Did Lindsey Halligan sign and docket two indictments — nay, one indictment plus two copies (fucked and fixed) of a no-billed indictment?

Why yes Lindsey Halligan did.

“So this has never happened before. I’ve been handed two documents that are in the Mr. Comey case that are inconsistent with one another,” Vaala said to Halligan. “There seems to be a discrepancy. They’re both signed by the (grand jury) foreperson.”

And she noted that one document did not clearly indicate what the grand jury had decided.

“The one that says it’s a failure to concur in an indictment, it doesn’t say with respect to one count,” Vaala said. “It looks like they failed to concur across all three counts, so I’m a little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that are inconsistent.”

Halligan initially responded that she hadn’t seen that version of the indictment.

“So I only reviewed the one with the two counts that our office redrafted when we found out about the two — two counts that were true billed, and I signed that one. I did not see the other one. I don’t know where that came from,” Halligan told the judge.

Vaala responded, “You didn’t see it?” And Halligan again told her, “I did not see that one.”

Vaala seemed surprised: “So your office didn’t prepare the indictment that they —”

Halligan then replied, “No, no, no — I — no, I prepared three counts. I only signed the one — the two-count (indictment). I don’t know which one with three counts you have in your hands.”

“Okay. It has your signature on it,” Vaala told Halligan, who responded, “Okay. Well.”

Except now that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer can’t explain how she spent her day on September 25, Gabriel Diaz fronting for James Hayes under the name of Lindsey Halligan says maybe there wasn’t a second indictment.

The government’s position is that disclosure of grand jury materials is not warranted under the facts presented to the Magistrate Judge. Indeed, the government believes the Magistrate Judge may have misinterpreted some facts he found when issuing the latest order to release the grand jury materials to the defendant. For instance, (1) whether the defendant has any standing to challenge the Richman materials, (2) the full context of the statements made by the prosecutor to the grand jury, (3) that Agent-3 was exposed to potentially privileged material, and (4) that two indictments were presented to the grand jury. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge acknowledges he “did not immediately recognize any overtly privileged communications.” Dkt. No. 192 at 14. The possible exposure of privileged materials to the grand jury was the primary focus of the Magistrate Judge’s inquiry. Having seemingly settled that issue, the Magistrate Judge turns to premature issues such as suppression that have not even been briefed by the parties.

Literally items (2), (3), and (4) came from the government!

But now, in a desperate bid to buy a week of time to try to find a way to delay Jim Comey’s discovery that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer and the Attorney General of the United States think he’s not entitled to Fifth Amendment rights.

If two indictments weren’t presented, then Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer has submitted a fabrication to the court and we should start criminal contempt proceedings.

Judge Fitzpatrick rattled off eleven problems with this indictment. And you want to stall for time?

All the evidence suggests there is no indictment, because the foreperson no-billed the only one presented to the grand jury.

And they want to stall for time?

Update: From Comey’s response. Holy hell these people are way more moderated than I would be.

Moreover, with respect to the presentment, the affidavit Ms. Halligan voluntarily presented raised significant concerns about whether the operative indictment was actually presented to the grand jury, and if so, by whom. The logical conclusion from Ms. Halligan’s declaration is that no one from the government presented a new indictment to the grand jury after it issued a no bill. Ms. Halligan’s declaration attests that she did not reappear before the grand jury upon learning of the grand jury’s vote to no bill the indictment she presented between 2:18PM and 4:28PM. See ECF No. 188-1 at 2 (“During the intermediary time, between concluding my presentation and being notified of the grand jury’s return, I had no interaction whatsoever with any members of the grand jury.”). And, importantly, she asserts that “the transcript accurately reflects the entirety of the government’s presentation and presence in front of the grand jury. There was no additional presentation, interaction, or discussion with the grand jury outside of what is reflected in the transcript.” ECF No. 188-1 at 1 (emphasis added). If no one from the government presented the operative indictment, as logically follows from Ms. Halligan’s own assertions and her ultimate handing up of a purported indictment that differs from the one partially no true billed, then the grand jury did not vote on it. See ECF No. 193 at 17-18.

Update: Here’s the colloquy between Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala and the Foreperson.

THE FOREPERSON: So the three counts should be just one count. It was the very first count that we did not agree on, and the Count Two and Three were then put in a different package, which we agreed on.

THE COURT: So you —

THE FOREPERSON: So they separated it.

THE COURT: Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. So you voted on the one that has the two counts?

THE FOREPERSON: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. And you’re just giving me the other one for what reason?

THE FOREPERSON: That we could not agree on.

THE COURT: Okay. But just for one count?

Update: Judge Nachmanoff has given the government two days to bitch. Comey has a reply due on his broader grand jury request on Thursday, so Comey might file early.

ORDERED that the Motion (ECF 195) is GRANTED IN PART; and it is further ORDERED that the government will file any objections to Judge Fitzpatrick’s Order by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 19, 2025. Thereafter, the defense will file any response to any objection by the government by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 21, 2025; and it is further ORDERED that Judge Fitzpatrick’s Order (ECF 193) is STAYED pending the resolution of any objections filed by the government, which this Court will consider on the papers as to James B. Comey Jr. Signed by District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 11/17/2025.

There’s also a hearing on Comey’s vindictive and selective prosecution on Wednesday.

As I noted, William Fitzpatrick ordered the government to turn over the grand jury materials to Jim Comey by 3PM today.

In spite of all the ways that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer fucked up, she’s actually only responsible for three of the problems.

Others stem from conduct under Bill Barr, when these materials were first seized with warrants targeting Dan Richman.

Thus far, prosecutors have only named one investigation for which DOJ obtained these warrants: The Arctic Haze investigation into whether Richman — and through him, Jim Comey — leaked information about materials stolen from SVR in 2016; that investigation was closed without charge in 2021.

In 2017, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (“USAO-DDC”) initiated an investigation, referred to by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) as Arctic Haze. ECF 71 at 2. This investigation concerned an allegation of unauthorized disclosure of classified information to a New York Times reporter, which appeared in an April 22, 2017 article titled “Comey Tried to Shield the FBI from Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.” Id. The investigation focused on the article’s inclusion of classified information related to one of the factors that influenced Mr. Comey’s decision, as then-FBI director, to unilaterally announce the closure of the FBI’s investigation into then-Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified material while she was serving as Secretary of State. Id. Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law School professor, personal friend of Mr. Comey, and former Special Government Employee at the FBI during Mr. Comey’s tenure as FBI Director, was quoted by name in the article and was the subject of USAO-DDC’s investigation. Id.

But there must be a second investigation, because the warrants extend beyond the time of the Arctic Haze story and they include a crime, 18 USC 641, unrelated to it.

The Richman Warrants authorized agents to search for and seize information created or stored between March 1, 2016 and May 30, 2017 that constituted evidence of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Theft and Conversion of Stolen Government Property) and 18 U.S.C. § 793 (Unlawful Gathering or Transmission of National Defense Information).

As I said in my video today, the 18 USC 641 would correspond with an attempt to criminalize sharing memos recording Trump’s misconduct.

