Judge says DOJ failed to give full transcripts of Halligan’s Comey grand jury proceedings

On Oct. 28, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie issued an order that said she needs to “determine the extent of the indictment signer’s involvement in the grand jury proceedings.”...

Currie had ordered that by Monday, Nov. 3, the DOJ was to provide her with “all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts.”

But on Tuesday, Currie issued a new order that said the material she received “fails to include remarks made by the indictment signer both before and after the testimony of the sole witness, which remarks were referenced by the indictment signer during the witness’s testimony.”

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/james-comey-grand-jury-transcript-lindsey-halligan-rcna241879

Oops!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like they're trying to weasel out of the judge's order, since they know the indictment isn't legal.

AI quickie - Gemini:

 

The administration argues it can appoint successive interim leaders, each serving for up to 120 days, because a new vacancy arises when a prior term expires. This legal argument is part of a broader debate over federal law that limits initial interim appointments to 120 days, after which the power to appoint shifts to the federal district court judges. The debate centers on whether this limitation prohibits repeated 120-day appointments by the Attorney General, which critics argue bypasses the Senate confirmation process. 

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

AI quickie - Gemini:

 

The administration argues it can appoint successive interim leaders, each serving for up to 120 days, because a new vacancy arises when a prior term expires. This legal argument is part of a broader debate over federal law that limits initial interim appointments to 120 days, after which the power to appoint shifts to the federal district court judges. The debate centers on whether this limitation prohibits repeated 120-day appointments by the Attorney General, which critics argue bypasses the Senate confirmation process. 

That would be a clear bypass of the intention of the law.

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

AI quickie - Gemini:

 

The administration argues it can appoint successive interim leaders, each serving for up to 120 days, because a new vacancy arises when a prior term expires. This legal argument is part of a broader debate over federal law that limits initial interim appointments to 120 days, after which the power to appoint shifts to the federal district court judges. The debate centers on whether this limitation prohibits repeated 120-day appointments by the Attorney General, which critics argue bypasses the Senate confirmation process. 

That really wasn't the main issue headlined in the article.

10 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

AI quickie - Gemini:

 

The administration argues it can appoint successive interim leaders, each serving for up to 120 days, because a new vacancy arises when a prior term expires. This legal argument is part of a broader debate over federal law that limits initial interim appointments to 120 days, after which the power to appoint shifts to the federal district court judges. The debate centers on whether this limitation prohibits repeated 120-day appointments by the Attorney General, which critics argue bypasses the Senate confirmation process. 

 

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That would be a clear bypass of the intention of the law.

Let us be practical, is there an unlimited supply of suitable "Stepford Wives"/

9 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That would be a clear bypass of the intention of the law.

Perhaps, but a judge must apply a law as it is written. It is not up to the  judge to decide upon a law's intent.

36 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

That really wasn't the main issue headlined in the article.

Judge Currie has been appointed to rule on the legitimacy of the Halligan appointment and nothing else.

_______________________

In its response brief, filed Monday in both criminal cases against James and Comey, government lawyers argued Bondi has now ratified Halligan’s appointment and cited the attorney general’s “expansive power to appoint attorneys and delegate the Department of Justice’s powers.”

 

They also argued the administration is allowed to appoint successive interim leaders, each for 120-day terms.

 

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/top-prosecutor-gets-fresh-title-to-rebut-comey-james-challenges

28 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Judge Currie has been appointed to rule on the legitimacy of the Halligan appointment and nothing else.

_______________________

In its response brief, filed Monday in both criminal cases against James and Comey, government lawyers argued Bondi has now ratified Halligan’s appointment and cited the attorney general’s “expansive power to appoint attorneys and delegate the Department of Justice’s powers.”

 

They also argued the administration is allowed to appoint successive interim leaders, each for 120-day terms.

 

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/top-prosecutor-gets-fresh-title-to-rebut-comey-james-challenges

Thanks for the correction.

38 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Perhaps, but a judge must apply a law as it is written. It is not up to the  judge to decide upon a law's intent.

AI quickie Gemini:

 

Interim U.S. attorneys are appointed by the Attorney General for a period of up to 120 days or until a permanent U.S. Attorney is confirmed by the Senate. If a permanent appointment is not made within 120 days, the district court can appoint an interim attorney to serve until a permanent one is installed. The U.S. Attorney's office is a presidential appointee, with appointments confirmed by the Senate for a four-year term. 

Appointment process
Attorney General's role: The Attorney General can appoint an interim U.S. Attorney to fill a vacancy.

120-day limit: This appointment is temporary, lasting for 120 days or until a presidential nominee is confirmed by the Senate, whichever comes first.
District court's role: If the 120-day period expires without a permanent appointment, the district court for that district can appoint an interim U.S. Attorney to serve until the position is permanently filled.

Presidential appointment: The permanent U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. 

45 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Perhaps, but a judge must apply a law as it is written. It is not up to the  judge to decide upon a law's intent.

Tell that to the Supreme Court majority which claims to hold to a doctrine of original intent.

26 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Thanks for the correction.

OK. Whether the grand jury transcript is now (or will be) in in camera evidence and can be used for other motions including the vindictive/selective processing Comey & James motions I don't know.

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

OK. Whether the grand jury transcript is now (or will be) in evidence and can be used for other motions including the vindictive/selective processing Comey & James motions I don't know.

It would seem to me to be of more use in the vindictive/selective prosecution case. Whether it gets asked for is another question.

Jack Smith is going on the offensive. Expect the prosecutors to withdraw the case once they realize how damaging it will be to Trump.😄
After the 2026 mid-terms the Dems should go ahead with a hearing anyway.

 

'NYT: Jack Smith, Trump’s Target, Shifts From Defense to Counterattack'

https://archive.ph/JGdOt#selection-521.0-521.64

 

"Mr. Smith has told people in his orbit that he welcomes the opportunity to present the public case against Mr. Trump denied to him by the Supreme Court decision asserting broad presidential immunity from prosecution and adverse rulings from a Trump-appointed judge on the federal bench in Florida.
Whether Mr. Smith gets the chance to confront his accusers on the biggest official stage available to him, a public House or Senate hearing, remains very much an open question. Some Republicans have privately expressed concern that Mr. Trump’s quest for vengeance could backfire by giving a credible anticorruption investigator an open mic."