10 Comments
User's avatar
Frank Fedarko's avatar

Excellent read! What’s the likelihood of disciplinary action being taken against these folks who screwed up so bad?

Loved the perfect subtitle!

Randall Eliason's avatar

I'd say the likelihood of some kind of bar discipline is reasonably high.

Michael's avatar

I am expecting this case to be dismissed by Judge Currie based on the illegality of Halligan's appointment, and honestly I find this a bit disappointing.

At this point, Currie dismissing the case seems like a best case scenario for Halligan, Pam Bondi, and DOJ. With the case over, there would be no more judical scrutiny of Halligan and Bondi's misconduct. Plus, they get to appeal and file some breathless and overwrought briefs that right wing media can quote.

Randall Eliason's avatar

It definitely seems like their best outcome now, although the boss won't be happy. But they can just blame the judge (Clinton appointee) and complain about the deep state protecting its own.

VTGS's avatar

Thank you for your clear exposition. It’s all ludicrous and also v disturbing….

NEW YORK MINUTE's avatar

A three-year-old could’ve predicted this

Judith Evers's avatar

Trump did not hire Lindsey Halligan for her prosecutorial experience. In fact, going after former FBI Director James Comey is her first case as a prosecutor. Nobody signed the indictment except Lindsey. And she presented the case to a grand jury all by herself. Who could have predicted this sh*t show?

Mr. Niss's avatar

It seems that Trump's sole criteria for appointing a woman to a role in his administration, with rare exception, is whether at one time she was a Breck girl.