Back in July, in the wake of Trump’s struggles to distract from his own Epstein cover-up and as if in response to Tulsi Gabbard’s wild rants about the Intelligence Community Assessment, the FBI Director posted this tweet, RTing an inflammatory tweet from a propagandist who has been central to Kash’s disinformation about the Russian investigation.

Buried in a back room at the FBI, Kash claimed, was what John Solomon called “the smoking gun evidence … [i]f it is authenticated.”

Days later, Kash referenced these files again, explicitly tying his campaign to supplant the Steele dossier for the actual Russian investigation with his role, as FBI Director, now focusing on “uncovered burn bags/room filled with hidden Russia Gate files, including the Durham annex.”

It took just a matter of days for me and Charlie Savage to figure out that four years earlier, John Durham had not just not authenticated John Solomon’s “smoking gun,” but he had in fact concluded that the very email Solomon called a smoking gun was instead, “a composite of several emails.”

That is — a fabrication.

After the release of the Durham annex revealed that Kash — and John Durham and John Durham’s lead investigator Jack Eckenrode, along with John Ratcliffe — had been chasing Russian disinformation, Kash got even more desperate, clinging to Sean Davis propaganda in an attempt to rebut a plain reading of the Durham annex.

The FBI Director just endorsed the ignorant ravings of a long-discredited propagandist, Sean Davis, attempting to debunk the NYT’s factual reporting that the letters on which the entire conspiracy the frothy right has been chasing for years “were probably manufactured.”

Kash needs Davis to be right, because if he’s not, it exposes Kash as someone too stupid to understand he has been chasing Russian disinformation for years. Kash needs Davis to be right, because Kash just declassified this annex thinking it would help his boss distract from the Epstein scandal that him himself stoked, when in fact it shows that Russian spies have been laughing their ass off at everyone involved for nine years (which I’ll come back to).

The truth is, Kash has been chasing documents as self-evidently problematic as the Steele dossier all that time.

He has proven an easy mark.

That’s what we saw in real time. We also saw in the classified annex both that Durham, along with his chief investigator, Jack Eckenrode, tried to hide the evidence that they had been chasing Russian disinformation for years — indeed, continued to chase Russian disinformation for two years after obtaining confirmation they were doing that. Then Tulsi Gabbard and Chuck Grassley tried to hide that Durham had tried to hide that.

It became clear that John Durham and his lead investigator Jack Eckenrode had committed the very crime that Durham claimed he was investigating when he chased Russian disinformation for four years, which he described this way:

(i) knew the Clinton campaign intended to falsely accuse its opponent with specific information or allegations, (ii) intentionally disregarded a particular civil right of a particular person (such as the right to be free of unreasonable searches or seizures), and (iii) then intentionally aided that effort by taking investigative steps based on those allegations while knowing that they were false.

From the moment John Durham and his lead investigator Jack Eckenrode persisted in falsely accusing Hillary of framing Donald Trump and used that false accusation to take investigative steps like obtaining warrants, they were (in their model) conspiring against rights under 18 USC 241.

18 USC 241 happens to be the crime that the frothers claim they are pursuing against Comey and everyone else right now.

About a month after Kash first rejoiced about the opportunity to commit the crime Durham had chased, we learned that Jack Eckenrode — shockingly!! — had been invited back to commit the same crime some more. NYT since updated on how, little more than a month after Todd Gilbert was confirmed as US Attorney in WDVA and asked to oversee this investigation, he left under pressure.

That’s background to these two exhibits that prosecutors included in the government’s response to Comey’s vindictive prosecution motion.

Start with the opening memo for an investigation into whether someone deliberately put a bunch of documents in burn bags but … didn’t burn them, the precipitating event that Kash boasted about on July 31. In fact, those burn bags were discovered in April, and they were discovered in FBI Headquarters, not WDVA, where Kash and Bondi stashed the investigation. And the likely explanation for the documents is that senior FBI people were clearing out their offices to make way for … Kash Patel.

On or about April 15, 2025, the Director’s Advisory Team was informed of the unusual discovery of highly classified and sensitive documents found inside five “burn bags” located in Room 9582, a certified Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI Headquarters building in Washington, DC.

A cursory inventory of the 9582 SCIF revealed the existence of classified documents, including documents believed to be official records, inside “burn bags” which appeared to have been placed in the SCIF around the timeframe of the 2025 presidential inauguration – Friday, January 17, 2025 through Wednesday, January 22, 2025. A brief review of the contents of the “burn bags” revealed that some of the documents left behind may have come from a collection of records held by certain unidentified senior government officials at FBI Headquarters.

What really set Kash off, it seems clear, is that — seemingly amid a bunch of files relating to the Special Counsel investigations that happened during the Biden Administration — was the document at the heart of Durham’s criminal investigation building on Russian disinformation, a document potentially referring to the fabrications Russian spies made.

Among the records found were many related to the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search, the January 06 capitol breach, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, as well as a copy of the Classified Appendix to the John Durham Special Counsel investigation. Moreover, an additional record discovered as part of this management review process was an original referral by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to former FBI Director James Comey, known as a Counterintelligence Operational Lead (CIOL). This CIOL, believed to have been missing for several years, was dated September 07, 2016 and contained certain intelligence related to the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign. The CIOL was found in a storage closet adjacent to the Director’s office and was subsequently transported to the 9582 SCIF. Former Director Comey previously testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was unfamiliar with this CIOL as well as its related intelligence. [my emphasis]

Now, there are already several flashing lights here. 🚨🚨🚨 [Sorry Rayne!]

You cannot have Jack Eckenrode anywhere near the criminal investigation into a document he chased for years. He has more incentive to hide the Durham annex showing that he committed the very crime he was investigating than Comey (or anyone close to him) has to hide the CIOL. In any case, this still seems to fall well short of proof that the FBI actually received it. This opening memo describes that the people who are supposed to catalog such things did not, and if they found it after the fact, it would raise real questions if Eckenrode planted it.

Worse still, the opening memo for this investigation misrepresents Comey’s testimony from the hearing.

Lindsey: Do you recall getting an inquiry from the CI, excuse me, the intelligence community in September, 2016, about a concern that the Clinton campaign was going to create a scandal regarding Trump and Russia? Mr. Comey: I do not.

Senator Graham: You don’t remember getting a investigatory lead from the intelligence community, hang on a second … Let me find my document here.

Speaker 3: There it is.

Senator Graham: September the Seventh, 2016, the US intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server. You don’t remember getting that or being talk, that doesn’t …

Mr. Comey: That doesn’t ring any bells with me.

[snip]

Senator Graham: Did you have a duty to look at any allegations regarding Clinton in Russia?

Mr. Comey: I don’t know what you mean. Senator Graham: Well, you say you had a duty to look at allegations about the Trump campaign being involved with the Russians. You’ve got a letter now from Radcliffe saying that there was a, they intercepted information about an effort in July where Hillary Clinton approved an effort to link Trump to Russia or the mob. Did you have an investigation look and see if whether that was true?

Mr. Comey: I can’t answer that. I’ve read Mr. Radcliffe’s letter, which frankly I have trouble understanding.

That’s true, in part, because Graham misrepresented what the CIOL was. As it explains, the memo only served to provide the kinds of information that the CIA was finding in SVR documents obtained from the Dutch. It was not a request for the FBI to conduct an investigation, but right wingers have treated it as such for years.

The redaction in the pertinent paragraph, which seems to be a reference to Guccifer 2.0, likely obscures the entire meaning of the paragraph, to say nothing of the redaction of the other paragraphs. More importantly, there was no discussion at the hearing of what Comey would have understood this to belong to: the larger set of SVR documents that the FBI had deemed objectively false much earlier in the year.

