Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Emi And The Desert Crow

@emdissents.bsky.social

9.6K followers 14K following 3.7K posts

Girl with the Alexander Hamilton tattoo. 💙⚖️Relentlessly watching the docket, posting about the law (and live posting important hearings!) I have ADHD, there will also be chaos. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent." @emiandthedesertcrow on Threads.

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Pinned

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · Feb 13

Goodbye, independent DOJ. It was nice knowing you and daydreaming about working there someday.

a man in a suit is sitting in a grave with the words r.i.p to what we had written on the ground .

ALT: a man in a suit is sitting in a grave with the words r.i.p to what we had written on the ground .

media.tenor.com

8 18 120

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 16m

👀

www.nytimes.com/2025/10/13/u...

Part Enabler, Part Buffer: The Bind of the Justice Dept.’s No. 2

www.nytimes.com

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 3h

Document: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

storage.courtlistener.com

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 3h

“Finally, requiring permission of the Court described in paragraph ten to be non-ex parte infringes on privileged trial strategy.”

1 3

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 3h

“Similarly, designating essentially all discovery as Protected Material while at the same time prohibiting defense attorneys from being able to show Protected Material to prospective witnesses unduly impedes Mr. Comey's ability to defend his case.“

1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 3h

“…no one knows the facts of this case better than Mr. Comey himself. It places his defense at a severe and unnecessary disadvantage to insist that he be prohibited from possessing Protected Material to be able to review and refer to whenever necessary throughout preparation of his defense.”

1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 3h

“Mr. Comey has been entrusted with some of the most sensitive and highly guarded information in the country. To assert now, that he cannot be trusted with receiving discovery in his case controverts his long career of distinguished government service at the highest levels.“

Mr. Comey, a Virginia-licensed attorney admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Virginia, is a former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and later Deputy Attorney General of the United States. He then became director of the FBI. In these positions and others, Mr. Comey has been entrusted
with some of the most sensitive and highly guarded information in the country. To
assert now, that he cannot be trusted with receiving discovery in his case controverts his long career of distinguished government service at the highest
levels. Moreover, no one knows the facts of this case better than Mr. Comey himself.
It places his defense at a severe and unnecessary disadvantage to insist that he be prohibited from possessing Protected Material to be able to review and refer to
whenever necessary throughout preparation of his defense.

1 1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 3h

Comey’s response in opposition to government’s motion for protective order:

“Protective orders addressing the confidentiality and privacy interests of others should not override a defendant's right to a fair trial.”

JAMES COMEY'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
James Comey, by counsel, opposes the government's motion for a protective
order (ECF No. 33) and respectfully requests that the Court enter the attached proposed protective order. See Def.'s Ex. 1. This protective order differs from the government's requested protective order in several respects. Primarily, it does not
prohibit discovery labeled Protected Material from being provided to Mr. Comey for
his review. It allows the defense attorneys to show Protected Material to prospective defense witnesses or their counsel. It harmonizes terms (i.e. "defendant's attorney(s)" instead of interchanging "attorney(s) of record*). It allows permission of the Court described in paragraph ten (defense seven) to be made ex parte, and it
requires the government to selectively designate and label discovery as Protective
Material rather than almost all of discovery (see paragraph 1).
Protective orders addressing the confidentiality and privacy interests of
others should not override a defendant's right to a fair trial. See United States v.

2 1 5

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

Todd Blanche can’t stop running his mouth on Fox News 😆 Aside from discussing cases, last week he went on and said that Bondi did a great job “defending the president” in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, like that’s what the AG’s role is!

1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

It’s so depressing

1 1

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

I really want to know why the two of them thought this would be a good idea…

1 1

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

Yes, started on Threads with Jack Smith’s cases! I remember you as well! 🙌

1 1

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

“For all of these reasons, the Court should deny the government's request to deviate from the standard discovery order that the government requested at the outset.”

(The shade! 😆)

3 3

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

“Any discussion as to the proposed protective order in the government's filing
is irrelevant to the discovery order. A separate motion will be filed concerning the limited disagreement of the parties on the protective order.“

1 3

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

“This district's standard discovery order requires that production 5 days prior to the pretrial motions deadline. An exception should not be made here, and certainly not one that permits the government to assess the relevance of each particular piece of discovery to each defense motion.”

Rule 16(a) requires the government to produce items that are material to
preparing the defense. "[T]he government cannot take a narrow reading of the term
'material' in making its decisions on what to disclose under Rule 16. Nor may it put
itself in the shoes of defense counsel in attempting to predict the nature of what the
defense may be or what may be material to its preparation." United States v.
O'Keefe, No. CRIM. 06-0249 (PLF), 2007 WL 1239204, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 27,
2007)(citing United States v. Safavian, 233 F.R.D. 12, 15 (D.D.C.2005)). Rule 16(a)
requires all items that are material to be produced. This district's standard
discovery order requires that production 5 days prior to the pretrial motions
deadline. An exception should not be made here, and certainly not one that permits
the government to assess the relevance of each particular piece of discovery to each
defense motion.

1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

“The first time the defense saw the gov’s altered version of the standard discovery order was the day it was filed on the docket.”

