@alegalnerd.bsky.social
Attorney w/42 years experience primarily in criminal law and procedure and constitutional law. 100+ jury trials to verdict, including capital cases. 1000s of motions and briefs, in state and federal court at trial and appellate level.
Comey was never indicted. The purported indictment was "void ab initio." The 3288 grace period to seek to re-indict is inapplicable as a matter of law. The statute of limitations has expired and it hasn't been tolled and can't be revived.
November 26, 2025 at 12:53 AM
Comey was never indicted. The purported indictment was "void ab initio." The 3288 grace period to seek to re-indict is inapplicable as a matter of law. The statute of limitations has expired and it hasn't been tolled and can't be revived.
Yes. As I stated yesterday, @jamescomey.bsky.social hasn't been indicted. If Trump/Bondi/Halligan try to indict him for the same two crimes, any indictment will be dismissed because the statute of limitations has expired. 3288 is inapplicable because there never was an indictment of Comey w/in SOL.
November 26, 2025 at 12:47 AM
Yes. As I stated yesterday, @jamescomey.bsky.social hasn't been indicted. If Trump/Bondi/Halligan try to indict him for the same two crimes, any indictment will be dismissed because the statute of limitations has expired. 3288 is inapplicable because there never was an indictment of Comey w/in SOL.
No. Absolute prosecutor immunity. Imbler.
November 25, 2025 at 1:40 AM
No. Absolute prosecutor immunity. Imbler.
@nkorpett.bsky.social @rparloff.bsky.social & James Pearce, does the appeal divest Judge N of jurisdiction to decide the separate issues of vindictive prosecution, "no indictment," "fundamentally ambiguous" questioning by Cruz, etc. because of Judge C's unrelated order disqualifying Halligan?
November 25, 2025 at 1:31 AM
@nkorpett.bsky.social @rparloff.bsky.social & James Pearce, does the appeal divest Judge N of jurisdiction to decide the separate issues of vindictive prosecution, "no indictment," "fundamentally ambiguous" questioning by Cruz, etc. because of Judge C's unrelated order disqualifying Halligan?
Griggs rule (Judge N divested from deciding only "those aspects of the case involved in the appeal" -> disqualification of Halligan) or Coinbase rule (divestiture if the "entire case is essentially involved in the appeal"). Can Judge N rule on vindictive prosecution?
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
November 24, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Griggs rule (Judge N divested from deciding only "those aspects of the case involved in the appeal" -> disqualification of Halligan) or Coinbase rule (divestiture if the "entire case is essentially involved in the appeal"). Can Judge N rule on vindictive prosecution?
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
The length of the deliberations in relation to the length of Halligan's presentation is important in determining if Halligan's errors and misconduct were harmless or not.
November 21, 2025 at 5:55 PM
The length of the deliberations in relation to the length of Halligan's presentation is important in determining if Halligan's errors and misconduct were harmless or not.
Not when a defendant moves to dismiss an indictment. Bank of Nova Scotia sets forth what in practice is a harmless error rule.
November 21, 2025 at 1:11 AM
Not when a defendant moves to dismiss an indictment. Bank of Nova Scotia sets forth what in practice is a harmless error rule.
Good point. But IMHO it won't make a difference. Based on the record that currently exists, the procedural error was harmless under Bank of Nova Scotia.
November 21, 2025 at 12:14 AM
Good point. But IMHO it won't make a difference. Based on the record that currently exists, the procedural error was harmless under Bank of Nova Scotia.
Here's the standard.
November 21, 2025 at 12:11 AM
Here's the standard.
State court evidentiary hearing to determine what transpired before an indictment was purportedly returned by at least 12 grand jurors. Prosecutor and grand jurors testified. Time for Halligan to be questioned under oath and not while chewing gum.
November 20, 2025 at 2:40 AM
State court evidentiary hearing to determine what transpired before an indictment was purportedly returned by at least 12 grand jurors. Prosecutor and grand jurors testified. Time for Halligan to be questioned under oath and not while chewing gum.
The 2-count @jamescomey.bsky.social indictment is fatally flawed. Plus, Comey is entitled to the declination memo.