In other words, that reference in the opening document shows that this entire investigation was predicated on a false claim about Comey — it represents Eckenrode’s false belief about Comey, not the actual transcript (remember, Loaner AUSA Tyler Lemons hid this transcript as an exhibit in his response to Comey’s selective prosecution bid).

And the Jim Comey notes that Lemons insinuates undercut Comey’s claims about receiving the CIOL on September 7, 2016 only serve to underscore this point.

The discovery of the handwritten notes is relevant considering the defendant’s prior testimony on September 30, 2020. Of note, during that hearing, the defendant was questioned by Senator Graham of South Carolina and Senator Hawley of Missouri. See Gov. Ex. 14. The questions focused on whether the defendant remembered “being taught” of “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.” See id. The defendant responded by stating that “it doesn’t ring any bells with me” and “I don’t know what that refers to” and “I don’t remember receiving anything that is described in that letter.” See id. at 1 and 5. Despite this testimony, the defendant’s handwritten notes dated September 26, 2016, read: “HRC plan to tie Trump.” See Gov. Ex. 13 (Defendant’s handwritten notes).

These notes are more consistent with the SVR files being disinformation, rather than the truth right wingers have adopted it as.

More importantly, there’s no reason for Comey to be briefed (possibly by John Brennan) on a topic on September 26 if he received information about it 19 days earlier.

That is, these notes appear to be Comey writing down the reference, understanding it to be part of an attack on Hillary, weeks after Republicans want to catch him receiving a memo.

The part about prosecutors and FBI agents reading these notes in the least sensical way possible is not a crime.

What is a crime, though, is using Russian disinformation you know to be Russian disinformation (and Comey appears to have believed was disinformation) to obtain a criminal indictment.

And it appears that Lindsey Halligan tried to do that — but got no-billed.

Further, according to the transcript from the hearing on Wednesday, Comey’s team read Tyler Lemons’ response to Comey’s vindictive prosecution claim the same way I did:

As for the 18 USC 1505 charge, prosecutors will need to prove that Comey told lies that were intentional that impeded that investigation. Because of the scope of the hearing (and therefore the investigation), they can’t argue the two Hillary stories are material. Comey was aware of the scope of the hearing and Hillary wasn’t part of it.

There’s no way they can argue that Comey should have admitted asking Richman to serve as an anonymous source for the May 2017 story impeded the Senate investigation, because he had admitted that years earlier!!

That leaves just the Lindsey Graham question, which was specifically about whether Comey remembered the CIA referral, dated September 7, that Kash Patel had recently released in redacted — and therefore likely hopelessly misleading — form. As the transcript Lemons buries in an exhibit makes clear, the question — the one the grand jury no-billed — was not whether Comey was briefed; it was whether he recalls getting the document itself (Lindsey misstates what this document even was).

On Wednesday, Pat Fitzgerald expressed serious concern 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.”

And on top of that, Your Honor, 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…

As I’ve said, this is the founding document of their conspiracy theories.

On Wednesday, Lemons didn’t raise an objection when Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick first said he was going to order DOJ to turn over grand jury transcripts, suggesting Lemons may have no fear Miles Starr presented privileged information to the jury.

By the end of day yesterday, he did have an objection. Michael Nachmanoff has bumped the whole grand jury question back to Fitzpatrick, so I expect Patrick Fitz (sorry, bad joke!) will get to test this theory shortly.

But that — relying on a no-billed charge for the obstruction charge — is not the only problem with chasing the Clinton Plan disinformation that John Durham debunked.

The far graver problem is it means Miles Starr is a witness to, if not a co-conspirator to, Jack Eckenrode (and FBI Director Kash Patel) committing a crime, precisely the crime they’re chasing.

Four years ago, Jack Eckenrode concluded this stuff was a Russian fabrication, the very thing they claim about the Steele dossier.

And then, Jack Eckenrode got an indictment for it anyway.

I just wanted to share three lists I’ve made about this week so far.

Wednesday’s hearings

The first was about the range and magnitude of hearings on Wednesday.

4 court hearings today:

1) Review of Trump’s tariffs in SCOTUS

2) Hearing on FBI’s review of Jim Comey material w/o new warrant

3) Closing arguments and deliberation for sandwich guy in DC

4) Preliminary injunction hearing for CBP/ICE invasion of Chicago, featuring Greg Bovino vids

As I noted here, not only did it sound like there are at least five votes to throw out Trump’s tariffs, Neil Gorsuch also said some important things about whether Congress can abdicate its power to declare war.

The Comey hearing did not go well for the government. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick ordered the government to hand over everything by end of day yesterday, to load up the grand jury transcripts to the docket, and to answer a bunch of questions.

ORDERED that, by 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2025, the Government shall produce to Defendant, in writing, the following information:

• 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; and it is further

Fitzpatrick also forbade the government — which should apply both to this investigative team and the one trying to do the conspiracy against rights case in Florida — from searching the materials.

The government filed a notice of compliance, noting Fitzpatrick’s written order was filed just after noon, confirming it had handed him the materials, but not confirming that they had explained the scope and filter questions.

1 The Order at D.E. 161 was received via CM/ECF at 12:13 p.m. on November 6, 2025.

But after that, they filed an appeal of Fitzpatrick’s order to load the grand jury transcript that claimed Fitzpatrick had not filed a written order they noted in their earlier docketed filing.

1 A written order pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s oral order at the November 5 hearing has not been entered on the docket.

They didn’t say whether they had answered Fitzpatrick’s questions (which, in any case, don’t reveal whether the investigative team had access). Fitzpatrick could simply file a response saying that Comey has an indvidualized need to figure out if Miles Starr relied on privileged information to get the indictment before he moves to suppress these warrants; in any case, stay tuned.

As you’ve no doubt heard, sandwich guy Sean Dunn was acquitted. Kudos to Sabrina Shroff, who is one of the most ferocious defense attorneys in the country.

In Chicago, Judge Sara Ellis enjoined CBP and ICE from continuing to abuse the First and Fourth Amendments of people in the city. Here’s Chicago Sun Times’ report on the hearing.

After Wednesday, we got two horrible decisions — one at SCOTUS, one in the Sixth Circuit — for trans people. All was not good. But there was important movement in some places.

Will Millennials finally lead us beyond the War on Terror?

The second list marked four things that suggest we could move out of the world Dick Cheney significantly created.

• Monday: Dick Cheney kicks it
• Tuesday: 34-yo Muslim becomes mayor of NYC
• Wednesday: Gorsuch raises grave concerns abt Congress abdicating the power to declare war
• Thursday: Pelosi announces retirement

Even assuming SCOTUS will throw out Trump’s tariffs, I’m sure we’ll be disappointed by whatever opinion they release doing so. Nevertheless I have hopes that this kind of language from Gorsuch makes it into that opinion.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: — we shouldn’t be concerned with — I want you to explain to me how you draw the line, because you say we shouldn’t be concerned because this is foreign affairs, the President has inherent authority, and so delegation off the books more or less.

GENERAL SAUER: Or at least —

JUSTICE GORSUCH: And if that’s true, what would — what would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war to the President?

[snip]

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Can you give me a reason to accept it, though? That’s what I’m struggling and waiting for. What’s the reason to accept the notion that Congress can hand off the power to declare war to the President?

