I don’t think the prosecution can delay for years at a time. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but under the Speedy Trial Act, the government has 70 days of either the filing of the indictment or the defendant’s first appearance in court to go to trial. I think it’s customary for most defendants to waive their right to a speedy trial because they’re not too keen on going to court, but for Comey might want to get down to business ASAP. It’s clear the prosecution is not prepared for the big leagues.
It wasn’t Bill Clinton himself that made that era good. IMHO he was an average president at best. He started the whole “Democrats should go easy on Republicans because it’s the sporting thing to do” style of leadership that Obama and Biden followed in their presidencies. Comey’s current problems are a result of that philosophy.
That being said, the time period was close to our peak as a society. That progress we were making was due to left over momentum from the gains made in the 60s by Martin Luther King Jr., Lyndon Johnson, Earl Warren, and so on (with an ironic boost from the non-liberal but progressive Nixon, especially in the area of the environment), not to anything Bill Clinton did, but progress is progress.
I think there’s a bit of method to the regime’s madness. The “show trials” are purposely starting with people that both sides dislike. They aren’t going to get a whole lot of sympathy from anyone (even if they feel it’s wrong). The process gets slowly normalized and they think this will make things easier to accept when they get to their real enemy, Democrats.
Good post. Sure, plenty to criticize, but boy things looked good under Clinton - and even Reagan, compared to after our horrible response to 9/11.
I’m still awaiting the cites to all of the Dems who fawn over the Clinton era as an epoch of integrity and near perfection in governance. They might be out there. I’m just unaware of them.
I’m sure that is their plan, but I don’t think it’s going to work out like they think it will. Essentially every reaction I’ve seen from “The other side” is like mine: “These guys are assholes, but these charges are still bullshit.”
Just so I’m clear on this - the judge called Hallighan out on the multiple, inconsistent indictments. Halligan said she was unaware of the one with three counts instead of two. Then, the judge pointed out the she signed said indictment. Hallighan’s reply was “Oh. Well”. Would it be inappropriate for the judge to lay into her a little (or a lot) more on the unprofessional and sloppy way she handled the indictment?
Also, can you file an indictment without witnesses to testify? I’ve seen no mention or speculation on who the witness(es) was . That will be part of the record at some point, right?
FWIW, I work with a retired FBI agent. He’s following his pretty closely. His recollection is that Wray testified at some hearing that he was the anonymous source but that Comey had not authorized it. However, he’s not certain and was going to go back and check. In any case, according to him the rank and file FBI are extremely displeased with what’s going on. They pretty much hate Patel, although there are MAGA agents. Many have been ordered to wear masks when going along on ICE raids (also ordered).
Lawfare’s podcast from yesterday is really worth listening to (especially since they got Bob Bauer to join in). It was fun to hear all the ways in which Lindsey Halligan is overmatched, over her head, and just wholly unsuited for the occasion.
It’s also been interesting (and a little sad, actually) to hear some of the Lawfare writers’ (particularly Ben Wittes) evolution from scrupulously non-partisan evaluators of national security topics to angry and sometimes despairing defenders of democratic norms and institutions. I absolutely get it, and I sympathize, but it is kind of disheartening that even they can’t maintain their usual composure anymore. I think it’s a sign of exactly how far we’ve fallen.
I think you mean McCabe?
Christopher Wray was working in a private law practice until being appointed you the FBI by Trump, following Comey’s firing.
Exactly.
The time for neutrality and bothsiderism is waaaay past.
Yes, McCabe. My bad.
And the latest:
Comey intends to file 2 motions to dismiss. One alleging vindictive and selective prosecution, and one challenging the legitimacy of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan.
Here is a primer on Comey’s chances for vindictive and selective prosecution. The burden on the Defendant is really hard to overcome. Summary:
Trump’s public pressure on his Justice Department to aggressively prosecute his political enemies may provide an avenue for Comey to challenge his indictment on grounds of vindictive and selective prosecution. That the facts surrounding Comey’s prosecution are dissimilar to those of traditional vindictive and selective prosecution claims does not foreclose challenges to his indictment on such grounds. Indeed, Trump’s public comments have shattered norms that the White House refrains from commenting on active Justice Department investigations. Nonetheless, they may be insufficient to prove selective and vindictive prosecution given the high evidentiary burden placed on defendants to overcome courts’ presumption that law enforcement exercises discretion in good faith.
re: Unlawful appointment. Per the NYT, here is how Halligan was appointed and the problems with it:
One mechanism, which is apparently how Ms. Halligan was installed, is a statute that allows the attorney general to appoint an “interim” U.S. attorney for up to 120 days. The statute says that when that term expires, a federal court decides whom to appoint as the next interim, until the Senate confirms someone for the role.
Using this mechanism allows a president to simultaneously nominate that official to hold the role permanently. Mr. Trump has nominated Ms. Halligan for the role.
But Ms. Bondi had earlier appointed Mr. Siebert as an interim U.S. attorney, and after he served that 120-day term, a federal court appointed him as the U.S. attorney.
The question is how to interpret Mr. Siebert’s departure — as creating a new vacancy, starting the cycle over so that Ms. Bondi could appoint a new interim U.S. attorney, or as part of the same sequence, so that she probably could not
As the only signatory on the indictment, if prosecutor Halligan was not lawfully appointed, the indictment will be thrown out. Since it’s now past the statute of limitations, it cannot be refiled by anyone else.
While I personally think there is a very good case for vindictive prosecution, dismissing the case for an unlawful appointment would be the least political route for the Judge to take.
I get why the burden for vindictive prosecution would be high, but if this situation doesn’t qualify I don’t know what would.
Amen to that. Being repeatedly and publicly targeted by the President of the United States is a BFD.
The odds that a judge would toss Trump’s classified document retention case were, likewise, minute.
Given a sufficiently partisan judge, under sufficient partisan pressure, there’s always the possibility that either team could get the result they want, independent of the law and basic reason.
Comey is lucky that he got a judge who is likely to be favorable to him, but that could get jerked up to the Supreme Court and overridden or Trump could scribble himself a new power to fire Federal judges, indiscriminately.
Comey does have a chance. But he also has a chance to become a martyr for the Rule of Law.
I agree. And there is hope.
In a current case against the wrongfully deported Salvadoran national Abrego Garcia, the defense will likely win a dismissal for vindictiveness. See: Federal judge says Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s immigration case may have been “vindictive”
In that case the Defense overcame the initial strong burden and put up enough evidence to be able to do at least do discovery on the motion. It’s now on the Gov’t to show why it’s not true. I think, as of today, the Gov’t has no interest in proving it was not vindictive and will not be doing that kind of court ordered discovery/turning over documents so the Judge is left with no choice but to dismiss for vindictiveness.
I’m not quite sure what you mean. If Comey prevails in the district court, the government has no right to appeal.
As I understand it, if you’ve been acquitted by a jury then you’re protected by Double Jeopardy. If your trial is dismissed by a judge, on the basis of vindictive prosecution, that is a simple legal decision and can be reviewed by the appellate system.
I hope Comey has been able to think long and hard about the consequences of putting his thumb on the scale in 2016.
Scratch that, it wasn’t his thumb, he stomped forcefully on the scale, and it’s still broken.
Credit to @CoolHandCox for his clairvoyance.