But even that can’t be all.

As a letter drafted by Richman’s attorney in April 2020 noted, DOJ twice extended the range of the seizure beyond the period authorized by the warrant.

According to an April 29, 2020 letter from Mr. Richman’s then-attorney to the government–produced to the Court ex parte by the defense–the Department of Justice informed Mr. Richman that the data it obtained from his iCloud account extended to August 13, 2019, well outside the scope of the warrant and well past the date on which Mr. Richman was retained as Mr. Comey’s attorney. ECF 181-6 at 20. The same letter further states that the Department of Justice informed Mr. Richman that it had seized data from Mr. Richman’s hard drive that extended to June 10, 2017–again well into the period during which Mr. Richman represented Mr. Comey–despite the warrant (19-sw-182) imposing a temporal limit of April 30, 2017. Id.

In August 2019, the government obtained all of May and part of June 2017 beyond the warrant — which happened to include the scope of the Comey memos and go right through his testimony to Mueller and public testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. The approved scope of the warrants thereafter all extended to May 30, past the time Comey released his memos and Rod Rosenstein appointed a Special Counsel. Then, in January 2020, DOJ obtained iCloud content from two and a half years beyond the scope of the known warrant, through August 2019.

There’s likely good reason DOJ did that: to feed the Durham investigation, which had shifted to chasing the Clinton Plan conspiracy theory by early 2020.

The government never asked Comey to review those materials for privilege even though, as Fitzpatrick noted, three of the warrants extended beyond the time he retained Richman.

[T]he government never engaged Mr. Comey in this process even though it knew that Mr. Richman represented Mr. Comey as his attorney as of May 9, 2017, and three of the four Richman Warrants authorized the government to search Mr. Richman’s devices through May 30, 2017, 21 days after an attorney-client relationship had been formed.

[snip]

[I]n 2019 and 2020, the government made a conscious decision to exclude Mr. Comey from the filter process, even though Mr. Comey, as the client, is the privilege holder, not Mr. Richman.

Fitzpatrick excused Tyler Lemons and Gabriel Wolf, as well as EDVA, for the slovenly way the earlier searches were done: they all happened long before any of those AUSAs were involved in the case.

4 To be clear, the two assistant United States attorneys currently assigned to this case entered their appearances post-indictment and were not a part of the Arctic Haze investigative team.

7 It is important to note that the USAO-EDVA prosecutors were not involved in the 2019 and 2020 searches of the Richman materials and may have reasonably assumed the agents in 2019 and 2020 seized and preserved only those materials responsive to the warrants.

But there is someone who likely does span the slovenly earlier treatment and that of the last two months: Jack Eckenrode. Indeed, Eckenrode may even have worked for Durham (hunting Jim Baker for a different leak investigation) before Barr assigned Durham to chase Russian disinformation for four years. But those secondary investigations would have fed right into Durham.

That makes this description of the decision to have what is presumed to be Miles Starr testify before the grand jury more suspect.

The government presented this case to the grand jury on September 25, 2025. ECF 1. The same day, prior to the grand jury presentment, Agent-2 alerted the lead case agent (hereinafter referred to as Agent-3 [Miles Starr]) and an attorney with the FBI’s Office of General Counsel that “evidence obtained in the Government’s investigation of James Comey may constitute attorney-client privileged or attorney-client confidential information. It is also possible that [the agents] may have obtained evidence that constitutes attorney work-product information.”8 ECF 89-5. Agent-2 gave Agent-3 and the FBI attorney “a limited overview of the [privileged] communications.” ECF 172- 2.9 Agent-3, rather than remove himself from the investigative team until the taint issue was resolved, proceeded into the grand jury undeterred and testified in support of the pending indictment. ECF 179. In fact, Agent-3 was the only witness to testify before the grand jury in support of the pending indictment. Id. The government’s decision to allow an agent who was exposed to potentially privileged information to testify before a grand jury is highly irregular and a radical departure from past DOJ practice.

8 This is the language used by an FBI attorney to characterize their September 25, 2025 phone conversation with Agent-3. A second agent, possibly Agent-2, was also on the call but that that person’s identity has been shielded from the Court. ECF 89-5. [citing the filing that mentioned the two lead case agents]

9 The government provided no further detail about what, in its view, constitutes a “limited overview.” [my emphasis]

The two lead case agents mentioned in Comey’s most extensive discussion of what happened are reported to be Starr and Eckenrode, the latter rehired after failing to substantiate this conspiracy theory the first time.

And remember: one of the people who appears as author of a document but who did not notice an appearance is a second Gabriel, Gabriel Cohen, who registers an OGC email address. He authored Lindsey Halligan’s ill-fated declaration. Perhaps he’s the FBI lawyer who thought it’d be cool to have a tainted witness present to the grand jury.

Fitzpatrick plays coy about why no one thought to ask for a filter protocol until October 13 (perhaps not coincidentally, the day Maggie Cleary was fired).

For reasons that remain unclear, the government waited 31 days from September 12, 2025, the date the FBI began reviewing the materials, and 18 days from September 25, 2025, the date the FBI informed its Office of General Counsel about having been exposed to potentially privileged materials, before seeking court approval of a filter protocol on October 13, 2025.

One possible reason: They weren’t going to ask for a filter review at all until the Loaner AUSAs came in and put their bar licenses at risk.

They stumbled on something they thought would feed their grand conspiracy and tried to run with it.

Perhaps they anticipated that the least scrutiny of this conduct would reveal layers upon layers of misconduct.

Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick has ordered the government to give Jim Comey grand jury materials by 3PM.

He provided four bases for doing so. First, it’s likely the material presented to the grand jury violated Comey’s Fourth Amendment, as I explained in a video this morning.

As Fitzpatrick describes, there were several errors. DOJ didn’t scope most of the communications seized in 2019 and 2020 (that is, a Bill Barr fuck-up). And then, they chose not to obtain a new warrant to access the materials for a totally different investigation.

By the summer of 2025, the FBI and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia (USAO-EDVA) had initiated a criminal investigation into Mr. Comey. ECF Nos. 172-1 and 172-2. As part of the investigation, on September 12, 2025, an FBI agent assigned to the Director’s Advisory Team was instructed, apparently with the concurrence of the USAOEDVA, 7 to review “a Blu-ray disc that contained a full Cellebrite extraction and Reader reports of [Mr. Richman’s] iPhone and iPad backups.” ECF 172-1.

Inexplicably, the government elected not to seek a new warrant for the 2025 search, even though the 2025 investigation was focused on a different person, was exploring a fundamentally different legal theory, and was predicated on an entirely different set of criminal offenses. The Court recognizes that a failure to seek a new warrant under these circumstances is highly unusual. The Court also recognizes that seeking a new warrant under these circumstances would have required a fresh legal analysis and likely resulted in some delay, a delay the investigative team could not afford given that the statute of limitations would expire in a mere 18 days. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a).