GENERAL SAUER: Well, we don’t contend that. Again, that would be —

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Well, you do. You say it’s unreviewable, that there’s no manageable standard, nothing to be done. And now you’re — I think you — tell me if I’m wrong. You’ve backed off that position

How to pay for free buses

Finally, there’s this observation.

Wednesday: The incoming Mayor of NYC names Lina Khan a key advisor

Thursday: Corrupt shareholders of Tesla create the Trillion dollar Keta-Man

When Jerry Nadler announced his retirement, Lina Khan was one of the first people mentioned as a worthy replacement. She almost immediately said she was not interested.

I’m wondering if she was already thinking about what more she can accomplish as an advisor to Mamdani.

This sure feels like a week that — if we survive long enough to look back at it — was a pivotal one.

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

I am biting my tongue, resisting the urge to be extremely blunt. What I will say is already rather pointed.

Nancy Pelosi, former House Speaker, announced her plan to retire from Congress at the end of her term.

Did it take the death this week of a warmongering former vice president nine months younger than her to clue her in?

Or was it the ages of Tuesday’s three election winners?

Abigail Spanberger, at 46, is old enough to be Pelosi’s kid as is Mikie Sherrill at 53.

But Zohran Mamdani at 34 is of an age to be Pelosi’s grandchild.

There are now four generations of voters — Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z — who are of voting age, and two of those generations are retired or approaching retirement. It’s time the youngest generations of voters had representation that understood their society and their needs.

The number of solid primary candidates in the wings should have encouraged this announcment some time ago.

This is an open thread, but let’s try to discuss what the future of the Democratic Party will look like as the oldest electeds exit the stage.

Now that Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick has ordered that prosecutors provide Jim Comey with the grand jury transcripts along with all the evidence they used in their latest filing (which they had not provided to Comey beforehand), let’s return to the saga of the missing grand jury transcripts, shall we? Because they get closer to implicating Pam Bondi in misleading the court.

As I laid out here, on October 28, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ordered prosecutors to give her all the transcripts of Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s actions in the grand jury. On October 31, DOJ delivered a package to her. Yesterday, Judge Currie ordered prosecutors to deliver what she had actually asked for: “remarks made by the indictment signer both before and after the testimony of the sole witness” during the presentment of the indictment the jury accepted, as well as “transcripts regarding the presentation of the three-count indictment” that the grand jury no-billed.

“Upon receiving this order” (which would have been yesterday, November 4), according to a new filing from Tyler Lemons, “the government immediately contacted the transcription service and requested the complete recording.” And then “the government requested that the transcription service transcribe the entire recording, which had not been done previously.” It provided those materials, for the first time recording the things Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer had done in the grand jury — both during the presentment where the grand jury rejected one of the counts, and before and after the presentment where they approved the indictment — today.

But that means that when Attorney General Pam Bondi ratified what Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer had done on October 31 …

In addition, based on my review of the grand jury proceedings in United States v. Corney and United States v. James, I hereby exercise the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. § 509, 510, and 515, to ratify Ms. Halligan’s actions before the grand jury and her signature on the indictments by the grand jury in each case.

… (using the same transcripts that were delivered to Judge Currie), those transcripts didn’t reveal what Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer had done.

At all!

This means two things:

First, that Pam Bondi in fact has not ratified anything Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer did, because she could not have reviewed any of it. DOJ did not yet have the recording, much less a transcript.

And it means that Pam Bondi ratified what Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer did, seemingly seeing precisely what Judge Currie did: the transcripts actually excluded everything Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer had done.

Update: An interesting wrinkle. Normally it’d take a long time to drag someone in the AG’s vicinity to answer for these irregularities. But not so here. Henry Charles Whitaker has filed notices of appearances in both the Comey and James cases in advance of next week’s hearing on these challenges. He’s the former FL Solicitor General, now serving as Bondi’s Counselor. That may backfire.

Update: Journalists who were in Currie’s hearing today report that DOJ still didn’t give Judge Currie the entire transcripts. There was a several minute section missing!

Remember how, 72-hours ago, I wrote an interminable post about how this Comey case may be about more than just two charges filed back in September?

I argued, among other things, that Comey may have asked for grand jury transcripts not (just) because getting them in December would help him win a vindictive prosecution claim that’ll be heard a month earlier, but because one of the now-three judges involved in the case might see the validity of his argument, and order the government to provide him those transcripts now.

[W]hat these filings may do — especially the grand jury one — is affect several things going on, starting this week.

As noted, Judge Cameron McGowen Currie has ordered the government to give her the transcripts from both grand juries by tomorrow.

The undersigned has been appointed to hear this motion and finds it necessary to determine the extent of the indictment signer’s involvement in the gra.nd jury proceedings. Accordingly, the Government is directed to submit, no later than Monday, November 3, 2025, at 5:00 pm, for in camera review, all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts.

It’s genuinely unclear why she needs them, but it’s possible that by laying out Comey’s concern about privileged material in the grand jury, that will affect Judge Currie’s review.

Comey noted that Currie had already asked for these transcripts (which Nachmanoff surely noticed, since she did so in his docket).

Indeed, Judge Currie has already ordered the government to produce for in camera review “all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts.” ECF No. 95. Mr. Comey has argued that if Ms. Halligan alone secured and signed the indictment, dismissal would be required because she was unlawfully appointed.

Comey will not prevail on his motion for the grand jury transcripts until after the vindictive prosecution motion is briefed. But there’s nothing to stop Nachmanoff from making the same request that Currie did, to receive the transcripts for in chambers review. Similarly, there’s nothing to prevent William Fitzpatrick, the Magistrate Judge who’ll hold a hearing on the privilege question this Wednesday, to do the same.

Today, William Fitzpatrick did just that. (ABC; Politico; CNN; WaPo)

By Politico’s description, loaner AUSA Tyler Lemons’ explanation of the potential spill in September appears to have been no more convincing today than it was in his reply brief, which I wrote about here.

Tyler Lemons, an assistant U.S. attorney brought in from North Carolina to assist Halligan with the case, responded to the judge. He said investigators reviewing the search warrant materials anew just days before Comey’s indictment halted the process after stumbling upon information they thought might have been subject to Comey’s attorney-client privilege with Richman. He said the materials are now “isolated on a desk in FBI headquarters.”

Lemons added, “We’re not going to touch this evidence until the court approves it.”

The magistrate judge said prosecutors are not permitted to look at the material themselves until the court has resolved any potential privilege claims. He said that prosecutors could continue to use evidence it believes is not privileged in court filings, but that they do so “at their own risk.” If they inadvertently use privileged material in their filings, he said, it could lead to consequences for the entire case.

ABC’s story suggests more concerns over the access itself being a Fourth Amendment violation, regardless of whether it was privileged or not. That seems to be why he ordered the government to share — by close of business tomorrow — not just the grand jury transcripts, but the material seized from Dan Richman five years ago, which the government has inexplicably not yet turned over.

But Comey’s attorneys raised separate concerns that by using those materials at all, the government may have violated Comey’s rights — not just by reviewing potentially privileged information, but also by revisiting evidence obtained by warrants that would now be considered stale.

Judge Fitzpatrick appeared to agree with those concerns during Wednesday’s hearing, as he repeatedly pressed Assistant U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons over what materials the government had reviewed and why the disputes over privilege were not settled during the more than five years that the government had those communications in its possession

Fitzpatrick, citing what he described as “unusual” behavior by the Justice Department and the quickly approaching January trial date, ordered the government to hand over “all grand jury materials” related to its investigations of Comey by Thursday at 5 p.m. ET — an urgent deadline that reflected Fitzpatrick’s concern over the government’s conduct.

