I’m hoping at minimum, sanctions from the court, followed by disbarment proceedings.
No worries, however. She can continue to get income from Trump for whatever else she does for him, or, failing that, at least income from posting to “OnlyFans”, as most leading attorneys and star prosecutors usually do!
I feel like any court proceedings that contain multiple dismissive references to the government’s actions as “rummaging” can’t possibly be good for the government. Is “Dumpster Diving” next?
I believe that is where they found ms halligan.
Can one of our experts clarify the shenanigans associated with the indictments presented to the grand jury and what ended up in court? I’m too dumb to follow what occurred here (following the rest). They indicted on two of the counts, and two counts were presented to the court (well, along with the 3 counts). Clearly there were steps that should have been followed that weren’t, but it’s not clear to me.
Can anyone step-by-step this?
Not sure I can step-by-step it, and I’m not an expert, but basically the procedure is that if a Grand Jury does not find probable cause for all counts in an indictment, the prosecution has to create a new charging document, present it to the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury has to deliberate on that new indictment and return a true bill. This happens even if the only difference between the two indictments is the removal of one of the charges.
It appears according to the transcript that this didn’t happen, and all Halligan did was create a new indictment and sign it, have the jury foreperson sign it, and then turned in both of them to the judge. The judge even remarked at the time that it was improper, but accepted the second indictment. It’s possible that the transcript or the explanation provided by DOJ is missing some details to explain it, but it seems to show that they just tried to sort of cross out charge 1 and then just file the updated indictment without separate jury instructions, deliberations, etc. That is not good.
It’s perhaps not too surprising that a real-estate lawyer with no courtroom experience might not be up on the procedure for updating indictments before a Grand Jury.
this is pg 16 and 17 of gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.191.0_1.pdf
a 3 count indictment was presented to the grand jury.
the grand jury rejected count 1 of the original indictment and found probable cause as to count 2 and 3.
then the prosecution prepared and signed a second indictment that removed count 1.
the prosecution presented both the first and second indictment to the magistrate judge. this time the first indictment indicated that the grand jury failed to find probable cause as to any count! the second indicated that the grand jury found probable cause as to 2 counts. both were fully executed by the foreperson and prosecutor.
the judge questioned the prosecutor and foreperson as to why there were 2 facially inconsistant indictments.
the judge then accepted the second indictment.
however! the second indictment was a new indictment. it appears that the prosecutor did not present the second indictment to the grand jury for consideration.
there was no grand jury transcript of the second indictment being presented.
I’ll just add that it’s confusing and it’s not clear what happened. However, under no circumstance, should there ever be two different true bills.
I’ll also say maybe the foreperson signed two different ones. It’s also possible the foreperson signed one and the prosecutor just copied the signed page onto a different indictment. It does appear that way.
IF that’s the case, this goes beyond misconduct, and verges into criminal.
Probably need to dive into her intent to be criminal.
Whether it happened or not is pretty obvious to me, but you can look for yourself:
The last page in each signed by foreperson appears to be exactly the same. They both start with “Count Two” even though on the 3 count one it should be number three. The paragraph numbers are the same, even though on the 3 count one they are not sequential. The foreperson signature goes through the U in TRUE BILL the exact same way. The fold in the middle of the paper is the same.
If someone can find a difference, let me know. It would just be the black and white stuff. I believe, the blue type and the stamp would come after it was turned in by Prosecutor.
Late: Fixed 3 Count link. Foreperson signature on PDF pg 4.
i don’t believe ms halligan had the signature forged. i’m reckoning on her having a new indictment drawn up and perhaps asking the foreperson if this is what the grand jury agreed on, and asking the foreperson to sign it.
ms halligan has limited prosecutorial knowledge, however, i would think she knows enough not to forge signatures.
due to her limited knowledge, it appears from pp16 & 17 that she did not know you have to present a new or changed indictment to the grand jury.
when the magistrate judge questioned the foreperson, i would expect one of the questions to be “did you sign this?”.
I don’t know either way based on what I can see or read. However, “forged” might be limited in scope, but generally using a signature to represent something other than what was intended definitely did in fact happen. The Judge was presented with a 3 count true bill, it’s linked above and filed with the Court. Under no set of circumstances should a 3 count true bill ever exist - only page 1 “we did not indict” should exist (no writing in “Count 1 only” and attempting to create a True Bill by slapping other Counts piecemeal under it which include the foreperson signature who may or may not have been even presented with these papers). You go back and get a True Bill with only the Counts that are actually true billed. The counts the GJ found probable cause for - that’s what it means - we found probable cause for these counts and only these counts.
