Will Lindsey Halligan's confirmation hearing testimony be a repeat of Pam Bondi's?

[berg80]

For the unaware, Halligan has been picked to replace Erik Seibert, the US Attorney formerly handling the prosecution of Letisha James, Erik having just resigned.

Sen. Chris Coons asked some very pointed questions of Pam when she testified.

Senator Coons presses Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi for reassurance that she will maintain Department of Justice’s independence during Judiciary confirmation hearing

Senator Coons: Thank you. Let me, if I might … refer you back to Senator [Dick] Durbin’s [D-Ill.] opening comments about previous attorneys general – our former colleague Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr – I don’t think it’s credible to say that it may never happen that the president-elect would direct an unethical or illegal act. I think both of those attorneys general found themselves crosswise with the then-president by doing things he didn’t welcome or approve of. Just answer the question for me, if you would: I know you may not expect it; I know you wouldn’t have accepted this nomination if you thought it possible – but let’s imagine that once again, President-elect Trump issues a directive or order to you or to the FBI director that is outside the boundaries of ethics or law. What will you do?

Bondi: Senator, I will never speak on a hypothetical, especially one saying that the President would do something illegal. What I can tell you is my duty, if confirmed as the Attorney General, will be to the Constitution and the United States of America, and the most important oath, part of that oath, that I will take are the last four words: “So help me God.”
https://www.coons.senate.gov/news/p...endence-during-judiciary-confirmation-hearing

For the purposes of this discussion let's not dwell on Bondi having lied during her testimony. I'm more curious about how Halligan will answer what I assume will be questions about how she will handle pressure from trump when she too can not find enough evidence to charge James with mortgage fraud? You know.........seeing as what just happened.........trump's now deleted post notwithstanding.......is trump pressured Bondi to get on with the prosecution of his enemies......a lack of evidence be damned.

Will she say something like, "I can't imagine the prez asking me to do anything illegal," as Pam did? How can she? So how will she dodge the inevitable questions?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For the unaware, Halligan has been picked to replace Erik Seibert, the US Attorney formerly handling the prosecution of Letisha James, Erik having just resigned.

Sen. Chris Coons asked some very pointed questions of Pam when she testified.

Senator Coons presses Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi for reassurance that she will maintain Department of Justice’s independence during Judiciary confirmation hearing

Senator Coons: Thank you. Let me, if I might … refer you back to Senator [Dick] Durbin’s [D-Ill.] opening comments about previous attorneys general – our former colleague Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr – I don’t think it’s credible to say that it may never happen that the president-elect would direct an unethical or illegal act. I think both of those attorneys general found themselves crosswise with the then-president by doing things he didn’t welcome or approve of. Just answer the question for me, if you would: I know you may not expect it; I know you wouldn’t have accepted this nomination if you thought it possible – but let’s imagine that once again, President-elect Trump issues a directive or order to you or to the FBI director that is outside the boundaries of ethics or law. What will you do?

Bondi: Senator, I will never speak on a hypothetical, especially one saying that the President would do something illegal. What I can tell you is my duty, if confirmed as the Attorney General, will be to the Constitution and the United States of America, and the most important oath, part of that oath, that I will take are the last four words: “So help me God.”
https://www.coons.senate.gov/news/p...endence-during-judiciary-confirmation-hearing

For the purposes of this discussion let's not dwell on Bondi having lied during her testimony. I'm more curious about how Halligan will answer what I assume will be questions about how she will handle pressure from trump when she too can not find enough evidence to charge James with mortgage fraud? You know.........seeing as what just happened.........trump's now deleted post notwithstanding.......is trump pressured Bondi to get on with the prosecution of his enemies......a lack of evidence be damned.

Will she say something like, "I can't imagine the prez asking me to do anything illegal," as Pam did? How can she? So how will she dodge the inevitable questions?

Halligan will lie, as did Bondi.

Trump wouldn’t have appointed her absent a guarantee of an illegal, partisan prosecution of James.

 

[berg80]

Halligan will lie, as did Bondi.

Trump wouldn’t have appointed her absent a guarantee of an illegal, partisan prosecution of James.

It does seem reasonable to think she was chosen because of her willingness to prosecute James regardless of whether there is enough evidence for a conviction. Which raises an interesting question. Doesn't it do more harm to the orange piece of shit's cause if James is tried and found innocent than if the case is dropped?

 

[Lesh]

It does seem reasonable to think she was chosen because of her willingness to prosecute James regardless of whether there is enough evidence for a conviction. Which raises an interesting question. Doesn't it do more harm to the orange piece of shit's cause if James is tried and found innocent than if the case is dropped?

In a normal world… yes

 

[berg80]

In a normal world… yes

Right. I forgot. If she's found innocent the jury was biased and the judge is a piece of shit. If charges are dropped Lindsey Halligan is a piece of shit. They have all the bases covered.

 

[berg80]

Is this Lindsey's moment to shine?