The big underlying issue though — the request that first precipitated this proceeding — was their demand for quick review of potentially privileged material that likely dates from the period after Donald Trump fired Jim Comey. DOJ has had this material for years, at least six months of which came when Bill Barr was aggressively pushing this investigation, yet they’ve never asked to breach these privilege claims before.

Which elicited the comment from Fitzpatrick that has made all the coverage, here, from ABC.

“We’re in a bit of a feeling of indict first, investigate second,” Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick said in a motions hearing in Alexandria, Virginia.

It’s not dissimilar to what a different Magistrate Judge, André Espionosa, said less than six months ago, when dismissing the charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka.

The hasty arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka , followed swiftly by the dismissal of these trespassing charges a mere 13 days later, suggests a worrisome misstep by your Office . An arrest , particularly of a public figure , is not a preliminary investigative tool . It is a severe action, carrying significant reputational and personal consequences, and it should only be undertaken after a thorough , dispassionate evaluation of credible evidence .

It’s precisely that commitment to rigorous investigation and thoughtful prosecution that has 20 characterized the distinguished history of your Office, Mr. Demanovich [the AUSA whom Alina Habba sent in her stead], particularly over the last two decades. The bench and the bar have witnessed in that period, the diligence and care demonstrated by prior U.S. attorneys in New Jersey, whose leadership has consistently upheld the highest standards of prosecutorial ethics and professionalism Their legacy is one of careful deliberate action where charges were brought only after exhaustive evidence gathering and a thorough consideration of all facts That bedrock principle, consistently honored by your predecessors, is the foundation upon which the credibility and effectiveness of your Office rests.

So let this incident serve as an inflection point and a reminder to uphold your solemn oath to the people of this District and to your client, Justice itself, and ensure that every charge brought is the product of rigorous investigation and earned confidence in its merit, mirroring the exemplary conduct that has long defined your Office.

The apparent rush in this case, culminating today in the embarrassing retraction of charges, suggests a failure to adequately investigate, to carefully gather facts, and to thoughtfully consider the implications of your actions before wielding your immense power. Your Office must operate with higher standard than that.

To be sure, I don’t think they were reconsidering charging Comey.

Rather, I suspect they were hoping for a better theory of charges. I suspect they hope to bring follow-on charges to build their fever dream.

But they’ve been caught once again not doing the work of prosecutors.

Update: Holy hell. Per NYT, prosecutors hadn’t even turned over the stuff released in their Opposition to Comey’s vindictive and selective prosecution motion.

The judged grilled one of Ms. Halligan’s deputies, Nathaniel Lemons, over prosecutors’ release of material in recent days, including private text exchanges intended to cast Mr. Richman and Mr. Comey in unflattering light in an otherwise quotidian court filing. He asked whether prosecutors had given Mr. Comey an opportunity to review such material first to challenge their release.

When Mr. Lemons said he had not offered Mr. Comey’s lawyers access to the material, obtained in several search warrants as part of an internal investigation of leaks in the Russia case during the first Trump administration, the judge chided him for placing an “unfair” burden on the defense.

That would undoubtedly be a violation of the discovery order, which required everything material to be turned over by October 13.

Update: The timeline on this gets more damning.

September 22: Lindsey Halligan appointed.

Days before Comey’s indictment: Investigators review the materials anew.

September 25: Miles Starr presents to the grand jury and then files notice of exposure to Attorney-Client material.

October 7: Lemons files notice of appearance, but refuses to tell Comey who the people referred to in indictment are.

October 10: Lemons starts pressuring Comey to access privileged material.

October 13: Lemons files for access to privileged material.

October 15: Lemons finally tells Comey who the people in the indictment are.

October 19: In bid to accelerate access to privileged material, Lemons accuses Patrick Fitzgerald of being part of classified leak — a slanderous attempt to criminalize sharing details of Trump’s misconduct.

November 3: Lemons files response relying on discovery Comey hasn’t yet received.

I listened to the arguments at the Supreme Court over Trump’s tariffs (my live tweet of John Sauer and the plaintiffs; the transcript), with John Sauer arguing for Trump, Neal Katyal arguing for the small businesses that sued, and Benjamin Gutman arguing for Democratic states that sued.

The primary argument comes down to Katyal’s emphasis: that because tariffs raise revenues, they are part of Congress’ power.

Sauer was stuck, over and over again, attempting to argue that the intent of these tariffs was not to raise revenue, it was to encourage capacities in the US.

And I said there’s two buckets there. One is, first of all, when it comes to the trade deficit emergency, if no one ever pays the tariff but instead they direct their consumption domestically and spur the creation of a rebuilding of our — of our hollowed-out manufacturing base, that directly addresses the crisis. It’s more effective if no one ever pays the tariff. That’s the point of it, really. You know, that’s a fundamental point of it. And that’s one piece of these.

[snip]

That — those tariffs, if no one ever collects them but the threat of imposing those tariffs gets China and our other trading partners across the world to change their behaviors in a way that addresses this, then that’s the most effective use of the policy. So they’re clearly regulatory tariffs, not taxes. They are not — they’re not an exercise of the power to tax. They are the exercise of the power to regulate foreign commerce. And that’s why the statute says “regulate.” It doesn’t say “tax.” It says “regulate.”

Eventually, Katyal pointed out that the government had already bragged in declarations that they planned to make $4 trillion from the tariffs.

This is obviously revenue-raising. Their own brief to the Court says it’s going to raise $4 trillion.

No one talked about coffee, or anything else that the US has no ability to replace. Katyal did raise Switzerland, with which we have a trade surplus.

It’s just that this President has torn up the entire tariff architecture. You know, for example, he’s tariffing Switzerland, one of our allies, which we have a trade surplus, 39 percent. That is just not something that any President has ever had the power to do in our history.

Amy Coney Barrett asked why they had to impose tariffs on Spain and France.

These are imposed on — I mean, these are kind of across the board. And so is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain, France? I mean, I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy as are.

Sonia Sotomayor raised the silly tariffs on Brazil for hold Jair Bolsonaro to account.

But the President threatened to impose a 10 percent tax on Canada for an ad it ran on tariffs during the World Series. He imposed a 40 percent tax on Brazil because its Supreme Court permitted the prosecution of one of its former presidents for criminal activity. The point is, those may be good policies, but does a statute that gives, without limit, the power to a President to impose this kind of tax, does it require more than the word “regulate”?

After Sauer claimed there was some oversight to this, Elena Kagan observed that Trump keeps declaring emergencies.

The President has to make a formal declaration of a national emergency, which subjects him to particularly intensive oversight by Congress, repeat — you know, natural lapsing, repeated review, reports, and so forth. It says you have to consult with Congress to the — the maximum extent possible.

JUSTICE KAGAN: I mean, you yourself think that the declaration of emergency is unreviewable. And even if it’s not unreviewable, it’s, of course, the kind of determination that this Court would grant considerable deference to the — to the President on. So that doesn’t seem like much of a constraint.

GENERAL SAUER: But it is a —

JUSTICE KAGAN: And, in fact, you know, we’ve had cases recently which deals with the President’s emergency powers, and it turns out we’re in emergencies everything all the time about, like, half the world.

GENERAL SAUER: Well, this particular emergency is particularly existential, as Executive Order 14257 says, and, of course, no one disputes the existential nature of the fentanyl crisis, which, you know, we had an agreement last week to create progress on, which illustrates the effectiveness of the tariffs tool h

Even Sammy Alito all-but conceded that there was no real emergency here, the basis on which Trump has accrued the power to impose taxes. “Would you have the same suspicion that President trying to achieve a goal other than the raising of money,” in case of an undisputed emergency. Kavanaugh came in a few minutes later raising the India tariffs, asserting blindly that the purpose of them was to end the Russian war (no one asked why Trump set tariffs on India first or why he didn’t just impose sanctions).