I’d guess, hopefully, the foreperson only signed the 2 Count indictment and somehow that signature page got copied and mixed up by mistake to create a new separate 3 count indictment. However, it’s really hard to accidentally create a 3 count indictment and to present it to the Judge. Extremely dumb is best case scenario for Halligan. Certainly probable.
In my mind, with these facts out in the open, this case is no longer about Comey lying under oath (was it ever). This is now about upholding faith in the Courts/DOJ indictment process. The dismissal will attempt to uphold that.
Late: I agree with this. But she doubled down and that led to a false 3 Count “True Bill”. It takes multiple steps to create that, to be holding it, and to present it to the Judge.
In my mind, I see her holding two separate “True Bills” at the same time and handing both to the Judge. Can you tell if that happened?
OK, so I understand now what happened. Anyone want to help me understand the why?
First, why do grand juries have to return a “true bill” or “no true bill” on the entire indictment? After all, in the trial, regular juries can pick and choose which charges are “guilty” and “not guilty”. I assume there’s a good reason for this – maybe it’s considered prejudicial to allow prosecutors to throw random charges at the grand jury? Like including aggravated assault with basically no evidence just to make the jury think “Wow he sounds like a bad guy.” However… in this case, the same grand jury had already seen the indictment with all 3 charges. If it was going to prejudice them, the damage was done. What’s gained by forming a new indictment instead of just crossing out one of the charges and having them vote again?
Second and related, is there an angle where the DOJ did this intentionally? Or is it just, they were running out of time, it was late in the day, and all the competent lawyers had gone home?
from page 16.
Finally, the record is well established that the grand jury was originally presented with a
three-count indictment, signed by the prosecutor. ECF 3, 10. The grand jury, however, rejected
Count 1 of the original indictment and found probable cause as to the two remaining counts. Id.
At some point, the prosecutor prepared and signed a second indictment that removed Count 1 of
the original indictment. ECF 10, 188-1. At the return of the indictment, the government presented
both the first and second indictments to the magistrate judge. ECF 10. The first indictment
indicated that the grand jury failed to find probable cause as to any count. ECF 3, 10. The second
indictment indicated that the grand jury found probable cause as to two counts. ECF 1, 10. Both
indictments were fully executed by grand jury foreperson and the prosecutor. ECF 1, 3, 10.
Presented with two facially inconsistent indictments, the magistrate judge questioned the grand
jury foreperson and the prosecutor to unwind this procedural knot.
reading that yes, she handed 2 separate “true bills” to the judge. then it goes on to page 17.
The magistrate judge then accepted the return of the second signed indictment. Id. The second indictment was a new
indictment and therefore the undersigned concluded after reviewing the grand jury transcript that
the prosecutor would have presented the second indictment to the grand jury for consideration
before it was returned in open court. It now appears that may not have happened.
the judge after questioning the foreperson and ms halligan accepted the second indictment. it is now coming to light that that second indictment has some serious improprieties.
Or, in layman’s terms: “It’s bullshit.”
I think you have it, but the prejudice is more with the general public. So no one knows the Defendant was charged with a crime when there was no probable cause he did anything wrong.
Grand juries are done in secret. Nobody knows, for good reason, what happens. Second, the true bill means the grand jury thinks there is probable cause for the charges (the bill/charges are valid/true). A no bill means the grand jury does not think there is even probable cause that a crime was committed.
Once the proceedings are over, the prosecutor files in open court/public the True Bill. It’s public. It does not, nor should not, let the public know that someone was charged with a crime but that there was no probable cause the crime as committed. Further, just re confusion, you want it super clear what charges the grand jury determined had probable cause to charge the Defendant with. Don’t muddy it up with irrelevant charges that lack probable cause.
Here, it was getting late and she rushed it. She was the only lawyer I believe; certainly the only one with the grand jury.
Former US Atty Joyce Vance has a substack (free or paid) where she breaks down the charges and explains what is transpiring every day, for the layman, with relevant court records. You can read her explanations here.
As the post linked here indicates, while the messed up indictment is the most obvious example of incompetence it is probably not the most dangerous error referenced in the ruling. The two misstatements of the law may be enough to get the whole indictment thrown out without even needing the “targeted prosecution” claims.
Absolutely! Violating constitutional right is very serious. Even with the redactions in the pdf, you can see that the line was crossed. If that was said in court, whoa Nelly! I wouldn’t want to be in the same courthouse as that lawyer when the wrath of the judge starts to strike.
Prosecutors now confirming that the 2-count indictment wasn’t presented to the grand jury.
Your Honor, I move for a bad court thingy.