Former FBI Director Comey expected to be indicted soon in Virginia federal court: MSNBC​

Former FBI Director James Comey is expected to be indicted on criminal charges in the coming days in federal court in Virginia, MSNBC reported Wednesday.

Comey for years has been a target of President Donald Trump, who fired him as FBI director early in his first term in the White House.

News of the potential indictment came days after Erik Sieber, the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia resigned under pressure from Trump after opposing the filing of charges against Comey in that district.

Siebert was replaced as interim U.S. Attorney on Monday by Lindsey Halligan, who has previously represented Trump in personal legal cases.

Trump, in a social media post Saturday, called Comey “guilty as hell” as he raged about the lack of charges against the former FBI leader.

MSNBC reporter Ken Dilanian, in a post on X, wrote Wednesday, “The full extent of the charges being prepared against Comey is unclear.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/24/james-comey-fbi-indictment-trump-congress.html

Or is she destined to fail?

Newly appointed US attorney will attempt to charge James Comey despite prosecutors finding no probable cause: Sources​

Donald Trump’s handpicked U.S. attorney in Virginia is planning to ask a grand jury in the coming days to indict former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress, despite prosecutors and investigators determining there was insufficient evidence to charge him, sources with direct knowledge of the probe told ABC News.

Earlier this week, prosecutors presented Lindsey Halligan -- Trump’s former personal attorney whom he appointed to lead the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia -- with a detailed memo recommending that she decline to bring perjury and obstruction charges against Comey, the sources familiar with the memo said.

Newly appointed US attorney will attempt to charge James Comey despite prosecutors finding no probable cause: Sources

The new U.S. attorney in Virginia is planning to ask a grand jury to indict former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress, sources said.

abcnews.go.com

If anyone can win a case against Comey it's Lindsey cuz she can rely on her wealth of prosecutorial experience as a former insurance attorney.

 

[Rogue AI]

The grand jury will decide. Scared?

 

[berg80]

The grand jury will decide. Scared?

Why would trump pressure Bondi to bring cases against two of his perceived enemies when the US Attorney investigating the facts found insufficient evidence to charge them?

 

[berg80]

The grand jury will decide. Scared?

A monthslong investigation into Comey by DOJ prosecutors failed to establish probable cause of a crime -- meaning that not only would they be unable to secure a conviction of Comey by proving the claims beyond a reasonable doubt, but that they couldn’t reach a significantly lower standard to secure an indictment, the sources said.

 

[Lesh]

Why would trump pressure Bondi to bring cases against two of his perceived enemies when the US Attorney investigating the facts found insufficient evidence to charge them?

Vengeance

 

[berg80]

Vengeance

Clearly. Will there be a consequence for kangaroo court cases against his enemies? Doubtful.

 

[berg80]

Former FBI Director James Comey indicted on criminal charges

Former FBI Director James Comey, a longtime target of President Donald Trump’s ire, was indicted Thursday on criminal charges of false statement and obstruction.

The charges came days after Trump publicly complained to Attorney General Pam Bondi that “nothing is being done” about Comey and other of the president’s perceived enemies, who he claimed were “all guilty as hell.”

A senior Justice Department official told NBC News that Comey was charged in a two-count indictment.

Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared to reference Comey’s indictment, without mentioning him by name, as news of the charges broke.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/25/james-comey-indicted-fbi-trump.html

What a crazy coincidence. A few days after Dotard demanded the sock puppet known as Pam do something about his enemies list........she did. Even though Erik Seibert, the US Attorney trump canned because he wouldn't indict L. James without sufficient evidence, was of the opinion there was no criminal predicate to charge Comey.

But I guess the insurance attorney trump hired to replace Seibert, the woman with zero prosecutorial experience but some hotness, was convinced of Comey's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Kinda funny how it all worked out, right? Unless your not a fan of authoritarian governance.

 

[Seymour Flops]

For the unaware, Halligan has been picked to replace Erik Seibert, the US Attorney formerly handling the prosecution of Letisha James, Erik having just resigned.

Did he resign because he didn't want to propsecute the criminal James?

Now, he will be replaced by a woman willing to fight for justice?

What a great victory for the country, as well as for attaining diversity through hiring the most able to do the job regardless of demographics!

Sen. Chris Coons asked some very pointed questions of Pam when she testified.

Senator Coons presses Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi for reassurance that she will maintain Department of Justice’s independence during Judiciary confirmation hearing

Senator Coons: Thank you. Let me, if I might … refer you back to Senator [Dick] Durbin’s [D-Ill.] opening comments about previous attorneys general – our former colleague Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr – I don’t think it’s credible to say that it may never happen that the president-elect would direct an unethical or illegal act. I think both of those attorneys general found themselves crosswise with the then-president by doing things he didn’t welcome or approve of. Just answer the question for me, if you would: I know you may not expect it; I know you wouldn’t have accepted this nomination if you thought it possible – but let’s imagine that once again, President-elect Trump issues a directive or order to you or to the FBI director that is outside the boundaries of ethics or law. What will you do?