If a new warrant had been sought by the government and issued by the Court, the Fourth Amendment would have required it to be narrowly tailored, authorizing access only to materials within a limited time frame and relevant to the new offenses under investigation. See Williams, 592 F.3d at 519. In addition, any new warrant would have imposed strict procedural safeguards to ensure privileged information was not reviewed by the prosecution team. As a result, the parameters of the 2025 search would inevitably have had a different and much narrower scope than the Richman Warrants. Faced with this prospect, the government chose to unilaterally search materials that were (1) seized five years earlier; (2) seized in a separate and since closed investigation; (3) that were never reviewed to determine whether the seized information was responsive to the original warrants; (4) that were likely improperly held by the government for a prolonged period of time; (5) that included potentially privileged communications; (6) did so without ever engaging the privilege holders; and (7) did so without seeking any new judicial authority.

Second, after being exposed to privileged communications, Miles Starr nevertheless still presented the case to the grand jury.

Third, Lindsey Halligan fundamentally mis-informed the jury, first by suggesting that Comey would have to testify at trial, and second by implying there was a bunch more evidence that would be used at trial (which might reflect taint from the privileged comms Starr knew of).

Fourth, she apparently did not re-present the charges the grand jury approved — what I surmised last week.

The short time span between the moment the prosecutor learned that the grand jury rejected one count in the original indictment and the time the prosecutor appeared in court to return the second indictment could not have been sufficient to draft the second indictment, sign the second indictment, present it to the grand jury, provide legal instructions to the grand jury, and give them an opportunity to deliberate and render a decision on the new indictment. If the prosecutor is mistaken about the time she received notification of the grand jury’s vote on the original indictment, and this procedure did take place, then the transcript and audio recording provided to the Court are incomplete.12 If this procedure did not take place, then the Court is in uncharted legal territory in that the indictment returned in open court was not the same charging document presented to and deliberated upon by the grand jury. Either way, this unusual series of events, still not fully explained by the prosecutor’s declaration, calls into question the presumption of regularity generally associated with grand jury proceedings, and provides another genuine issue the defense may raise to challenge the manner in which the government obtained the indictment.

12 It is the responsibility of the United States Attorney’s Office to record and, if required, transcribe all grand jury proceedings.

All in all, Fitzpatrick lists 11 things that might merit throwing out the indictment — if there is one — altogether.

There have been a slew of articles in recent days about how DHS and DOJ are neglecting important concerns to instead chase Stephen Miller’s racist fever dreams.

NYT has a long piece summarizing the stories we’ve heard piecemeal of 60 DOJ lawyers who’ve left. MS-NOW reveals that an FBI SWAT team is babysitting Kash’s girlfriend.

And NYT has a story that incorporates FOIAed data with interviews about what DHS investigators aren’t doing because they are instead chasing migrants.

Homeland security agents investigating sexual crimes against children, for instance, have been redeployed to the immigrant crackdown for weeks at a time, hampering their pursuit of child predators.

A national security probe into the black market for Iranian oil sold to finance terrorism has been slowed down for months because of the shift to immigration work, allowing tanker ships and money to disappear.

And federal efforts to combat human smuggling and sex trafficking have languished with investigators reassigned to help staff deportation efforts.

[snip]

Homeland security investigators worked approximately 33 percent fewer hours on child exploitation cases from February through April compared to their average in prior years, according to a Times analysis of data obtained through the F.O.I.A. lawsuit.

“It’s heartbreaking,” said Hany Farid, a computer scientist who helped create software used by law enforcement and technology companies to detect child sexual abuse material. “You can’t say you care about kids when you’re diverting actual resources that are protecting children.”

It includes a story of a child who got lost as agents were pulled off to chase immigrants.

Earlier this year, special agents at Homeland Security Investigations found online videos showing violent sexual abuse of an unidentified young child.

Trained to hunt down pedophiles who use the internet to distribute illegal imagery, the H.S.I. agents spent weeks analyzing the footage to try to identify the child and infiltrate the online networks that had shared and may have directed the abuse, according to a person with knowledge of the investigation.

But the agents working the case have since been asked to go out in the field and help arrest undocumented immigrants. The reassignment has hindered progress toward identifying and rescuing the child, said this person, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive investigation. The person said that the agents, no longer able to spend as much time undercover online, had lost contact with a key source they had cultivated over years in the online world of abusers.

But the story that really brings the misplaced priority home for me is this criminal complaint, noted in the latest CourtWatch, charging an American citizen with assault “involving physical contact” for spitting at — and filming — a Supervisory Border Patrol Agent in the parking lot of an Anaheim Home Depot on November 6.

When I first saw the picture accusing Robert Cortez of being the one guy out of 15 protesting Border Patrol in that parking lot of being the guy who spat at “JA” (as the alleged spitee is called), somehow managing to first “hit his right arm and [then] splash onto his face,” on what appears to be his left side, I couldn’t see the spit in the picture in the affidavit at all.

I see it there, now, on the strap of his helmet.

It’s the affiant’s day job — hunting child exploitation — that gets me.

3. I have been employed as a Special Agent (“SA”) of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”) since 2023, and I am currently assigned to the Child Exploitation Investigations Group in Orange County. Prior to my employment as a Special Agent, I was employed as a Border Patrol Agent with USBP from 2018-2021. My responsibilities as a Special Agent include investigating crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors, including, but not limited to, offenses involving travel in foreign commerce to engage in sexually explicit conduct with minors, and offenses involving the production, possession, distribution, and transportation of child pornography.

This guy’s day job is hunting down assholes who rape children.

Instead of doing that, he is avenging poor JS, who might feel shame for being filmed — and spat on — while snatching workers from a Home Depot parking lot.

And now DOJ is going to spend time and money to try to cage this guy for trying to shame those snatching his neighbors.

The media’s response to this exchange (remember, timezone reflects Irish time) between Donald Trump and Pam Bondi has been procedural.

At the NYT yesterday, for example, first Erica Green, Glenn Thrush, and Alan Feuer described it (competently) in procedural terms. It was a tired Trump strategy of projection, it might stall release of files to Congress, gosh it’ll make things hard for Jay Clayton. 30-some ¶¶ in, it briefly turned to politics, in the form of quotes from Robert Garcia (Ranking Member of Oversight) and Don Bacon. Tom Massie, Ro Khanna, and Marjorie Taylor Greene are not quoted, to say nothing of Epstein’s victims.

Then the NYT today turned to its SDNY reporters — Jonah Bromwich, Benjamin Weiser and William Rashbaum — to focus more closely on just how much trouble this could cause SDNY US Attorney Jay Clayton. That story mentions Maurene Comey’s firing in passing twice, but days ago, Bromwich and Rashbaum described how everyone in the New York Metro area dodged defending Ms. Comey’s wrongful termination lawsuit which, after some delay, NDNY, led by a corrupt Trump flunkie, will now take on.

Both stories make Trump the agent of the narrative. He made an order and as Bondi executes it, this is what will happen.

As I suggested in this video, I look at Bondi’s public haste to bow to Trump’s demands differently.