November 19, 2025 at 7:17 PM
The 2-count @jamescomey.bsky.social indictment is fatally flawed. Plus, Comey is entitled to the declination memo.
Obtaining dismissal of an indictment based on prosecutorial misconduct before a grand jury is a monumental uphill lift. Cumulatively, what "Stalking Horse" Hack Halligan did may be the virtually unheard of instance of a prosecutor engaging in serious misconduct requiring dismissal of the indictment.
November 18, 2025 at 5:08 AM
Obtaining dismissal of an indictment based on prosecutorial misconduct before a grand jury is a monumental uphill lift. Cumulatively, what "Stalking Horse" Hack Halligan did may be the virtually unheard of instance of a prosecutor engaging in serious misconduct requiring dismissal of the indictment.
Even if Comey can satisfy Williams, still must establish "prejudice" as defined in Bank of Nova Scotia.
November 18, 2025 at 2:45 AM
Even if Comey can satisfy Williams, still must establish "prejudice" as defined in Bank of Nova Scotia.
Did Halligan commit misconduct before the grand jury as defined by the SCOTUS in Williams? Would her knowingly, recklessly or negligently presenting attorney-client privileged communication btw Comey & his attorney/Richman come with the clear rule requirement of Williams to permit dismissal?
November 18, 2025 at 2:39 AM
Did Halligan commit misconduct before the grand jury as defined by the SCOTUS in Williams? Would her knowingly, recklessly or negligently presenting attorney-client privileged communication btw Comey & his attorney/Richman come with the clear rule requirement of Williams to permit dismissal?
1. @benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org
@jamescomey.bsky.social reply should assert that, in addition to hatred, (unitary executive) Trump, as the de facto prosecutor, wanted Comey prosecuted in order to achieve "self-vindication" of his verbal attacking C as a criminal over many years.
@jamescomey.bsky.social reply should assert that, in addition to hatred, (unitary executive) Trump, as the de facto prosecutor, wanted Comey prosecuted in order to achieve "self-vindication" of his verbal attacking C as a criminal over many years.
November 4, 2025 at 6:50 PM
1. @benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org
@jamescomey.bsky.social reply should assert that, in addition to hatred, (unitary executive) Trump, as the de facto prosecutor, wanted Comey prosecuted in order to achieve "self-vindication" of his verbal attacking C as a criminal over many years.
@jamescomey.bsky.social reply should assert that, in addition to hatred, (unitary executive) Trump, as the de facto prosecutor, wanted Comey prosecuted in order to achieve "self-vindication" of his verbal attacking C as a criminal over many years.
9. Re: the presumption of vindictiveness, notice how T's DOJ in fn. 17 cites to Smith but leaves out the reference to "self-vindication." Self-vindication is at the core of T's directing the indictment of @jamescomey.bsky.social. By indicting C, T vindicates himself and his claims C's a criminal.
November 4, 2025 at 1:08 AM
9. Re: the presumption of vindictiveness, notice how T's DOJ in fn. 17 cites to Smith but leaves out the reference to "self-vindication." Self-vindication is at the core of T's directing the indictment of @jamescomey.bsky.social. By indicting C, T vindicates himself and his claims C's a criminal.
Read @jamescomey.bsky.social mtn to dismiss & my posts from month ago. My bet: Indictment dismissed bc (1) vindictive prosecution & (2) "fundamentally ambiguous" questioning by Cruz. The "literal truth" argument isn't as strong but still meritorious.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
October 31, 2025 at 6:56 PM
Read @jamescomey.bsky.social mtn to dismiss & my posts from month ago. My bet: Indictment dismissed bc (1) vindictive prosecution & (2) "fundamentally ambiguous" questioning by Cruz. The "literal truth" argument isn't as strong but still meritorious.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
To the extent that McGuire is going to testify at the hearing, his credibility is in issue. @sean-hecker.bsky.social should argue that Abrego is entitled to any Brady/Giglio material in the government's possession that could be used by the defense to undermine McGuire's credibility.
October 31, 2025 at 12:00 AM
To the extent that McGuire is going to testify at the hearing, his credibility is in issue. @sean-hecker.bsky.social should argue that Abrego is entitled to any Brady/Giglio material in the government's possession that could be used by the defense to undermine McGuire's credibility.