I don’t bank lots on my impression of how arguments went. John Roberts was mostly silent, but when he did weigh in, it was always in ways fairly devastating for that argument. My guess, then, is that the women plus Justice Roberts, plus maybe Neil Gorsuch, will rule against Trump, though don’t hold me to it.

There were several other interesting parts of the discussion though. There was the discussion of what happens if plaintiffs win. It came up several times, but close to the end, ACB asked Katyal how reimbursement will work. He sort of answered it wasn’t his problem; he represents six fairly minor plaintiffs, not a Class. It would be a much bigger problem for the states, which probably make up half of imports to the US. Plus, as Bloomberg laid out, other businesses have, in recent days, been suing in order to accelerate the process of getting reimbursed. Katyal even suggested maybe Congress can straighten this out.

MR. KATYAL: We don’t — we don’t deny that it’s difficult, but I think what this Court has said in — in — in the McKesson case in 1990, a serious economic dislocation isn’t a reason to do something. Northern Pipeline, you guys stayed your decision for a while in order to let the congressional process unfold. There may be a congressional process here as well.

This Congress?!?!

The point being, we’re at the point of Trump 2.0, in what may be — now appears to be likely to — be the first area where the Court reverses one of Trump’s abusive power grabs. And it has to be a consideration of how to unfuck the problems Trump caused because courts (in this case, lower courts, but usually, it’s the Supreme Court) allowed Trump to continue abusing power while matters were litigated.

Another concern, and even Sammy Alito expressed it (!!!!), was whether Congress could ever claw back the authority to tariff if it is lost here. Here’s how Gorsuch first raised it.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Okay. You emphasize that Congress can always take back its powers. You mentioned that a couple of times. But don’t we have a serious retrieval problem here because, once Congress delegates by a bare majority and the President signs it — and, of course, every president will sign a law that gives him more authority — Congress can’t take that back without a super majority. And even — you know, even then, it’s going to be veto-proof. What president’s ever going to give that power back? A pretty rare president. So how — how should that inform our view of delegations and major questions?

[snip]

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Fair enough. As a practical matter, in the real world, it can never get that power

The questions that resonated the most came from Gorsuch (though I suspect he sounded more gung ho against the government in arguing against Sauer than he necessarily is). At one point, he tried to get Sauer to see the risk that a Democratic President would just impose huge tariffs to address a climate change emergency.

Could the President impose a 50-percent tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change?

GENERAL SAUER: It’s very likely that that could be done, very likely.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: I think that has to be the logic of your view.

GENERAL SAUER: Yeah. In other words, I mean, obviously, this Administration would say that’s a hoax, it’s not a real crisis, but — but, obviously —

JUSTICE GORSUCH: I’m sure you would.

Sauer pretty much dodged that question, stating that this Administration would declare it a hoax, but that would be of not interest if he weren’t in the Administration. Ketanji Brown Jackson followed up to lay out the problems of claiming the courts have no review.

JUSTICE JACKSON: Let me just ask one more question about the unusual threat. So, in your conversation with Justice Gorsuch that we had, the climate change tariff hypo and you indicated that there would be challengers to the notion that that was an unusual and extraordinary threat, and I’m just wondering, under your position, would they be able to make a legal challenge? Are you saying the Court would not be able to review that concern?

GENERAL SAUER: On that particular hypothetical, I think I said that would be a question for Congress.

JUSTICE JACKSON: So not a court?

GENERAL SAUER: Yeah. I don’t — in other words, that wouldn’t be the sort of thing the courts are going to weigh into, is this really an emergency. You know, that would not be — probably very unlikely. That would be a situation where at least there would be very, very, very deferential judicial review of that kind of determination, a legal dispute, but —

But even before that Gorsuch pointed out that if Congress could trade away its authority to tax, they could trade away their authority to declare war.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: General, just a few questions following up on the major questions discussions you’ve had. You say that we shouldn’t be so concerned in the area of foreign affairs because of the President’s inherent powers. That’s the gist of it, as I understand it, why we should disregard both major questions and nondelegation. So could Congress delegate to the President the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations as he sees fit —

GENERAL SAUER: We don’t —

JUSTICE GORSUCH: — to lay and collect duties as he sees fit?

[snip]

JUSTICE GORSUCH: But you’re saying we shouldn’t look —

GENERAL SAUER: He has broad powers in this very narrow assignment.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: — we shouldn’t be concerned with — I want you to explain to me how you draw the line, because you say we shouldn’t be concerned because this is foreign affairs, the President has inherent authority, and so delegation off the books more or less.

GENERAL SAUER: Or at least —

JUSTICE GORSUCH: And if that’s true, what would — what would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war to the President?

[snip]

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Can you give me a reason to accept it, though? That’s what I’m struggling and waiting for. What’s the reason to accept the notion that Congress can hand off the power to declare war to the President?

GENERAL SAUER: Well, we don’t contend that. Again, that would be —

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Well, you do. You say it’s unreviewable, that there’s no manageable standard, nothing to be done. And now you’re — I think you — tell me if I’m wrong. You’ve backed off that position

Again, I’m not sure my read of Gorsuch has much salience. But we are at the stage — as Trump continues to murder-bomb people on a three degree of separation in an undeclared not-war not-drug action — where a right wing Justice asks whether Congress can cede their most fundamental authorities.

And where another one asks how we start to unfuck the damage Trump has already done.

Yesterday, Reuters reported that the Inspector General for FHFA, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, got fired by the White House yesterday.

The ouster of Joe Allen, FHFA’s acting inspector general, follows the agency’s director, Bill Pulte, becoming an outspoken voice in support of the Trump administration. Across the government, the Trump administration has so far fired or reassigned close to two dozen agency watchdogs, who police waste, fraud and abuse. It has also defunded the group that supervises those offices.

The report attracted little notice; Reuters even notes that this is just one among dozens of IG firings. But this firing may blow up sooner rather than later.

That’s because Allen was preparing to share information with EDVA prosecutors.

Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia who was hand-picked for the job by Trump, subsequently indicted James after her predecessor declined to do so, citing a lack of evidence.

Allen received notice of his termination from the White House after he made efforts to provide key information to prosecutors in that office, according to four sources. The information he turned over was constitutionally required, two of them said, while a third described it as being potentially relevant in discovery.

His ouster also came about as he was preparing to send a letter to Congress notifying lawmakers that the FHFA was not cooperating with the inspector general’s office, three of the sources said. These individuals said the FHFA director would typically have been notified of such a letter. Reuters was unable to independently determine whether Pulte was informed.

By the end of the day, the Loaner AUSA in the Letitia James case had submitted a letter stating they would not comply with Judge Jamar Walker’s order, issued during the arraignment, that they turn over evidence on selective and vindictive prosecution.

A grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Defendant on October 9, 2025. Doc. 1. Defendant’s Initial Appearance and Arraignment occurred on October 24, 2025. Doc. 24. At that hearing, the Court ordered Defendant to file her motion to dismiss based on vindicative/selective prosecution by November 7, 2025. Hear’g Tr., 23:18-20. It also indicated its expectation “that the discovery associated with this potential first motion needs to be frontloaded . . . .” Id. at 23:14-16. Consistent with this Court’s instruction, the Government provided newspaper articles to Defendant’s counsel. Defendant’s counsel also indicated that he intends to request substantial discovery from the Government.