Pam Bondi doubled down on ratifying Lindsey Halligan’s indictment of Jim Comey, after having been caught in failing to exercise the least due diligence the last time she tried to do so. One reason she did so, no doubt, is that DOJ literally told Judge Currie that the unlawful means Bondi used to turn Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer into US Attorney was a mere “paperwork error,” Pam Bondi’s fuck-up. And so, in an attempt to salvage the fuck-up DOJ is attributing to the Attorney General, she may have inserted herself into what appear to be serious Fourth Amendment violations, among other things.

And, that very same day, she publicly bowed to the President’s demand that she pursue clearly political prosecutions just months after DOJ had publicly issued an (unsigned) declination decision in the same investigation (after reportedly having shut down an ongoing investigation into Epstein co-conspirators, presumably led by Jim Comey’s daughter, months earlier).

Even in July, it was crystal clear that Pam Bondi kept making things worse.

Then Bondi made things worse when she told Fox News that Epstein’s client file was on her desk for review. She made things worse when she orchestrated the re-release of the already-released files to a select group of right wing propagandists, all packaged up to look special, a spectacle that stoked divisions among MAGAts but also raised concerns that she was covering stuff up. She made things still worse when — responding to James Comer’s role in making things worse, when he claimed the Epstein files had been disappeared — she said there were tens of thousands of videos involving Epstein.

By the end of that week, Todd Blanche would announce he’d spend some quiet time with Ghislaine Maxwell, which I imagine he thought was clever but has resulted in further questions, starting with why he’s not charging Maxwell for the lies she told to his face and why the sexual predator got a puppy.

Pam Bondi has been trying to make the Epstein problem she made worse go away. It hasn’t worked. Nothing has worked. All the pressure she and Blanche and Kash Patel could apply failed to force Lauren Boebert to make it go away. And having failed so far, she very publicly and very quickly agreed to do something stupid, reopen an investigation that she already said could not be pursued.

She did so the week before Judge Michael Nachmanoff (on Wednesday) will preside over Jim Comey’s vindictive and selective prosecution claim, which will be followed by Letitia James’ motion in a few weeks, assuming one or both of those prosecutions are not preempted by some other dismissal before then. (Comey Motion; DOJ Response; Comey Reply; James Motion; there are a slew of Amici filing in both)

In Comey’s reply, he responded to Lindsey Halligan and her Loaner AUSAs’ attempt to claim only Halligan’s motive can be scrutinized in this prosecutorial decision by citing one of the most troubling passages in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. USA:

Imputation of President Trump’s vindictive motive to Ms. Halligan is particularly warranted because the President has “exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials.” Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 621 (2024). As the government itself describes, U.S. Attorneys are subordinate aides to the President, “help[ing the President] discharge” his “responsibility” to prosecute crimes. ECF No. 138 at 17. And President Trump’s authority is not merely formal or abstract: he has exercised an unprecedented and extraordinary degree of control over the DOJ, installing his personal allies to key positions and inserting himself into prosecutorial decisions that, in previous Administrations, would have been left to the DOJ’s independent judgment. See ECF No. 59 at 8-11. [my emphasis]

That’s the language John Roberts used to excuse Trump’s efforts, via Jeffrey Clark, to use DOJ to steal the election.

The Government does not dispute that the indictment’s allegations regarding the Justice Department involve Trump’s use of official power. The allegations in fact plainly implicate Trump’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693. And the President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750. The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials. Pp. 19–21.

Trump seemed to echo this license when asked about ordering Bondi to investigate Democrats on Friday.

Reporter: Do you believe a President should be able to order investigations?

Trump: Sure. I’m the chief law enforcement officer of the country. Not that I want to use that. But I am considered the chief law enforcement agent in the country. And I’m allowed to do it.

Effectively, Comey argued that because of the monstrosity Roberts created, his vindictive prosecution claim must be judged according to different rules. And then Trump just reaffirmed his responsiblity.

If these things happened in a vacuum, I’d say that Bondi’s quick and public acquiescence to Trump’s demand that she investigate his enemies as a way to avoid scrutiny himself would be nothing more than a truly epic Constitutional confrontation.

A display of what happens when, as John Roberts did, you give the President literal immunity to hunt down his enemies for unrelated reasons, such as that the President’s one-time best friend “stole” his former spa girl and turned her into a sex slave a quarter century ago.

But it’s not happening in a vacuum.

The week before Trump’s defense attorney will sit mutely in a court room as Loaner AUSAs try to put lipstick on the pig of this prosecution, Trump his abuse even more plain than he did when he accidentally ordered up this very investigation (and that of James) in September, a tweet prosecutors have already had to invent bullshit excuses for.

How interesting, Judge Nachmanoff might think, that Pam Bondi just performed her utter obeisance to Trump, just the thing prosecutors insist didn’t happen with Comey. How interesting, that the lady who claimed to ratify this prosecution did that.

As I said in the video, there are up to ten ways that the Comey prosecution might go away, and I’m already greedily hoping that those ten things things not just fall into place, but fall into place in an order that will result in far more trouble for DOJ.

Certainly, the fact that Judge Cameron Currie started her hearing last week on the most obvious thing that might make this prosecution go away, Halligan’s unlawful appointment, by raising another, the declination memos reported in the press, makes me hope I might get a pony.

THE COURT: Mr. [Ephraim] McDowell, are you aware of any evidence of whether there was a declination memo prepared in the Comey matter?

MR. MCDOWELL: We are not aware of that at the moment. I think, you know, that would be something that could potentially come out in discovery, but we don’t have that as of yet.

Another thing we’ve been promised this week is Jim Comey’s explanation of the multiple ways Kash Patel’s FBI violated his Fourth Amendment rights by sniffing through everything Bill Barr’s hyper-aggressive DOJ seized four years ago. Then there are the parallel requests Comey has made for grand jury transcripts that Judge Currie certainly seems to think are improper — but Pam Bondi claimed, both the first time, and the second time — are not.

Bondi demonstrated her willingness to conduct political prosecutions the week before the wheels may start to come off the Comey prosecution.

And if they don’t, Maurene Comey may get to force the issue. Attorney General James may get to force the issue.

That’s all legal though, and the law never works as quickly or decisively as you’d like, particularly not with Donald Trump.

But it happens in the very same week that — reportedly — up to a hundred Republicans are prepared to vote to release the Epstein files to stave off lasting damage from Trump’s sex trafficker scandal, something that — if it happens — will make this referral to Jay Clayton a problem, not a solution.

One reason Pam Bondi was so quick to bow to Trump’s demands, sacrificing her very last shreds of credibility with courts, was because she’s in real political trouble, and has been since she thought she’d get cute by handing out binders of already-released Epstein files.

Trump’s effort, Bondi’s effort, to make all this go away by handing it to Jay Clayton on a steaming-shit platter reflect desperation, not the agency NYT portrays it as.

Sure, it’s certainly possible all this will go away, as it always does for Trump. Maybe the dog that didn’t bark can wag one in Venezuela to make his troubles go away.

