This week in lawfare

[Horace]

Link to video

[jon-nyc]

Trump ordered Bondi to investigate Democrats who were mentioned in the Epstein emails.

[89th]

Luckily Bondi is someone who will keep Trump in check.

[jon-nyc]

Yeah I’m sure she’ll do the right thing when he wants to confiscate ballot boxes in 2026 and/or 2028.

[jon-nyc]

Mistakes were made.

[Axtremus]

Things happen.

[Horace]

What exactly does that mean? That Halligan has a revised and improved charging document, but the earlier version was still good enough for the grand jury? This is a dunk how? Or maybe it just smells like a dunk, and that’s good enough.

[Axtremus]

You bring to court the charges actually approved by the grand jury, not pull a switcheroo and bring to court some other charges not approved by the grand jury.

[Horace]

Well I haven't done a bit of research on this particular dunk, and just to keep things interesting, I won't. But I just bet that she won't be bringing charges that weren't approved by the grand jury. I also bet that you haven't done any research about this story, and neither has jon. You just love the screenshot, suspiciously link-free. I am sure this link-free graphic is how it appeared on jon's Twitter feed. Such a great dunk. Just look at how Ax reads it. Apparently Comey is going to be charged with murder 1, or something. Because TDS.

[Mik]

I suspect this is a technicality and not uncommon. That's a current problem, that the opposition will seize on something that sounds bad but is in fact mundane.

[Horace]

I heard about the story this morning on a podcast. Halligan created a new charging document which differed only by removing the unaccepted charges. Then the foreperson and one other juror were shown the new document, and the foreperson signed it. It's unclear whether the foreperson knew the document was not the exact one considered by the full jury, but there's no intent to deceive here in any case. It was a clerical error. Halligan's lack of experience probably mattered.

[Mik]

As I said. Nothingburger.

[Horace]

Since Comey is so sure about his factual innocence, he should hope this technicality is not used to get the case dismissed. If he's interested in virtue maxing.

But I suspect Comey is not actually all that sure of factual innocence.

[jon-nyc]

The legal commentators I’ve read are pretty damn sure. I assume he’d rather have it dismissed and not pay six figures more for a jury trial.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in This week in lawfare:

The legal commentators I’ve read are pretty damn sure. I assume he’d rather have it dismissed and not pay six figures more for a jury trial.

Small price to pay for a guy who wrote "A Higher Loyalty", or whatever his book was called which dripped with sanctimony. He should probably put his money where his mouth is, and establish how factually innocent he really is. Maybe it'll cost him some small fraction of his profits from his clout-chasing book, profits enabled by the cultural phenomenon that is Trump.

[89th]

Maybe he'd rather not engage in this incredibly unbecoming and dangerous game of political petulant retribution. But at least the swamp is drained!

[Horace]

Maybe the legal system is way more malleable than we think, and people can in fact be factually convicted of crimes, if the powers that be would like to factually convict them. Laws are written in human language, and human language is notoriously inexact.

[89th]

Yeah the system certainly has a bunch of slack in the line. Prosecutorial discretion, plea deals, and so forth. Lots of gray area. A President going after people who said mean things about him does not have as much gray area. Sorry, grey* area, @Doctor-Phibes