her mortgage contract.
Her perception was bolstered by reporting from the New York Times, which revealed that since 2020, the home has been occupied by James' grand-niece, who does not pay rent on the property, and that James stays there several times per year.
In response to the report, Bower—an analyst who often provides commentary on legal stories that she did not herself report—posted on X that “this is important exculpatory evidence because the indictment accuses James of seeking a ‘second home’ mortgage when in reality she intended to use it as an ’investment’ home by renting it.”
This post apparently caught the attention of Halligan, who messaged Bower on Signal later that afternoon.
"Anna, Lindsey Halligan here," the first message read. "You are reporting things that are simply not true. Thought you should have a heads up."
Bower explained: "I assumed the exchange was a hoax because, while it is not unusual for lawyers to reach out to me about my reporting or commentary, it is highly unusual for a US attorney to do so regarding an ongoing prosecution—particularly in a high-profile case in which her conduct is already the subject of immense public scrutiny."
But she later confirmed it was Halligan, and asked what precisely her post had gotten wrong.
Halligan responded: "You're assuming exculpatory evidence without knowing what you're talking about. It's just bizarre to me. If you have any questions, before you report, feel free to reach out to me. But jumping to conclusions does your credibility no good."
Noting that she was not the person who reported the story, Bower asked if the Times report had gotten something wrong. Halligan brought the conversation back to Bower.
"Yes they did but you went with it!" she said. "Without even fact checking anything!!!!"
Halligan referred Bower to the DOJ's indictment of James, but Bower noted that the indictment's "odd and ambiguous" wording did not actually contradict the Times' reporting. When she asked for more clarification about what specific details were inaccurate, Halligan said "I can't tell you grand jury stuff," even though her discussion with Bower had already discussed grand jury materials.
When Bower explained that it was still "unclear" what the Times report had gotten wrong, Halligan began to launch into a personal attack against her.
"You're biased," Halligan wrote. "Your reporting isn't accurate. I'm the one handling the case and I'm telling you that. If you want to twist and torture the facts to fit your narrative, there's nothing I can do. Waste to even give you a heads up."
Bower again insisted that she'd be "happy to correct" any mistakes, but that she "can't do so without a sense of what I supposedly got wrong."
Halligan replied: "Continue to do what you have been and you'll be completely discredited when the evidence comes out."
Over the subsequent days, when Bower would continue to reach out to Halligan to ask about other aspects of the case, she was met with more insults and eventually silence.
When Bower reached out to the DOJ for comment, a spokesperson responded that Halligan was "attempting to point you to facts, not gossip, but when clarifying that she would adhere to the rule of the law and not disclose grand jury information, you threaten to leak an entire conversation."
"Good luck ever getting anyone to talk to you when you publish their texts," theDOJ added.
After sending the DOJ another set of follow-up questions on Monday in anticipation of the story's publication, Bower received another text from Halligan minutes before the story was to be posted. Bower described the exchange as follows:
"By the way—everything I ever sent you is off record. You're not a journalist so it's weird saying that but just letting you know."
I responded: "I'm sorry, but that's not how this works. You don't get to say that in retrospect."
Halligan was unpersuaded: "Yes I do. Off record."
"I am really sorry. I would have been happy to speak with you on an off the record basis had you asked," I said. "But you didn't ask, and I still haven't agreed to speak on that basis. Do you have any further comment for the story?
To my surprise, she kept going: "It's obvious the whole convo is off record. There's disappearing messages and it's on signal. What is your story? You never told me about a story."
Halligan has a bachelor's degree in politics and broadcast journalism from Regis University. And as Bower notes, she has frequently dealt with the press as a member of Trump's legal team.
"As anyone who professionally engages with the media as routinely as Halligan would know, the default assumption when a reporter speaks with a public official is that everything is 'on the record,' meaning that anything the source says can be printed with attribution," Bower wrote.
The saga is the latest in a series of gaffes that have called Halligan's credibility as a prosecutor into question.
Her indictment against Comey has been ridiculed by legal scholars for being "almost devoid of factual material," as Benjamin Wittes, the co-director of the Harvard Law School-Brookings Project on Law and Security, put it. While attempting to present charging documents to a magistrate judge, she mistakenly presented two inconsistent documents, which the judge said "has never happened before."
While attempting to have the case against Comey for allegedly making false statements thrown out of court, his attorneys argued that Halligan altered some of his testimony, including by claiming that he was speaking about “Hillary Clinton” when he was actually answering a question about “the Clinton administration.”
Following the reveal of her exchanges with Bower, Andrew Fleischman, a trial and appellate lawyer in Georgia, joked on social media that "Halligan has all the poise and butt-dialing capacity of a sober [Rudy] Giuliani."
Others, like Matthew Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, raised the possibility that Halligan’s use of “disappearing messages” on Signal could have violated federal law, which requires federal prosecutors to preserve evidence that may be favorable to the accused.
In a CNN interview with Kaitlan Collins on Monday night, following the release of the texts, Bower explained that she has spoken to other legal reporters and prosecutors in the days since her conversation with Halligan.
Her sources in the legal profession, she said, "have never quite seen an exchange like this.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy