CNN: Comey Prosecutor Set Up to Fail by her Staff

[Seymour Flops]

Should her staff be fired?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/30/politics/lindsey-halligan-trump-attorney-comey-indictment

They left her hanging, hoping to sabotage the indictment by stalling long enough for the Statute of Limitations to run out. She stepped up to the plate and hit a double her first at bat.

If the prosecutors who bailed felt they were making a principled stand, so be it. But you cannot cry when making a stand has consequences.

If they won't work as directed, they are clearly non-essential.

 

[White 6]

Should her staff be fired?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/30/politics/lindsey-halligan-trump-attorney-comey-indictment

They left her hanging, hoping to sabotage the indictment by stalling long enough for the Statute of Limitations to run out. She stepped up to the plate and hit a double her first at bat.

If the prosecutors who bailed felt they were making a principled stand, so be it. But you cannot cry when making a stand has consequences.

If they won't work as directed, they are clearly non-essential.

I suspect the indictment will fail, on it's own, due to lack of evidence that is prosecutable, but at least we can have a show for the faithful.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I suspect the indictment will fail, on it's own, due to lack of evidence that is prosecutable, but at least we can have a show for the faithful.

The Grand Jury disagreed, but anything is possible, I guess.

Not really the point of this thread, though. The point is who makes prosecution decisions, elected officials and their appointees, or "whoever has been there the longest?"

During the Ukraine phone call impeachment, the bureaucrats gave us their answer. Asked who was in charge of U.S. policy toward Ukraine Vindman stated "I am." Fiona Hill complained about "irregular channels" when there were "robust interagency processes" that she believed the president was required to go through.

These prosecutors who would not prosecute should of course be terminated. They should welcome it as a demonstration of their commitment to an administrative state unhindered by democracy.

 

[postman]

The Grand Jury disagreed, but anything is possible, I guess.

Not really the point of this thread, though. The point is who makes prosecution decisions, elected officials and their appointees, or "whoever has been there the longest?"

During the Ukraine phone call impeachment, the bureaucrats gave us their answer. Asked who was in charge of U.S. policy toward Ukraine Vindman stated "I am." Fiona Hill complained about "irregular channels" when there were "robust interagency processes" that she believed the president was required to go through.

These prosecutors who would not prosecute should of course be terminated. They should welcome it as a demonstration of their commitment to an administrative state unhindered by democracy.

Did you read the indictment she handed to the judge?

Actually she handed the judge two indictments. One with a true bill on two counts, and the other a three count no bill.

Both with her signature on them.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Did you read the indictment she handed to the judge?

Actually she handed the judge two indictments. One with a true bill on two counts, and the other a three count no bill.

Both with her signature on them.

The indictment I saw on the PBS website shows two counts true billed. If there is something else you would like for me to look at, I'll be happy to if you really think it's important.

Bottom line is, she did very well for someone who was left hanging by those experience career prosecutors. Agree or disagree with what she did, but any reasonable person would have to admit she did it well, in spite of the roadblocks, put out by others.

I know some thirty five year olds who are no more mature than they were when they were in college. This young lady is one of those exceptions, obviously. Definitely a role model for any young woman interested in the law, but fearing that she would be marginalized, or that you would have to give up her femininity, to be successful.

 

[Muhammed]

Should her staff be fired?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/30/politics/lindsey-halligan-trump-attorney-comey-indictment

They left her hanging, hoping to sabotage the indictment by stalling long enough for the Statute of Limitations to run out. She stepped up to the plate and hit a double her first at bat.

If the prosecutors who bailed felt they were making a principled stand, so be it. But you cannot cry when making a stand has consequences.

If they won't work as directed, they are clearly non-essential.

If true, that constitutes conspiracy, abuse of office and felony obstruction of justice.

That's serious prison time.

 

[White 6]

The Grand Jury disagreed, but anything is possible, I guess.

Not really the point of this thread, though. The point is who makes prosecution decisions, elected officials and their appointees, or "whoever has been there the longest?"

During the Ukraine phone call impeachment, the bureaucrats gave us their answer. Asked who was in charge of U.S. policy toward Ukraine Vindman stated "I am." Fiona Hill complained about "irregular channels" when there were "robust interagency processes" that she believed the president was required to go through.

These prosecutors who would not prosecute should of course be terminated. They should welcome it as a demonstration of their commitment to an administrative state unhindered by democracy.

The "Grand Jury" could just as well indicted a ham sandwich for not having a kosher pickel, but it would mean nothing in a court of law. Grand Jury indictments are not any type of evidence, nor is the supposed wisdom of the Grand Jury participants.

While I doubt the staff that worked under Trump's last appointment (hiring only the best people) has anything to do with the prosecutor failing, pointing out the weakness of cases attempted but failed before, against politically motivated charges is pertinent to the discussion, giving alternative possible reasons, for your prediction of prosecutorial failure. I am sure his is an excellent prosecutor with a list of accomplishments and Republican support, similar to the one Trump hired and fired, before him. I do wish him a happy life, of further accomplishment, in his next position, probably in the civilian legal market, when Trump fires him, for failing to attain Trump goals, in the political legal arena.