On October 10, 2025, while conferring about multiple matters, the government stated that its interpretation of "pretrial motions deadline" was the
second pretrial motions date. The defense disagreed with that interpretation. As the
government notes, emails were sent back-and-forth wherein the parties disagreed
about whether there was a requirement to file the standard discovery order given
that there was agreement as to the words, but disagreement as to their
interpretation. See ECF No. 30 at 3.
In an effort to ensure compliance with the Court's Order (ECF No. 24), as
well as to ensure efficiency and guard against delay, and after notifying the
government it would do so, the defense filed the motion requesting entry of the
standard discovery order and describing the disagreement of the parties as to
interpretations. Both parties have described that same disagreement in the filings.
The first time the defense saw the government's altered version of the
standard discovery order was the day it was filed on the docket. In it, the
government asks this Court to authorize the government to determine which
discovery is related to which defense motion and to piecemeal its production to that
which pertains to each motion. See ECF No. 30 at 4.

1 1

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

“There has been no mischaracterization about the discovery order, or any communications concerning it. In fact, after stating the defense mischaracterized an agreement, the gov’t then goes on to explain the very issue of dueling interpretations of terms that the defense submitted to the Court…”

1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

Comey case: The judge denied the government’s motion for discovery order—Comey had filed a response in opposition.

JAMES COMEY'S REPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ORDER
James Comey, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Court deny the
government's request to alter the terms of the standard discovery order. There has
been no mischaracterization about the discovery order, or any communications
concerning it. In fact, after stating the defense mischaracterized an agreement, the
government then goes on to explain the very issue of dueling interpretations of
terms that the defense submitted to the Court with the standard discovery order.
See ECF No. 27.
As the government correctly noted, "the government provided the defendant the standard EDVA discovery agreement ...via email" on October 7, 2025. ECF No.
30 at 2. The government then correctly stated that "Without further discussions between the parties, at approximately 2:30 p.m., [October 8, 2025] the defendant informed the discovery agreement was signed and they did not 'see a need for the 3:00 call anymore." ECF No. 30 at 3. This was the standard discovery order that the
government requested and the defense signed.

2 1 5

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

“As the government understands it, the defense position is that all the discovery is not Protective Material, unless designated as such by the government during production.“

(They’ve not sorted out the erroneous spelling of North Carolina yet).

1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

“…the government's position is that all the discovery is Protective Material, except for that portion of the discovery that is already carved out in Paragraph 2 of the proposed
order.“

Second, the government's position is that all the discovery is Protective Material,
except for that portion of the discovery that is already carved out in Paragraph 2 of the proposed
order (Attachment 1). As the government understands it, the defense position is that all the discovery is not Protective Material, unless designated as such by the government during production. As stated above, through the proposed protective order, the government has already carved out those items that are not Protective Material. The remaining discovery is appropriately designated as Protective Material for the reasons previously provided.
8. WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully requests that the Court enter the
proposed Protective Order.
Respectfully submitted this 12th day of October, 2025

1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

Disputes over content of the proposed protective order: “…the defense objects to the provision in the protective order that disallows defense attorneys from leaving the discovery with the defendant.”

5. The government and defense attorneys have conferred as to the content of the proposed order. An initial draft of the order was sent to the defense. This initial version was drawn
from and based on prior protective orders entered in the Eastern District of Virginia. Defense attorneys responded with several edits. In short, the government understands there to be two primary disputes between the parties.
First, the defense objects to the provision in the protective order that disallows
defense attorneys from leaving the discovery with the defendant. Through public filings, the government has reviewed at least ten protective orders that were entered on the docket in the
Eastern District of Virginia in September and August of 2025. Each of these protective orders included a similar provision that prohibited unsupervised retention of discovery materials by the defendant in the case. Prohibiting a defendant from unfettered access to the discovery is not unique in criminal proceedings. The narrowly tailored restriction the government proposed is common sense and does not place an undue burden on a Defendant that has been release on personal
recognizance.

1 1

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

Comey case: The gov’ claims in a motion for a protective order that the “vast majority of the discovery is law enforcement sensitive, for official use only, includes private emails or texts, or is otherwise sensitive because of the private nature of the information.“

The vast majority of the discovery is law enforcement sensitive, for official use
only, includes private emails or texts, or is otherwise sensitive because of the private nature of the
information. Additionally, there is a heightened media interest in this case. Through social media,
the Defendant has already made a public statement regarding the indictment. Both the defendant and the government have an interest in a fair trial with impartial jurors making decisions based only on the evidence that is part of the record. In re Morrissey,

2 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 5h

“Under no circumstance shall the failure to reach agreement with respect to a protective order justify withholding prompt disclosure of discovery to defense counsel for review.”

1 5

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 5h

“Given that this matter is scheduled for a jury trial on January 5, 2026, it is critical
that the government moves expeditiously to provide Defendant with discovery under Rule 16(a).”

1 5

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 5h

The government’s motion for discovery order is DENIED.

The court found that “it is substantively identical to the discovery order submitted by the Defendant with the single exception of the date and scope of Rule 16(a) disclosures in Section I.“

Having reviewed the proposed discovery order submitted by the government, the Court
finds that it is substantively identical to the discovery order submitted by the Defendant with the single exception of the date and scope of Rule 16(a) disclosures in Section I. Compare ECF 27-1 with ECF 30-1. Given that this matter is scheduled for a jury trial on January 5, 2026, it is critical
that the government moves expeditiously to provide Defendant with discovery under Rule 16(a).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the government's Motion for Discovery Order is DENIED; it is further
ORDERED that the government shall provide Defendant with all discovery required under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a) by Monday, October 13, 2025. To the extent that the
parties cannot reach agreement with respect to the terms of a protective order by Monday, October 13, 2025, at 5:00 p.m., the Court shall promptly set a hearing to resolve any such dispute. Under no circumstance shall the failure to reach agreement with respect to a protective order justify
withholding prompt disclosure of discovery to defense counsel for review.

1 7

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 19h

I wonder if these attorneys are questioning their life choices right about now…

1 2