The Government provides notice of its intent not to provide vindictive/selective prosecution-related discovery prior to Defendant’s motion because the law does not “allow[ ] a defendant to have discovery on the government’s prosecutorial decisions [until] the defendant . . . overcome[s] a significant barrier by advancing objective evidence tending to show the existence of prosecutorial misconduct. The standard is a ‘rigorous’ one.” Wilson, 262 F.3d at 315 (quoting Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 468). Until Defendant meets her threshold requirements, the Court’s instruction to produce any vindictive/selective prosecution-related discovery is premature.

The letter specifically describes that Rule 16 discovery does not include internal government reports made by government agents in connection with the case — something that would be covered by any review that FHFA’s IG did of this and other Bill Pulte referrals.

FED. R. CRIM. P. 16(a)(2) underscores the limitation to “defense” as it “exempts from defense inspection ‘reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents made by the attorney for the government or other government agents in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case.’”

The filing is not dissimilar from a letter prosecutors sent in the LaMonica McIver case, telling McIver’s attorneys they would not abide by Judge Jamel Semper’s August 26 order to meet and confer about selective and vindictive evidence.

The Government has reviewed your letter of September 3, 2025 detailing the specific discovery requests sought in conjunction with your client’s motion to dismiss based on selective prosecution and enforcement, and vindictive prosecution. As we discussed during our Zoom call yesterday, we believe that the discovery sought in your September 3rd letter is not covered by Rule 16. Discovery in support of selective prosecution and selective enforcement claims is not provided as a matter of right, and we do not believe your client has satisfied the applicable threshold evidentiary showings required by Amstrong/Bass and Washington to compel discovery. We therefore believe that Judge Semper should first rule on your client’s motion for discovery, which we will oppose, and we will revisit the discovery demands outlined in your letter should the Court grant her request.

And while Semper ruled that prosecutors have to provide McIver the communications from Delaney Hall to her, they otherwise appear to have gotten away with this stance.

But two things may lead to a different outcome here.

First, by firing Allen, the White House has made the firing itself an issue, not unlike the Erez Reuveni firing did in the Kilmar Abrego case. At the very least, this news report will add to the bases to claim vindictive prosecution.

But also because Attorney General James shares an attorney, Abbe Lowell, with Lisa Cook. No one has charged Lisa Cook yet — maybe they never will; but nevertheless she has a date at the Supreme Court in January. And that may have the effect of putting several issues before the Court at once (the lawsuit by a bunch of Inspectors General fired at the beginning of Trump’s term is stayed pending all these other cases).

None of that’s to say that SCOTUS will reverse course on letting presidents (or at least this one) fire everyone put in place to exercise some oversight.

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

With the election yesterday of Millennial Zohran Mamdani as New York City’s mayor, generational change in Democratic Party politics has shifted more firmly away from Boomers.

With the youngest Boomers in their mid-60s, it’s time — not to mention other reasons like a lifetime of baggage impeding effective governance.

This is an open thread with an emphasis on state and local elections. More details about elections across the country will be published here as updates throughout the day. In the mean time, discuss election results in your state and municipality here; what are the implications of the elections’ results, and what blowback might we expect? What effects may these elections have on the 2026 mid-term elections?

On October 28, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie — the senior South Carolina Judge who’ll preside over Jim Comey and Tish James’ challenges to Lindsey Halligan’s appointment — instructed the government to give her the grand jury transcripts.

The undersigned has been appointed to hear this motion and finds it necessary to determine the extent of the indictment signer’s involvement in the grand jury proceedings. Accordingly, the Government is directed to submit, no later than Monday, November 3, 2025, at 5:00 pm, for in camera review, all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts.

On October 30, Jim Comey submitted a motion describing all the reasons it might be useful for him to see those transcripts, too.

Although those motions must be decided on their own merits, the circumstances described in both motions raise a strong possibility that there were “irregularities in the grand jury proceedings” that would provide a “basis for dismissal of the indictment.” Nguyen, 314 F. Supp. 2d at 616 (citations omitted). Indeed, Judge Currie has already ordered the government to produce for in camera review “all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts.” ECF No. 95. Mr. Comey has argued that if Ms. Halligan alone secured and signed the indictment, dismissal would be required because she was unlawfully appointed.

[snip]

For similar reasons, disclosure of the grand jury materials is reasonably calculated to provide additional support for Mr. Comey’s argument that he would not have been prosecuted but for President Trump’s animus toward Mr. Comey, including because of his protected speech.

On October 31, the government delivered a package of grand jury transcripts to Judge Currie.

Only, they didn’t include “all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts.”

Judge Currie exhibited remarkable patience when instructing DOJ, for the second time, to give her all the transcripts.

On October 28, 2025, the undersigned entered an order directing the Government to submit, for in camera review, “all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts.” ECF No. 95. On Friday, October 31, 2025, the court received a package containing, inter alia, a “Transcript of Grand Jury proceedings on September 25, 2025.” This court has reviewed the transcript and finds it 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. In addition, the package contains no records or transcripts regarding the presentation of the three-count indictment referenced in the Transcript of the Return of Grand Jury Indictment Proceedings before the Magistrate Judge.

Did DOJ really think Currie is stupid enough for this to work?

What makes all of this exceptionally stupid, though, is that Pam Bondi described reading the transcripts before she ratified the prosecution back on October 31, the same day the transcripts mysteriously weren’t all delivered to Judge Currie.

In addition, based on my review of the grand jury proceedings in United States v. Corney and United States v. James, I hereby exercise the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. § 509, 510, and 515, to ratify Ms. Halligan’s actions before the grand jury and her signature on the indictments by the grand jury in each case.

So whatever it is that led someone to withhold the most important parts of the Jim Comey transcript, Pam Bondi is now complicit in it.

And all of that will make it more likely that Judge Michael Nachmanoff will himself review the transcripts to see what all the fuss is about.

I want to congratulate Loaner AUSA Tyler Lemons, who after confessing that Kash Patel’s FBI had violated Jim Comey’s Fourth Amendment rights on Sunday, went on to lay out why Comey is right to demand a Bill of Particulars on Monday. As NYT quipped,

the prosecutors who wrote the filing spent as much time suggesting that Mr. Comey had used the confidant, Daniel C. Richman, a law professor at Columbia University, as a conduit to the news media as they did seeking to reject allegations that the indictment was vindictive.

The introduction is one page. The conclusion is 30 words. And before the 25-page discussion competently addressing Comey’s vindictive and selective prosecution claim, the brief spends 15 pages trying to claim that this prosecution caught Jim Comey lying and obstructing an investigation that would merit charges.

Mostly, though, it demonstrates that poor Tyler Lemons can’t sort out what it is he is prosecuting.

Lemons establishes the need to include transcripts omitted from the indictment

Start with transcripts. The government motion itself includes:

• A transcription of Jim Comey’s May 3, 2017 exchange with Chuck Grassley (before he released a memo describing Trump’s misconduct)
• A transcription of an exchange Comey had on June 8, 2017 with Susan Collins describing sharing that memo through Richman
• A transcription of the September 30, 2020 exchange Comey had with Ted Cruz that is charged as Count One of the indictment

In footnotes to the first,

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.

And third transcriptions, Lemon makes observations about the inaccuracy of transcripts Comey included as exhibits to his vindictive and selective motion (Grassley, Cruz) — though neither were transcripts Comey himself produced.

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.

