If we are living in an age of lawfare, this is fast becoming a war of attrition. The dismissal of the indictment of James Comey and Letitia James is the latest twist in the controversial prosecutions of Trump antagonists.
Letitia James immediately posted her own message celebrating the decision, but she may want to focus on the prepositional phrase after the word dismissal: without prejudice. The Administration may still be able to resuscitate these cases.
James’s victory lap on social media is a fitting addition to the opinion, which emphasized the social media postings of President Donald Trump on these cases. U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie noted that President Donald Trump demanded the indictment of these and other individuals shortly before the indictments were handed down.
Law seems to have become entirely improvisational in the age of Trump. James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg adopted highly novel legal theories to pursue Trump in New York, including Bragg’s reviving a dead misdemeanor charge and converting it into a multi-count felony indictment. Both cases were denounced by experts across the political spectrum as the raw weaponization of the legal process.
However, James is entitled to every bit of due process and procedural protections that she denied to Trump. Rushed to complete in the final days of the statute of limitations, these indictments proved a target-rich environment for defense counsel.
When the Comey and James indictments were filed, many of us noted a couple of problems. First, the James indictment seemed disjointed after the denial of a key charge. With time running out on the statute of limitations, Acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan quickly stitched the remaining counts together and filed the indictment. It was ad hoc and hardly ideal.
The main problem that we identified was with Halligan herself. The former private counsel for President Trump was appointed a “special counsel” to function as the acting U.S. Attorney after the removal of her predecessor. Erik Siebert had reportedly resigned after expressing reservations about the legal basis for the indictment.
The problem is that there is a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 546, that governs the appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys when a vacancy arises. A president has 120 days to use such an official to secure a Senate-confirmed replacement. Siebert had already used that 120-day period, and the statute mandates that, after any expiration, the district court appoints the acting U.S. Attorney.
While the Justice Department has good-faith arguments that the law can be more broadly interpreted, other judges have supported this plain meaning, including a New Jersey court that disqualified another former personal counsel for Trump, Alina Habba, as the U.S. attorney.
Judge Currie effectively declared “time’s up.” She also noted that this rush to indict followed the President’s posting expressing anger over the failure to indict these individuals. The President asked “What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.”
He would later take down the posting, but the damage was done.
There are still challenges depending on whether these indictments constitute selective or vindictive prosecutions. The defendants are using the President’s posting as Exhibit 1. If Judge Michael Nachmanoff rules that these indictments are invalid for other reasons or constitute either selective or vindictive prosecution, there would not be a procedural “cure” absent a reversal of those holdings on appeal.
However, Currie’s decision could be addressed by a new indictment bearing the signature of a properly commissioned Assistant U.S. Attorney, as long as the court agrees that the indictment was timely filed.
None of this means that the defendants are innocent of the underlying criminal acts. Rather, these rushed indictments were highly novel and novelty is never good in a criminal indictment.
Notably, some of us have noted that the indictment against former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton in Maryland is the strongest of the three cases. The Administration has indicated that it may in fact be adding charges.
Bolton is also expected to raise the claims of vindictive and selective prosecution.
What is clear is that all three cases are likely to be in the legal system for years. Indeed, these cases could easily extend into a new Administration. If that is a Democratic president, all three defendants may anticipate a pardon from Trump’s successor.
It is equally clear that the Administration is unlikely to shrug off these cases as damaged goods.
First, they need a cure. District courts are unlikely to agree that presidents can daisy-chain appointments indefinitely, with each acting U.S. Attorney serving for 120 days like a prosecutorial timeshare. That is particularly true when the authority to appoint under federal law rests with the district courts. In other words, while the President and many others may view these three as “guilty as hell,” hell knows no fury like a court scorned.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
This column ran on Fox.com
Evidence for Not a Tax increase:
Trump’s tariffs might actually be working as he intended
President Trump’s tariffs are primarily being paid by foreign companies and foreign governments, writes columnist Matthew Lynn. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo
It was, by any measure, a lot of red ink. When Volkswagen announced its third-quarter profits at the end of October, the German auto giant said it anticipated heavy losses for this year. The reason? It is taking a 5 billion-euro hit from tariffs imposed in the American market.
Likewise, the German sportswear manufacturer Adidas warned of a 120 million-euro hit to its earnings, in part because the levies its sneakers now face in the United States, while Toyota warned of a $9 billion hit from tariffs.