It’s still a good bet that Ghislaine will be the only one who gets a puppy.

But both Trump and Bondi are operating reactively. And in a desperate attempt to reclaim agency over the Epstein scandal — something Trump has been struggling to do since July — he may well have handed Jim Comey a gift pony.

Update: After I wrote this Todd Blanche made an appearance on Fox to lie about both these issues and Trump claimed that he had encouraged “House Republicans” (but not Republicans generally) to vote to release the files. There are a number of caveats built into that — the focus on the House (when Bondi could release these files herself), the attendant call to investigate Democrats, and the focus on giving “the House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to,” which they’ve already gotten. Whether this works depends both on the willful stupidity of the GOP (Tom Massie has already pointed out holes in this proposal) and Bondi’s ability to sustain the illusion of an investigation. In his comment, Trump explicitly spoke, as he has from the start, in terms of attention, and his demand that he control it. But the last time he tried this, it turned into a welcome-watch for Adelita Grijalva.

When Judge Cameron Currie surprised Pam Bondi’s Counselor, Henry Whitaker, on Thursday with a question about whether DOJ believes Aileen Cannon wrongly dismissed Trump’s stolen documents case, Whitaker claimed what distinguished Jack Smith from Lindsey Halligan is that Halligan is closely supervised.

I do think that mostly what was driving Judge Cannon’s decision in that case was sort of the unique and broad authority that the special counsel possessed sort of free of supervision, which, of course, is an element that we do not have here.

He said that, mind you, even while conceding that Pam Bondi had claimed to ratify the Comey indictment even though the transcripts didn’t show how Halligan instructed the grand jury, yet.

MR. WHITAKER: Well, it’s true that — it is true, Your Honor, you’re right, that we didn’t have the intro and back end of the grand jury transcripts when we presented that.

Between that day, on October 31, when Pam Bondi claimed to ratify Lindsey’s work without noticing she couldn’t see that work, and yesterday, several things have happened.

We’ve gotten a lot more details about the suspected Fourth Amendment and Attorney-Client privilege violations Jim Comey’s investigators committed. First, Rebekah Donaleski told Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick that Jim Comey’s team believed investigators had worked off material seized from Dan Richman that was not responsive to the four warrants used to investigate him. Effectively, a general warrant.

[D]id the agents preserve nonresponsive copies or nonresponsive materials for five years? Because the Fourth Circuit has said that’s not reasonable. Did that happen? Because the prolonged retention of nonresponsive electronic data can render an initially lawful search unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit has said that. That’s what appears to have happened here.

[snip]

We need to know was this a narrowly tailored responsive set or did they just mark the entire iCloud responsive, thus rendering it a general warrant. We don’t know the answers to those questions.

Then, the FBI agent who realized he was reading privileged material described that he had been given the “full Cellebrite extraction” of Dan Richman’s phone to review, precisely that general warrant Donaleski feared. His supervisor said that the original agent had prepped the grand jury team with “a two-page document containing limited text message content only from May 11, 2017,” designed to avoid any taint. But Miles Starr appears to have presented eight pages of those texts to the grand jury; the Bates stamp for those texts include only a number, nothing to indicate they post-dated a privilege review by Richman.

After that, the Loaner AUSAs confessed that they had no fucking clue whether the material used to investigate Jim Comey had been scoped for responsiveness (though Comey’s team described that it looked like these were “raw returns for the search warrants at issue, unscoped for responsiveness and filtered for Mr. Richman’s privileges”).

The Order also required the government to provide, in writing, by the same deadline: “Confirmation of whether the Government has divided the materials searched pursuant to the four 2019 and 2020 warrants at issue into materials that are responsive and non-responsive to those warrants, and, if so, a detailed explanation of the methodology used to make that determination; A detailed explanation of whether, and for what period of time, the Government has preserved any materials identified as non-responsive to the four search warrants; A description identifying which materials have been identified as responsive, if any; and A description identifying which materials have previously been designated as privileged.” ECF No. 161 at 1-2.

Despite certifying on November 6 that it had complied with the Court’s Order, ECF No. 163, the government did not provide this information until the evening of November 9, 2025, in response to a defense inquiry. The government told the defense that it “does not know” whether there are responsive sets for the first, third, and fourth warrants, or whether it has produced those to the defense, and said that in that regard, “we are still pulling prior emails” and the “agent reviewed the filtered material through relativity but there appears to be a loss of data that we are currently trying to restore.”

Then, in one of their response briefs, the government effectively threw out half their evidence, including all the texts from Richman’s phone.

At the earlier hearing, Fitzpatrick warned the government not to use any violative material.

THE COURT: The Court authorized you to search and to seize, or to seize primarily, a very specific subset of information; that’s it. It’s the government’s burden to comply with that court order. You need to confidently explain to me how you have done that. You need to confidently explain how you have complied strictly with the Court’s order. If you can do that, then I suspect that that narrow window of time, you probably still can review, at least pending the outcome of the other motions.

He even ordered them not to review any materials seized from those search warrants until further order of the Court.

ORDERED that the Government, including any of its agents or employees, shall not review any of the materials seized pursuant to the four 2019 and 2020 search warrants at issue until further order of the Court;

In the middle of this, Comey argued that if Halligan presented unlawfully seized material to the grand jury, then Pam Bondi’s review of the grand jury materials — the first one, on October 31 — might also constitute a violation of Comey’s Fourth Amendment.

2 Concerns about taint arising from the improper use of potentially privileged and unconstitutionally-obtained materials are heightened because of the government’s continued use of the materials obtained pursuant to the warrants and grand jury transcripts. On October 31, 2025, the Attorney General purported to ratify the indictment based on her review of the grand jury proceedings. ECF No. 137-1 at 2-3. If that review entailed further improper use of privileged or unconstitutionally-obtained materials insofar as they were presented to the grand jury, it casts further doubt on the propriety of the government’s conduct of this case. The government produced the grand jury materials on November 5, 2025 to Judge Currie for in camera review, and thus could quickly produce the same materials to the defense. See ECF No. 158.

So to sum up so far: Jim Comey said, you violated my Attorney-Client privilege and my Fourth Amendment rights. And it’s likely that when Pam Bondi reviewed that transcript where unlawfully seized materials were presented, she did too.

And then Pam Bondi — after her Counselor assured Judge Currie that Halligan is closely supervised — reviewed the grand jury transcripts again.

The ones that likely rely on unlawfully seized materials.

In an attempt to unfuck Pam Bondi’s Halloween attempt to ratify Lindsey Halligan’s attempt to indict Jim Comey, the blondes from Florida have fucked things worse.

Bondi submitted a declaration effectively saying, never mind that the last time I claimed to ratify Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s work, I didn’t read closely enough to notice that the transcripts were incomplete. This time, I have read “the entirety of the record now available to the government” and I re-ratify what Lindsey did almost two months ago.

The district court has subsequently raised questions about the completeness of the record of the grand jury proceedings presented to me at the time of the initial ratification. For the avoidance of doubt, I have reviewed the entirety of the record now available to the government and confirm my knowledge of the material facts associated with the grand jury proceedings.