 

[postman]

The indictment I saw on the PBS website shows two counts true billed. If there is something else you would like for me to look at, I'll be happy to if you really think it's important.

She also handed the judge a second indictment. A three count "no bill".

At the very least she's making it very confusing for the judge.
An experienced prosecutor would have known better.

Much better.

She's not doing a very good job at this.

 

[postman]

If true, that constitutes conspiracy, abuse of office and felony obstruction of justice.

That's serious prison time.

You're seriously demented. You realize every time a prosecutor doesn't think they should seek an indictment, they have to write a memo explaining why. So the files are full of such memos.
Remember, it's in the DOJ handbook, that they are NOT to seek an indictment (which has a very low threshold) unless they are convinced they have a good chance to prevail at trial.

Grand Jury is only 12 of 23 voting sufficient evidence to go to trial.

Where at trial it's 12 out of 12 voting beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The "Grand Jury" could just as well indicted a ham sandwich for not having a kosher pickel, but it would mean nothing in a court of law. Grand Jury indictments are not any type of evidence, nor is the supposed wisdom of the Grand Jury participants.

I only said that the grand jury disagreed.

While I doubt the staff that worked under Trump's last appointment (hiring only the best people) has anything to do with the prosecutor failing,

I don't know if you read the article. But the point was that the prosecutor did not fail. She succeeded in spite of resistant trump her underlings

It is CNN, but maybe they have suddenly gone maga?

pointing out the weakness of cases attempted but failed before, against politically motivated charges is pertinent to the discussion, giving alternative possible reasons, for your prediction of prosecutorial failure.

Again, my post was admiring the prosecutor's success, not predicting failure.

I am sure his is an excellent prosecutor with a list of accomplishments and Republican support, similar to the one Trump hired and fired, before him.

She is an excellent prosecutor based on her first time at bat. her predecessor likely was an excellent prosecutor but apparently believes in the same double standard. The DOJ has shown in recent years.

No one is above the law.

I do wish him a happy life, of further accomplishment, in his next position, probably in the civilian legal market, when Trump fires him, for failing to attain Trump goals, in the political legal arena.

Firing people who fail to meet the boss's goals is not something unique to Trump.

Justice. Not only must be done, it must be seen to be done for faith to be restored in our justice system.

 

[postman]

If true, that constitutes conspiracy, abuse of office and felony obstruction of justice.

That's serious prison time.

Prosecutors' memo to new US attorney found no probable cause to charge James Comey: Sources

In a memo this week, prosecutors in Virginia recommended against potential plans by the new U.S. attorney there to charge ex-FBI Director James Comey, sources say.

abcnews.go.com

Prosecutors' memo to new US attorney found no probable cause to charge James Comey:

After a two-month investigation, federal prosecutors in Virginia were unable to gather sufficient evidence to support bringing criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress, sources tell ABC News.

The prosecutors earlier this week summarized their findings -- that probable cause does not exist to secure an indictment, let alone a conviction at trial -- in a detailed declination memo for Lindsey Halligan,

 

[postman]

I only said that the grand jury disagreed.

Actually the grand jury both agreed and disagreed.

She handed the judge both a two count true bill, and a three count no bill.

 

[postman]

I don't know if you read the article. But the point was that the prosecutor did not fail. She succeeded in spite of resistant trump her underlings

She handed the judge two indictments.
One to charge two of three counts.
The other dismissing all three counts.

I don't know how the judge will rule, but that may be enough confusion to force a "do over".

 

[Muhammed]

Prosecutors' memo to new US attorney found no probable cause to charge James Comey: Sources

In a memo this week, prosecutors in Virginia recommended against potential plans by the new U.S. attorney there to charge ex-FBI Director James Comey, sources say.

abcnews.go.com

Prosecutors' memo to new US attorney found no probable cause to charge James Comey:

After a two-month investigation, federal prosecutors in Virginia were unable to gather sufficient evidence to support bringing criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress, sources tell ABC News.

The prosecutors earlier this week summarized their findings -- that probable cause does not exist to secure an indictment, let alone a conviction at trial -- in a detailed declination memo for Lindsey Halligan,

Actually, probable cause did exist to get an indictment from a grand jury.

 

[postman]

Actually, probable cause did exist to get an indictment from a grand jury.

Unless they have enough evidence for a conviction, it's a violation of the DOJ manual to indict a ham sandwich.

If you need a citation, just ask.

 

[Muhammed]

Unless they have enough evidence for a conviction, it's a violation of the DOJ manual to indict a ham sandwich.

If you need a citation, just ask.

There's plenty of evidence for a conviction.

 

[Seymour Flops]

She also handed the judge a second indictment. A three count "no bill".

At the very least she's making it very confusing for the judge.
An experienced prosecutor would have known better.

Much better.

She's not doing a very good job at this.

Considering she got no help, not even paralegal help, I'd say she did a damn good job. Once those reticent prosecutors are replaced with prosecutors willing to pull their weight, she'll do even better.

She handed the judge two indictments.
One to charge two of three counts.
The other dismissing all three counts.

I don't know how the judge will rule, but that may be enough confusion to force a "do over".

You are rsally stuck on that point. It seems the judge accepted it without a do-over so justice can be served.