But Lemons relegates the transcription of the exchange between Comey and Graham from the September 30, 2020 hearing to an exhibit, thereby facilitating his effort to hide that Graham’s question was about a September 7, 2016 CIA referral, and not about the Russian fabricated Clinton plan generally.

The transcriptions of the Grassley-Comey and Cruz-Comey exchange that Comey included in his literal truth motion do not include the inaccuracies Lemons noted. But as a footnote explained, Comey relied primarily on the video he submitted with that exhibit.

For the rest of this brief, references to the exchange between Mr. Cruz and Mr. Comey cite to the Oversight Hearing Video Clip, which provides the most accurate depiction of the exchange. But the Oversight Hearing Transcript is a useful reference as well.

But as Comey notes in his vindictive motion, his literal truth motion, and his request for a Bill of Particulars motion, the indictment itself misquotes the exchange and in no way identifies what specifically Comey lied about.

the text of Count One both misstates the testimony Mr. Comey actually gave and misquotes the question posed by Senator Ted Cruz. See Mot. to Dismiss Indictment Based on Vindictive & Selective Prosecution, ECF No. 59 at 15; Mot. to Dismiss Based on Fundamental Ambiguity & Literal Truth at 2-4.

So as charged, Comey is being prosecuted for an exchange that didn’t happen the way Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer claimed it did. Comey has asked for accurate specifics, and Lemons emphasized the inaccuracies of what is out there.

Lemons can’t distinguish between the investigations and leaks at issue

Now consider the claimed structure of that passage and what it actually says. Doing so reveals that Lemons doesn’t understand what he’s referring to (or, worse, deliberately misrepresents it).

A. The defendant’s service as FBI Director and the Midyear Exam investigation. (pages 2-4)

This section summarizes the declination part of the DOJ IG Report on Midyear Exam. While this section notes that Trump fired Comey (it doesn’t say on what date in May 2017 Trump did so), it doesn’t admit that the ostensible purpose Trump gave for firing Comey pertained to Comey’s treatment of Hillary, not his refusal to shut down the Russian investigation … an oversight (and Mueller evidence) that Comey now has cause to raise in his Reply.

B. The defendant’s correspondence with Daniel Richman—and Richman’s correspondence with the press—regarding the Midyear Exam investigation. (pages 4-8)

This section starts with a description of Dan Richman, describing him as, “a Columbia Law School professor who also served as an FBI Special Government Employee since 2015.” Nowhere does Lemons mention that Richman’s SGE appointment was lapsed at least as late as October 27, nor that Richman left the FBI on February 7, 2017.

It then spends 2.5 pages describing correspondence Comey had with Dan Richman in advance of this NYT flowchart, citing these exhibits:

• January 2, 2015: Letter stating that Richman would not comment on matters he “work[s] on for the Bureau”
• October 29, 2016: Text saying, “The country can’t seem to handle your finding stuff”
• October 30, 2016: Richman offering to write an op-ed for NYT
• November 1-2, 2016: Comey suggests perhaps Richman can make Mike Schmidt smarter
• November 2, 2016: Richman noting story about Hillary

Then it spends a page describing correspondence relating to this article, the article at the core of Arctic Haze. But it does so backwards. It first describes Comey’s April 23, 2017 email thanking Richman for what he said — on the record — in it. Then it describes emails Richman sent on February 11, 2017, four days after FBI claims he left FBI, soliciting Chuck Rosenberg’s involvement in what would be the April 23 story. There’s no mention of Comey’s involvement, in advance, in that story.

And then, still under the heading of articles about Midyear Exam, Lemons describes texts between Mike Schmidt and Richman, between May 11 and 16, about Comey’s firing, specifically referencing the dinner at which Trump demanded Comey’s loyalty. Those text messages culminate in the publication of this story, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation,” the story first revealing that Trump asked Comey to let the Flynn prosecution go.

C. The defendant’s disclosure of memoranda concerning meetings with the President and his pertinent Senate testimony. (pages 9-12)

Having already described the publication of the story about the memos, Lemons then describes Comey’s testimony in 2017 about them. He describes Comey telling Grassley on May 3, 6 days before he was fired and 8 days before the Schmidt and Richman texts start, that he had not asked anyone to serve as an anonymous source in news stories about the Clinton or Trump investigations (note, on that day there was no Trump investigation, there was an investigation into others). He describes Comey, three weeks after the story (Lemons doesn’t provide the date, June 8, which is important context to the next section showing Trump wailing about “leaks”) truthfully telling Susan Collins that he asked a friend to share the memo with a reporter.

COMEY: I asked—the president tweeted on Friday [May 12], after I got fired, that I better hope there’s not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night, because it didn’t dawn on me originally that there might be corroboration for our conversation. There might be a tape.

And my judgment was, I needed to get that out into the public square. And so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a friend of mine to do it.

Which he immediately follows with Ted Cruz’ questions from 2020, as if Richman sharing the memos could be responsive (much less material) to Ted Cruz’ question about asking someone at the FBI to share stuff anonymously.

D. The President’s concern with the defendant’s official conduct. (pages 12-14)

The next bit is central to the Loaner AUSAs’ claim that Trump wasn’t prosecuting Comey for his opposition but instead out of a legitimate concern about leaks. A one page description of Trump’s obsession with what he claimed were Comey’s leaks treats the Richman memos as a leak, even though Comey admitted to releasing them within a month.

Shortly after the defendant was fired, the President began to publicly express his concern that the defendant had leaked (or authorized the leak of) investigative information and had given false or misleading testimony to cover it up. For example, on May 31, 2017, he referenced “the false or misleading testimony by James Comey.” Def. Mem., Dkt. No. 59-4 at 2. On June 9, he posted, “Comey is a leaker!” Id. Two days later, he posted, “I believe the James Comey leaks will be far more prevalent than anyone ever thought possible. Totally illegal?” Id. In July, he reposted a news report stating, “Report accuses material James Comey leaked to a friend contained top secret information.” Id. In October 2017, he posted that “James Comey lied and leaked and totally protected Hillary Clinton.” Id. at 3. In March 2018, the President posted, “Wow, watch Comey lie under oath to Senator G when asked ‘have you ever been an anonymous source … or known someone else to be an anonymous source…?’ He said strongly ‘never, no.’ He lied as shown clearly on @foxandfriends.” Id. at 6.

This passage is triply misleading.

First, sharing the memos was anonymous at first, but it was not a leak, Comey admitted to it within a month, and it was investigative mostly insofar as it predicated an investigation into Trump. It became investigative because Trump fired Comey.

Second, as noted, through the structure of this section, Lemons does a number of things to falsely suggest this could be the charged lie, when it could not, for several different reasons I’ll explain below.

Most importantly, it ignores the nine complaints Trump made about Comey, listed in Comey’s 60 page exhibit of those complaints, before the first one listed in the response, which started with a claim (debunked by the exhibits in this motion) that “Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton,” to say nothing of Trump’s “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press,” to which the memo release was a response.

E. The defendant’s public posts about President Trump. (page 14)

The next section attempts to show that Trump was concerned about Comey’s “leaking” (that is exposure of Trump’s misconduct) before Comey said anything bad about Trump — but I’m very confused how this sentence — “his motion shows his first social-media post speaking out about the Trump administration (not the President directly) came in June 2017, over a month after he was fired—and after the President had publicly posted about his “false or misleading testimony” — is consistent with Comey giving testimony about Trump’s misconduct and Comey’s accurate prediction Trump would lie about it on June 8, 2017, exactly a month after he was fired (in the hearing in which he told Collins about the memos). Maybe I just don’t understand. Or maybe in his desperation to sell a narrative, Lemons is lying to the court about the substance of Comey’s testimony.