Lindsey, for her part, claims there was no gap and confessed she did not re-present the charges after getting no-billed. There was only one presentment.

1. Accordingly, I, Lindsey Halligan, submit this declaration to clarify the precise sequence of events on September 25, 2025, to confirm that the grand jury transcript accurately reflects the full extent of my appearance before the grand jury, and to explain that the period in question consisted solely of the grand jury’s private deliberations, during which no prosecutor, court reporter, or other person may be present pursuant to Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. There are no missing minutes, contrary to the suggestion raised by the court.

2. On September 25, 2025, I presented the case of the United States v. James B. Comey, Jr., to a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. I have reviewed the full transcript of the grand jury proceedings, and the transcript accurately reflects the entirety of the government’s presentation and presence in front of the grand jury. There was no additional presentation, interaction, or discussion with the grand jury outside of what is reflected in the transcript. Below is a brief timeline of the events that day.

3. On September 25, 2025, I appeared before the grand jury. After introducing myself and the case proposed for indictment, the case was presented through testimony. At the conclusion of the presentment, I provided a brief summation to the grand jury and then departed along with the court reporter. The process of presenting the indictment took place from approximately 02:18 PM to 04:28 PM.

4. Approximately two hours later, at 06:40 PM, I was notified by then-First Assistant United States Attorney Maggie Cleary that the grand jury had returned a true bill as to the presented Count Two and Count Three of the indictment and that the grand jury had not returned a true bill as to the presented Count One. I then proceeded to the courtroom for the return of the indictment in front of the magistrate judge.

There are a slew of problems with that.

First, there are two indictments — or rather, three:

• The no-billed indictment as Lindsey first presented it, with the signature page from the real indictment, which starts in blue ink and ends in black.
• The no-billed indictment as it subsequently got corrected, with both a (claimed) signature from herself and the foreperson, all in blue ink.
• The indictment purportedly supported by the grand jury, signed in black.

Lindsey now claims she only presented the case once, yet there are — or purport to be — two indictments.

For what it’s worth, when Amicus12 first pointed this out, I called the clerk to find out WTF, but have gotten no response.

Also of interest, right wing propagandist Julie Kelly (who is quite chummy with Pam Bondi’s corrupt DOJ) claims that yesterday morning, the Chief Judge in EDVA, Leonie Brinkema, restricted Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s US Marshal detail from the courthouse.

But even if there’s not the colossal paperwork error there appears to be, there’s another problem.

The Loaner AUSAs confirmed … yesterday, that they plan to include Comey’s “Clinton Plan” statements — the stuff no-billed in original Count One — in the obstruction charge.

But, as provided in discovery and via the indictment, the government intends to seek the admission of evidence at trial on this count regarding the defendant’s statements to senators during the September 30, 2020, committee hearing. For instance, the defendant’s statements to Senators Grassley and Cruz regarding his use of Richman as an anonymous source concerning the Clinton email investigation and his statements to Senators Graham and Hawley regarding his alleged lack of memory concerning the so-called Clinton plan to “tie Trump” to Russia.

Comey attorney Pat Fitzgerald had already promised some challenge to this, in the halcyon days when everyone believed there were two presentments.

I think there’s another motion coming from us, in light of some disclosures that were made Monday, where we think that the government is expanding its case, we believe, to include the conduct that was no true billed in Count One as part of its proof of Count Two, which raises serious issues for us. So we’ll do everything we can, but to do all that while getting Mr. Comey access to materials…

But now Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer is claiming that she can rely on Count One even though grand jurors in the very same vote she’s claiming to rely on rejected that claim.

And Pam Bondi is signing on willingly to that claim.

Whatever else has happened, Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer has guaranteed that Comey will get to review what went down. The only remaining question, I suspect, is when he gets that — whether it is soon enough to help him throw out the evidence against him. But it seems like Judge Currie is not the only one alarmed by what she saw in these transcripts.

Update: I should add, given my continued obsession with the authors who have not noticed their appearance, Gabriel Diaz authored the document submitted today.

Meanwhile, Gabriel Cohen is the author of the digitally signed but unsworn declaration from Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer.

Someone named lheim authored Pam Bondi’s signed but unsworn declaration.

Update: Holy hell.

Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer appears to have resubmitted the entire package, not to fix her stupid story, but instead to fix her signature line (which Josh Gerstein first noted).

Update: Here’s the specific exchange about the missing stuff.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this. I was involved in receiving in camera provisions of the grand jury transcripts and tapes, and it became obvious to me that the attorney general could not have reviewed those portions of the transcript of the Comey presentation by Ms. Halligan which preceded and came after her presentation of the witness testimony in the case. There also is a missing section of what occurred between 4:28 and the return of the grand jury indictment, and it appears to me that there was no court reporter present, or if he or she was present, did not take down what happened during that time period.

So how does the attorney general ratify and say that she has reviewed the grand jury transcripts when they did not exist in the records of the Justice Department at that time?

MR. WHITAKER: Well, it’s true that — it is true, Your Honor, you’re right, that we didn’t have the intro and back end of the grand jury transcripts when we presented that.

Listen on Spotify (transcripts available)

Listen on Apple (transcripts available)

The thing about Bill Pulte’s corruption is that a fair number of Republicans seem have it in for him, too (as laid out in this Politico piece in September).

That may help to explain the 3,000 word profile airing the family’s dirty laundry while detailing that Pulte’s closest ties to his family’s developing empire are to some decrepit trailer parks.

He did not issue press releases about the five mobile home parks his companies acquired in Florida for about $3 million in the two years before he was nominated to become the F.H.F.A. director in January.

Recent visits to two of the mobile home parks revealed a broken fence and overflowing trash bins. The dozen or so trailers at the parks were aging. Some had windows covered with faded American flags and cardboard. Duct tape patched torn screens.

Documents show Mr. Pulte was the signatory on a $2 million mortgage taken out on three of the properties in August 2024. The woman listed as an agent on some of the mobile home parks also works in his charitable organization. In January 2024, he told an interviewer on an investing podcast that the “Pulte Family” was buying mobile home parks and planning to revamp them amid a market of rising rents.

In the same interview, Mr. Pulte said he planned to make them into “nice communities.”

But his companies have been slow to make repairs, said residents of three of the parks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared retribution.

A resident of one property, in Lake Worth in Palm Beach County, said he had gone months without a working stove, despite asking the management company to fix it. Another resident said he had spent $300 to repair his broken air-conditioning unit. Some trailer park leases warn tenants that if they miss rent payments, which are due weekly, “they will be removed for trespassing by the local sheriff!!”

At some properties, rents have been rising. A resident at a mobile home park in Cottondale in the Florida panhandle said in a filing in Jackson County Court this summer that his monthly rent had increased to $950 from $550 after Mr. Pulte’s company took over. At a park in Ruskin, south of Tampa, rents recently rose $100 a month — about 16 percent — to pay for a new dumpster, several residents said.

None of the mobile home properties carry the Pulte family’s name.