Bondi: Senator, I will never speak on a hypothetical, especially one saying that the President would do something illegal. What I can tell you is my duty, if confirmed as the Attorney General, will be to the Constitution and the United States of America, and the most important oath, part of that oath, that I will take are the last four words: “So help me God.”
https://www.coons.senate.gov/news/p...endence-during-judiciary-confirmation-hearing

For the purposes of this discussion let's not dwell on Bondi having lied during her testimony. I'm more curious about how Halligan will answer what I assume will be questions about how she will handle pressure from trump when she too can not find enough evidence to charge James with mortgage fraud? You know.........seeing as what just happened.........trump's now deleted post notwithstanding.......is trump pressured Bondi to get on with the prosecution of his enemies......a lack of evidence be damned.

Will she say something like, "I can't imagine the prez asking me to do anything illegal," as Pam did? How can she? So how will she dodge the inevitable questions?

Yes.

What do you allege that Bondi has done, at Trump's order, that is outside the boundaries of ethics or the law?

 

[Lesh]

He resigned because he was asked to prosecute a case with no merit

 

[BackAgain]

For the unaware, Halligan has been picked to replace Erik Seibert, the US Attorney formerly handling the prosecution of Letisha James, Erik having just resigned.

Sen. Chris Coons asked some very pointed questions of Pam when she testified.

Senator Coons presses Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi for reassurance that she will maintain Department of Justice’s independence during Judiciary confirmation hearing

Senator Coons: Thank you. Let me, if I might … refer you back to Senator [Dick] Durbin’s [D-Ill.] opening comments about previous attorneys general – our former colleague Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr – I don’t think it’s credible to say that it may never happen that the president-elect would direct an unethical or illegal act. I think both of those attorneys general found themselves crosswise with the then-president by doing things he didn’t welcome or approve of. Just answer the question for me, if you would: I know you may not expect it; I know you wouldn’t have accepted this nomination if you thought it possible – but let’s imagine that once again, President-elect Trump issues a directive or order to you or to the FBI director that is outside the boundaries of ethics or law. What will you do?

Bondi: Senator, I will never speak on a hypothetical, especially one saying that the President would do something illegal. What I can tell you is my duty, if confirmed as the Attorney General, will be to the Constitution and the United States of America, and the most important oath, part of that oath, that I will take are the last four words: “So help me God.”
https://www.coons.senate.gov/news/p...endence-during-judiciary-confirmation-hearing

For the purposes of this discussion let's not dwell on Bondi having lied during her testimony.

She didn’t, you hack. But you just did.

I'm more curious about how Halligan will answer what I assume will be questions about how she will handle pressure from trump when she too can not find enough evidence to charge James with mortgage fraud? You know.........seeing as what just happened.........trump's now deleted post notwithstanding.......is trump pressured Bondi to get on with the prosecution of his enemies......a lack of evidence be damned.

Will she say something like, "I can't imagine the prez asking me to do anything illegal," as Pam did? How can she?

Because so far the President hasn’t done any such thing, you lying hack.

So how will she dodge the inevitable questions?

By noting the false premises.

 

[whitehall]

Wow, it seems that the radical left is on the case

 

[Delldude]

Halligan will lie, as did Bondi.

Think she can define what a woman is?

 

[kyzr]

Right. I forgot. If she's found innocent the jury was biased and the judge is a piece of shit. If charges are dropped Lindsey Halligan is a piece of shit. They have all the bases covered.

Doesn't matter how the court trials turn out, Trump already won, VA grand juries indicted them based on the evidence and the law.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Will she say something like, "I can't imagine the prez asking me to do anything illegal," as Pam did? How can she? So how will she dodge the inevitable questions?

She probably will. It is such a dumb question, that it is hard to answer without sounding dumb yourself.

In the words of Glen Campbell in "True Grit," you've done nothing when you've bested a fool.

Trump has never been proven to have done anything illegal as prez.

Democrats and "not Democrats" mistake doing something they don't like with doing something illegal. Laws are so complicated, contridictory, and tangled, that a lawyer - which many of them are - can always find some way to interpret some of them to argue that something they don't like into a crime.

To answer the question in the OP, I don't see this one being as harsh with the Senators as Bondi was.

I was amazed and amused at how the Senators reacted to her clapping back at them. When questioning male Republicans, they typically ask a questions and less than five words into an answer they don't like, they loudly interrupt and ask another question or berate the witness. They tried it with Bondi, but she scolded them and they meekly allowed her to continue.

It reminded me of an early teen boy who tries aguing with mom and she turns on him and he backs right down. He learns as he matures that mom can only be pushed so far.

Blumenthal was the most comical. He seems to have geniune mommy issues, as many gay men do. More than the natural respect for women most boys learn when they mess with mamma.

 

[berg80]

Doesn't matter how the court trials turn out, Trump already won, VA grand juries indicted them based on the evidence and the law.

Are you saying if Comey's case is thrown out by virtue of the judge agreeing with Comey's attorney's motion to dismiss based on evidence of vindictive prosecution it means the orange piece of shit still "already won?"