Judge ruled DoJ engaged in ‘profound investigative missteps’ on way to indicting the former FBI director
Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick ruled on Monday that the justice department engaged in a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” on its way to indicting Comey. The federal judge directed prosecutors to produce to defense lawyers all grand jury materials from the case.
Fitzpatrick wrote that problems include “fundamental misstatements of the law” by a prosecutor to a grand jury that indicted Comey in September, the use of potentially privileged communications in the investigation and unexplained irregularities in the transcript of the grand jury proceedings.
“The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted,” Fitzpatrick wrote, adding: “However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”
31 Comments
mkwt@lemmy.world · 80 pts · 297d
I encourage everyone to read the opinion, at least the fact findings. Because it is absolutely unhinged and insane. There are 11 separate findings of fact as to why Comey needs to see the grand jury materials. Here are some summaries:
peopleproblems@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 297d
Wait
She lawyered so badly we don't even have case law on it?
This scares me a lot. If she doesn't get disbarred, and this somehow gets appealed, and it moves to the supreme court, then this right here could hand trump all of the remaining power the executive could want.
This is horrible
mkwt@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 297d
Each one of those bullet points is potentially a way for Comey to get his whole case thrown out. In addition to that, Comey has 4 other motions to dismiss pending right now, and they're pretty good arguments. At this point, Comey has so many different ways to win, that it is really hard to imagine that he won't win on one of them. (In which case he still has an entire trial to defend himself on).
The issue where there's no case law is a pretty narrow one, I think: The grand jury voted to approve the words of the charges (except that the charge numbers were different), but not the specific piece of paper that the words ended up typed out on. Is that important for the formal charging process or not? Either way this gets decided, it won't effect very many people, because any competent prosecutor will just re-run the new piece of paper past the jury to make sure. And it may not get decided at all if Comey's case is dismissed on any of the other reasons.
EDIT: If it's not true. If it turns out that the grand jury no-billed all three counts, then we'd be looking at a forged indictment. And that would be a serious crime.
peopleproblems@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 297d
A forged indictment would be weird.
Serinus@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 297d
And yet not much of a surprise.
frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 297d
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 296d
Right, and in general, it's very hard for the prosecution to appeal the case, anyway. Can in some rare circumstances, but generally, they have one shot at things. That's why the DOJ usually moves so slowly on everything. They build a very, very airtight case before they even start the grand jury process.
You've heard of competence porn. Now we've got incompetence porn.
peopleproblems@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 297d
Ahhhhh. Ok. That's the secret sauce I was missing.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 296d
They messed up so bad and it hasn't even happened before in the history of law. A screw up of historical proportions. They don't even know what to do, they can't even comprehend how badly they fucked up.
It would be funny if it wasn't such a serious matter.
cyrano@piefed.social · 7 pts · 297d
Thx for the summary
klemptor@startrek.website · 4 pts · 296d
Holy shit. This is either really egregious ineptitude or intentional persecution of a political "enemy" of Trump's. I'm not sure which because Halligan is so deeply unqualified for her position. Maybe it's both.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 296d
Yeah, it's both.
halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world · 76 pts · 297d
Cue the inevitable MAGA death threats to that judge.
Dionysus@leminal.space · 21 pts · 297d
I'm sure those started when the judge was first assigned
defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 297d
And the Supreme Court ruling that it's A-OK as long as a Republican does it.
Lasherz12@lemmy.world · 49 pts · 297d
This is worth a read. The prosecutor literally tried to imply that pleading the 5th is evidence of guilt to the jury. The judge shoulda thrown him out of court immediately
salacious_coaster@infosec.pub · 23 pts · 297d
That should be grounds for discipline, but IME, you have to piss off a disciplinary board personally to ever see consequences for attorney misconduct.
nickhammes@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 297d
Yes, but if Rudy Giuliani's disbarment is evidence of anything, brazenly defrauding the legal system for political purposes can have that effect. Much like Comey's claim being one that rarely succeeds, I think we're in the realm of possibility where rare things may well happen
Lasherz12@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 297d
Yeah Richard Lebowitz is a good example of how many second chances are extended for lawyers, it's shocking. Leonard French has a series of all of the complaints against him.
Triumph@fedia.io · 30 pts · 297d
This does not happen very often, I don't think.
Blade9732@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 297d
It almost never happens. Grand jury materials and transcripts are secret. A defense attorney has to climb a very large hill to get access to any of these materials.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 297d
Considering that, apparently, Halligan told the grand jury that there would be more evidence next week and to indict on that.
I get the need for secrecy here, but seriously, we need someone in the room keeping not-legally-appointed prosecutors from just straight up abusing the trust they've been given.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 296d
Are judges not involved in the grand jury process at all?
burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de · 5 pts · 296d
Nope. It's a prosecutor's wet dream. I've been inside of one, and the only folks in there are the grand jury members, the prosecutor (and any of his staff needed), and whoever they call to testify. Usually one of the grand jury members took notes for the proceedings where I was, but perhaps in a more populated area they have a court stenographer for it, seeing as this grand jury seems to have pretty detailed recordings.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 296d
That's wild
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 296d
Apparently not. I found that out yesterday, lol.
JHRD1880@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 297d
Damn, maybe hiring someone just because she's a good looking blonde woman isn't the best option if you need a competent lawyer. Halligan has to be disbarred surely, everything she touches fails miserably and she obviously doesn't have the slightest knowledge of her job.
homura1650@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 296d
That isn't why she was hired. She was hired because she was willing to bring the case.
kent_eh@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 296d
Exactly. Willingness to do Trump's bidding without question is the primary criteria.
Being blonde and sort-of attractive is a close second.
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 296d
Just musing here.
Authoritarians think that they should have respect because they have a position. Not because they did the work to deserve respect.
In 2022, 89.5% of federal defendants pleaded guilty, and 0.4% were acquitted (source). The Trump Administration thinks you get those numbers just because you exist in the DOJ. As opposed to building a case for a long time and only going to trial when it's already airtight.
barnaclebutt@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 297d
Wait. Pissing off Donnie isn't an actual crime? Well I'll go blow Bill Clinton.
MuskyMelon@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 297d
Typical Trump administration hiring the "best" of the worst, which means the "worst" of the worst.