One of the quickest ways to taint someone in Trump’s eyes is to make him look squalid.

Meanwhile — and purely by happenstance — the Epstein dump James Comer released to distract from Trump’s knowledge of Epstein’s sex trafficking included a document that seems to be Epstein’s side of the split with Trump.

In a February 1, 2019 email first sent to himself (possibly BCCed to someone else?), and then sent to Michael Wolff, Epstein transitions directly from a claim in one of the letters from which Comer was trying to distract — that Trump came to his house a lot while someone Epstein trafficked was there, purportedly Virginia Giuffre — to his description over the fight about the property that Trump would one day launder into cash from Dmitry Rybolovlev, the fight that Trump had also publicly used to explain the split. Much of Epstein’s focus was on his suspicions that Trump didn’t have the money to buy the mansion in the first place and probably didn’t pay taxes on it.

But amid the description, Epstein describes that “his friend pulty the developer” was part of Trump’s bid. If that is Pulte, it would be Pulte’s father who, like Trump’s dad, fronted him in the real estate business. [Update, corrected per this report. h/t DrAwkward]

In Epstein’s mind, then, there’s a tie between Trump’s knowledge he “stole” his spa girl and the fight over the Palm Beach mansion, a fight in which “pulty the developer” played some part.

But all that is in the past.

Let’s move onto concerns about the present and future.

AP reports that an aide to Pulte pulled information on single home mortgage rates and shared it with a competitor. When Fannie executives pointed out this was collusion, they were fired (another part of the explanation for Pulte’s purge last month).

A confidant of Bill Pulte, the Trump administration’s top housing regulator, provided confidential mortgage pricing data from Fannie Mae to a principal competitor, alarming senior officials of the government-backed lending giant who warned it could expose the company to claims that it was colluding with a rival to fix mortgage rates.

Emails reviewed by The Associated Press show that Fannie Mae executives were unnerved about what one called the “very problematic” disclosure of data by Lauren Smith, the company’s head of marketing, who was acting on Pulte’s behalf.

“Lauren, the information that was provided to Freddie Mac in this email is a problem,” Malloy Evans, senior vice president of Fannie Mae’s single-family mortgage division, wrote in an Oct. 11 email. “That is confidential, competitive information.”

He also copied Fannie Mae’s CEO, Priscilla Almodovar, on the email, which bore the subject line: “As Per Director Pulte’s Ask.” Evans asked Fannie Mae’s top attorney “to weigh in on what, if any, steps we need to take legally to protect ourselves now.”

While Smith still holds her position, the senior Fannie Mae officials who called her conduct into question were all forced out of their jobs late last month, along with internal ethics watchdogs who were investigating Pulte and his allies.

This effort seems to stem from Pulte’s response to Trump’s orders to push builders to build more single family homes.

Pulte’s power over the mortgage lending industry is unusual. Not long after his Senate confirmation, he appointed himself chairman of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which hold trillions of dollars in assets. The companies serve as a crucial backstop for the home lending industry by buying up mortgages from individual lenders, which are packaged together and sold to investors.

The three competing roles present the potential for a conflict of interest that is detailed in emails reviewed by AP. Like many matters of public policy in Trump’s Washington, it appears to have begun with a social media post.

In October, Trump criticized the homebuilding industry, which he likened to the oil-market-dominating cartel OPEC.

“They’re sitting on 2 million empty lots, A RECORD,” the president posted to his social media platform, Truth Social. “I’m asking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to get Big Homebuilders going.”

“On it,” Pulte posted in response on X.

That is, Pulte may have abused his overlapping roles running the country’s housing finance in an attempt to solve the fact that he’s not otherwise good at his job.

And so he tried to cheat.

And when caught cheating, he fired the people who caught him.

The fact that Pulte keeps getting caught botching his day job — the one that, when he fails, could tank the entire US if not global economy — has not distracted him from his real love: framing Trump’s enemies.

This time, Eric Swalwell was the target.

A top housing official in President Donald Trump’s administration has referred California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell to the Justice Department for a potential federal criminal probe, based on allegations of mortgage and tax fraud related to a Washington, D.C., home, according to a person familiar with the referral.

He is the fourth Democratic official to face mortgage fraud allegations in recent months.

Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, alleged in a letter sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday that Swalwell may have made false or misleading statements in loan documents.

The matter has also been referred to the agency’s acting inspector general, this person said.

“As the most vocal critic of Donald Trump over the last decade and as the only person who still has a surviving lawsuit against him, the only thing I am surprised about is that it took him this long to come after me,” Swalwell said in a statement to NBC News.

Perhaps Pulte has a whole portfolio of flimsy claims about Trump’s enemies in a folder somewhere, to deliver up to Trump every time someone, even some Republican, raises real concerns about his basic competence.

Thus far, it seems to have insulated him from any real accountability.

Remember how I said that the hopeless confusion Tyler Lemons exhibited in his response to Comey’s motion to dismiss for vindictive and selective prosecution showed why Comey was right to request a Bill of Particulars? In that filing, Lemons played games with transcripts, confused what was a Clinton investigation, what a Russian investigation not yet focused on Trump, and what was, instead, inaccurate propaganda from John Solomon?

Well, if anything, the problem has gotten worse.

Loaner AUSA Gabriel Diaz submitted the following response memos today:

• Response, Bill of Particulars, authored by Gabriel Cohen who might be Gabriel Diaz but lists his work at Det[troit?] OGC, signed by Diaz
• Response, grand jury materials, authored by Cohen, signed by Diaz
• Response, literal truth, authored by SC AUSA Michael Shedd and signed by Tyler Lemons

After Lemons spent 15 pages of last week’s vindictive prosecution response — laying out (A) November 2016 communications between Jim Comey and Dan Richman leading to this story, (B) February 2017 communications with Chuck Rosenberg leading to this story, and (C) May 2017 communications between Dan Richman and Mike Schmidt leading to this story, as well as presenting (D) a wildly misleading story about the “Clinton Plan,” the Gabriel[s] spent five pages throwing half that out.

(B) and (C) are gone, perhaps sacrificed to the reality that Dan Richman had left the FBI before those, meaning they didn’t fit the terms of Ted Cruz’ question. Or maybe, in the case of (C), to the possibility their attorney-client breach will blow up in their face.

After Lemons’ Response to vindictive and selection bitched twice that publicly available transcripts Comey had used included minor inaccuracies,

6 The transcript attached to the defendant’s motion non-substantively corrects Senator Grassley’s second question. See C-Span, User Clip: Sen. Grassley Questions James Comey (May 3, 2017), https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-committee/user-clip-sen-grassley-questions-jamescomey/4853218.

[snip]

9 The transcript attached to the defendant’s motion non-substantively corrects Senator Cruz’s questions and the defendant’s first answer; the transcript also erroneously adds the word “that” to Senator Cruz’s final question and omits the word “is” from the same question. See, e.g., POLITICO, Archive: Sen. Ted Cruz questions James Comey on Trump and Clinton investigation leaks (Sept. 26, 2025), https://www.politico.com/video/2025/09/26/archive-sen-ted-cruzquestions-james-comey-on-trump-and-clinton-investigation-leaks-1759922.