This has the effect of making the memos the chicken and the egg of this investigation, which nevertheless could not be included in either charge against Comey.

F. Law enforcement’s investigations into unauthorized public disclosures. (pages 14-15)

Having already confessed he doesn’t know what a leak is and doesn’t know what FBI employ is, Lemons then introduces his desperate attempt to claim that receiving a briefing that might be about what we now know is Russian disinformation 19 days after not receiving a memo about it that probably emphasizes something else should be recalled when Lindsey Graham asked about it in specific reference (a reference Lemons buries) to memo redacted in a way that would obscure its import.

I will return to this section’s description of the 18 USC 2071 investigation trying to criminalize the non-removal of documents from the FBI as removal from the FBI. (!?!?!) Apparently, on July 21, 2025, Jack Eckenrode and Miles Starr decided that leaving a bunch of documents that were already preserved in FBI servers in an inventory room amounted to removal. Mostly it’s an attempt to indulge Kash Patel’s stupidest conspiracy theories.

But the important point, for the purpose of this filing, is that, under the heading promising information about “unauthorized public disclosures,” Lemons falsely claims an investigation into what would, if true, be an effort to bury evidence, was instead an investigation into sharing it.

G. Appointment of U.S. Attorney Halligan and the indictment. (pages 15-17)

And that’s important because the excuse Lemons offers for the hiring of Lindsey Halligan is Trump’s obsession with wildly inaccurate propaganda about the release of the Arctic Haze file, which leads directly from a John Solomon article treating the NYT article about the Hillary investigation as if it pertained to Russia.

On August 13, 2025, the President posted a link to a Fox News segment with the text, “DOCUMENTS REVEAL JAMES COMEY ASSOCIATE LEAKED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO THE NYT.” Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TruthSocial (Aug. 13, 2025 at 12:42 ET). 12 The next day, he posted a link to a news article discussed in the segment. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TruthSocial (Aug. 14, 2025 at 7:02 ET). 13 The article detailed FBI documents recently disclosed to Congress and indicated that Richman had admitted “that he was given access by Comey to what turned out to be highly classified information up to the SCI level and sometimes provided information to reporters on an anonymous basis.” John Solomon and Jerry Dunleavy, Comey’s media mole told FBI he shaped Russia narrative, needed ‘discount’ to deny leaking intel, Just the News (Aug. 12, 2025).14 On September 20, 2025, the President posted:

Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, “same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.” Then we almost put in a Democrat supported U.S. Attorney, in Virginia, with a really bad Republican past. A Woke RINO, who was never going to do his job. That’s why two of the worst Dem Senators PUSHED him so hard. He even lied to the media and said he quit, and that we had no case. No, I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so. Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot. We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! President DJT

None of this actually helps Lemons, because it suggests Trump hired Halligan specifically to open an investigation into an already declined prosecution.

But it does create a narrative, one Lemons uses to claim that Trump was not out to get Comey because Comey disclosed Trump’s fundamental corruption, but instead because Comey leaked classified information, a claim not backed by a single thing in this filing.

Indeed, what the filing does, in part, is prove that Trump falsely accused Comey of leaking classified information for years, without anything to back that claim.

In Section A, Lemons declines to address that Trump ostensibly fired Comey because of the Hillary investigation, not the Russian one. In Section B, Lemons treated a story about the Trump’s misconduct as instead about Hillary investigation. In Section D, he pretended Trump was concerned about leaking rather than being exposed as corrupt. In Section F, Lemons misrepresents a bogus cover-up claim as instead a leak investigation. In Section G, Lemons relies on a John Solomon post confusing the Hillary investigation with the Russian investigation.

The guy who plans to present all this to a jury in a few months appears unable to distinguish between the Hillary investigations (remember, the Andrew McCabe sourcing Ted Cruz asked about was about the Clinton Foundation, not the emails) and the Russian investigation, which Lemons exacerbates by imagining that the Russian investigation was always about Trump.

Lemons may already recognize that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer charged the wrong things (which is why Comey’s request for grand jury transcripts is merited).

None of these stories match the elements of the offense

The problem for Lemons is that none of these scenarios fit the elements of the offense for the crimes charged.

For the 18 USC 1001 charge, prosecutors need to prove that Comey knowingly lied about a leak about Hillary he authorized Richman to share anonymously while he was at the FBI.

As a threshold matter, Comey will be able to argue the charges cannot survive, because the hearing scope did not include the Hillary investigations.

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.

So any story about Hillary is, by definition, outside of scope.

The only one of these stories where there’s some evidence that Comey authorized a story about Hillary in which Richman was not named was the November 2016 one. Even by then, however, the FBI was trying to fix Richman’s Special Government Employee.

As for the 18 USC 1505 charge, prosecutors will need to prove that Comey told lies that were intentional that impeded that investigation. Because of the scope of the hearing (and therefore the investigation), they can’t argue the two Hillary stories are material. Comey was aware of the scope of the hearing and Hillary wasn’t part of it.

There’s no way they can argue that Comey should have admitted asking Richman to serve as an anonymous source for the May 2017 story impeded the Senate investigation, because he had admitted that years earlier!!

That leaves just the Lindsey Graham question, which was specifically about whether Comey remembered the CIA referral, dated September 7, that Kash Patel had recently released in redacted — and therefore likely hopelessly misleading — form. As the transcript Lemons buries in an exhibit makes clear, the question — the one the grand jury no-billed — was not whether Comey was briefed; it was whether he recalls getting the document itself (Lindsey misstates what this document even was).

Lindsey: Do you recall getting an inquiry from the CI, excuse me, the intelligence community in September, 2016, about a concern that the Clinton campaign was going to create a scandal regarding Trump and Russia?

Mr. Comey: I do not.

Senator Graham: You don’t remember getting a investigatory lead from the intelligence community, hang on a second … Let me find my document here.

Speaker 3: There it is.

Senator Graham: September the Seventh, 2016, the US intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server. You don’t remember getting that or being talk, that doesn’t …

Mr. Comey: That doesn’t ring any bells with me.

Lemons makes much of the fact that a copy of the referral was found in a storage room at FBI where other Durham materials were found; he claims to have evidence that it was once in the FBI Director’s office (but does not date when that was). That fact will face admissibility problems given Jack Eckenrode’s role in all that, which will in turn elicit questions why Eckenrode continues to base his investigations on what he discovered four years ago was Russian disinformation.

Poor Loaner Lemons will be forced to explain why Brennan was briefing Comey on a topic Comey had been informed of 19 days earlier, and why Comey would write that down as if it were news.

It will not be a slam dunk proving that the reference, HRC plan to tie Trump, pertains to the same SVR documents that the referral did. I know how I would do it. But I also know how a focus on “undermine HRC” just above that will make it easy to present this reference as Brennan (presumably) said he understood it–to be a reference to the victimization of Hillary, meaning Graham’s description of it would unrecognizable to Comey. As this reference appears, it backs Brennan’s conception of how most of the IC (aside from the Cyber Agents who fucked up the Alfa Bank Spectrum Health investigation) viewed this reference, as an attack on Hillary.

Ultimately, the defense to treating this as the basis for the obstruction charge (which I suspect it is) is to lay out how painfully wrong right wingers have been about what happened in 2016 from the start.

In Lemons’ bid to claim there was basis to charge Comey, he instead made it quite clear that none of his claimed issues match the charges as charged.

Which is to say, he made an exceptionally good case that Comey has reason to wonder what the fuck he is actually charged with.