The Response on Bill of Particulars noted that their own did too.

2 The Government’s response in opposition to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss erroneously omitted the word “the” before the words “Clinton investigation” in quoting Senator Cruz. See Dkt. 138 at 11.

Yet, if either the Response on Bill of Particulars or the Response to literal truth addresses this complaint from Comey, I don’t see it.

As detailed in Mr. Comey’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Vindictive and Selective Prosecution, as well as the Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Fundamental Ambiguity and Literal Truth, the text of Count One both misstates the testimony Mr. Comey actually gave and misquotes the question.

We’re two months into this thing and no one has gotten around to addressing the fact that the language in the indictment misrepresents what happened.

Remember: While Diaz said Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer showed 14 exhibits to the grand jury, none of those lay out the Cruz and Comey exchange, so we can’t entirely rule out Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer just … making up what was said, as she assuredly did in the indictment.

Then, having included a full transcript of the Cruz-Comey exchange in the filing, Lemons (or is it Shedd?) dismissed the way Cruz misspoke his lines — substituting “administration” for “investigation” in his question — this way.

The “other ambiguities” do no more to obscure the meaning of Senator Cruz’s questions. See Def. Mem., Dkt. 105 at 14. The defendant flags Senator Cruz’s mistaken use of “Clinton administration” instead of “Clinton investigation.” See Oversight Hearing Transcript at 11. Yet Senator Cruz had correctly referred to the “Clinton investigation” two sentences prior and he was recounting the defendant’s own testimony, so the mistake would have been obvious to the defendant.

But then it largely dodges the way Cruz framed his question to focus on Andrew McCabe.

Under the narrow interpretation, Senator Cruz asked the defendant only whether he authorized McCabe to be an anonymous source. Under the broad interpretation, Senator Cruz asked the defendant whether he authorized anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source.

The broad interpretation is the better one.

That exacerbates a problem.

There wasn’t one — the — Clinton investigation in 2016.

There were two. And the one Cruz was invoking by addressing McCabe’s involvement in a WSJ story was not the email investigation. It was the Clinton Foundation investigation.

By October 25, 2016, McCabe had been notified that Barrett was working on a follow-up story to the October 23 article that would cover McCabe’s oversight of the CF Investigation and potential connections with McAuliffe campaign contributions to McCabe’s wife. McCabe thereafter authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to talk to Barrett about this follow-up story.

Lindsey’s Loaner AUSAs appear not to understand that we’re still fighting over a leak (plus McCabe’s response) that revealed a previously undisclosed investigation days before an election and somehow Trump is the victim? And so while they’re excusing Cruz’ imprecision they’re committing more of their own.

Now go back to the Response to the Bill of Particulars request. As Lemons did in the original map of the investigation, the Gabriel[s] buried the transcript for the exchanges about the “Clinton plan” in an exhibit, thereby burying the fact that they keep misrepresenting Lindsey Graham’s questions worse and worse. They don’t correct Lindsey Graham’s lie about this being an investigative referral. They couldn’t be bothered with the slop of his use of the word “taught.” And of course they don’t account for the fact that to Comey (and John Brennan), these details were interesting for what they said about Russia’s hacking of Hillary-related victims, not about the totally legal and normal thing Hillary was alleged to be doing, engaging in politics.

More insane still, the Gabriel[s] turn the “Clinton plan,” into a story about the Clinton email investigation.

During the same September 30, 2020 hearing, the defendant was asked by Senator Graham whether he remembered being “getting” or being “taught” of “a[n] investigatory lead from the intelligence community” regarding “U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server,” i.e., the conduct that the FBI investigated during the Midyear Exam investigation. See Dkt. 138-14 at 1. The defendant replied that that information “d[idn’t] ring any bells with [him].” See id. He similarly informed Senator Hawley that he did not “remember” receiving the investigatory [sic] referral, or “anything described” therein. See id. at 5. The government has nevertheless determined that the defendant’s handwritten notes appear to show that he was informed in September 2016 regarding an “HRC plan to tie Trump.” See Dkt. 138 at 14–15; see also Dkt. 138-13. [my emphasis]

Note, the Gabriel[s] are misrepresenting the transcript here. Comey said, “I don’t remember receiving anything that is described in that letter,” referring back to the misleading letter Ratcliffe wrote about all this, not the referral itself.

Once again, proving Comey’s point that what prosecutors are presenting as the alleged lies are, themselves, lies.

Having misrepresented the alleged lie, some pages later, they confess that, yup, they’re prosecuting Comey for the conduct they got no-billed on.

But, as provided in discovery and via the indictment, the government intends to seek the admission of evidence at trial on this count regarding the defendant’s statements to senators during the September 30, 2020, committee hearing. For instance, the defendant’s statements to Senators Grassley and Cruz regarding his use of Richman as an anonymous source concerning the Clinton email investigation and his statements to Senators Graham and Hawley regarding his alleged lack of memory concerning the so-called Clinton plan to “tie Trump” to Russia.

I feel like maybe we’re a second or generation into frothy misrepresentations of what happened in 2016 and 2017, and these young AUSAs are badly in need of a roadmap laying out the actual events behind Grampa Trump’s delirium, rather than just regurgitating the slop that John Solomon feeds them.

There’s a reality here, and these Loaner AUSAs seem blissfully unaware of that reality.

And that’s all before you get into the fact that whatever frothy Republicans were misled into believing by Ratcliffe back in 2020, taxpayers have spent millions of dollars to confirm all this is Russian disinformation, and having determined that, those who use it to get indictments are (per John Durham and his lead investigator Jack Eckenrode) committing a crime.

Finally, having redefined Russian disinformation to be about Hillary’s email investigation rather than the conspiracy theory that the plan was true and proven by Christopher Steele getting snookered by Oleg Deripaska or Michael Sussmann passing along Rodney Joffe’s discovery of a real anomaly in good faith, they’ve made the “Clinton plan” useless for the one thing it might have been used for: materiality. As Comey noted in his Bill of Particulars motion, that 2020 hearing had a clear scope, and that clear scope must be adopted to define the scope of the investigation Comey allegedly obstructed.

1 Before the hearing, the committee agreed that it would be limited to four specific topics: (i) “Crossfire Hurricane,” (ii) the December 2019 Department of Justice Inspector General report’s “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation,” (iii) the Carter Page FISA applications, and (iv) Christopher Steele’s source network and primary sub-source.

That wasn’t a hearing about Clinton’s emails! So every effort to retcon events so they’ll fit the Ted Cruz question in fact makes the evidence useless to prove Comey obstructed anything. Graham did, very much, want to suggest that Comey should have viewed the dossier more skeptically having been exposed to Russian disinformation claiming a Clinton plan, which is why he asked the question.

But Lindsey’s Loaner AUSAs, in a desperate bid to fit the available facts to their false claims about false claims, have turned it into something else.