For anyone following the corporate earnings season over the last month, a clear theme has emerged from the giants of European and Asian industry: President Trump’s tariff regime is starting to significantly reduce their profits.
But hold on. Weren’t we told that tariffs would simply be passed straight on to American consumers in the form of higher prices? That they were a tax on ordinary working people?
Instead, it is already becoming clear that at least some of the costs are being paid by foreign conglomerates and even by foreign governments.
Cont: https://nypost.com/2025/11/24/opinion/trumps-tariffs-might-actually-be-working-as-he-intended/?utm_campaign=nyp_postopinion&utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20251125&lctg=62680bbe38a279b1870b18c5&utm_term=NYP%20-%20Post%20Opinion
They aren’t selling as much because of the tariffs; this isn’t a case where they are necessarily paying the tariffs.
For example, US growers of soybeans are suffering reduced profits as a result of these tariffs, tariffs they do not pay.
The tariffs do not make America wealthier, it just poisons free trade and makes everyone ill.
You would prevent the automobile from being created because it would cause a loss of jobs for blacksmith’s
Stupid, ignorant comment from a stupid, ignorant moron attempting to deflect and obfuscate when he realizes he is wrong.
What exactly is the point of this stupid, irrelevant, snotty comment ?????
You don’t understand the concept of disruptive innovation, change, and other things similar to them. Take your words, “stupid, ignorant moron” and turn them back on yourself.
Yet more deflection and obfuscation.
What exactly does disruptive innovation and change have to do with the FACTS that companies are losing sales and raising prices because American consumers are unwilling to pay the tariffs.
You are the one that claimed companies are losing money because they are paying the tariffs. This is patently false.
Now for some reason you drift off into bizarre claims about disruptive innovation and change without saying why this is relevant in any way to tariffs. You make stupid unsupported claims with no evidence, then when proven wrong you resort to idiotic statements about completely unrelated and irrelevant matters as if that somehow justifies your absurd claims.
You are completely out of your mind.
You are a pathetic, mindless loser completely incapable of rational thought.
Trump is going down a road you are unfamiliar with. It is a change and disrupts how you look at things. He wants to bring companies back to the US and have the US self-sufficient. That scares you. I can almost hear you screaming that the world is coming to an end because horses were replaced by cars.
The only “change” Trump is bringing about is increasing prices paid by American consumers.
This strategy will never bring companies back to the US. For instance if Adidas, or Nike, or Apple, or any other company producing consumer goods by outsourcing production overseas were to bring production “back” to the US, then the price increases would be astronomically higher than that caused by any tariffs. The cost of labor in the US is prohibitively expensive for these companies. The price increases from domestic production would dwarf any increases from continuing to outsource and paying the tariffs. These companies will simply continue to outsource, pay the tariffs and pass the costs onto American consumers. There is nothing to be gained by bringing production “back” to the US where production never existed in the first place. These companies know that there is no alternative for American consumers who will have no choice but to pay the increased prices. There is no realistic chance of other companies attempting to compete by setting up production in the US. Their costs would be hugely greater than the companies that currently outsource. It would not be possible to compete unless the tariffs were raised to draconian levels, at which point prices would be dramatically higher whether from tariffs or increased costs of domestic production.
Either way, the American consumer is the loser.
Your insane theorizing about tariffs bringing production “back” to the US where it never existed in the first place is an idiotic MAGA pipedream completely untethered from reality. But idiotic pipedreams are really what MAGA has always been about.
” Trump is bringing about is increasing prices paid by American consumers.”
We are not seeing inflation. If it occurs, Trump will have to pull back.
You are somewhat correct about labor costs in America, but in the AI age and a time when one can internationally divide labor based on cost, along with the ability to use AI, we will focus tariffs on those needs. But there are additional needs, such as foreign policy, that must be integrated into the tariff policy.
You like to buy labels and junk that we later pay for putting that stuff into landfills or exporting it elsewhere. It’s time we no longer focus on stupidity, so you can keep screaming. That is music to my ears.
Once again, your comments are meaningless gibberish. Simply words strung together as if they actually mean anything.
This comment: “but in the AI age and a time when one can internationally divide labor based on cost, along with the ability to use AI, we will focus tariffs on those needs.” is a completely nonsensical word salad.
Your delusional MAGA thinking is astounding. How exactly is AI going to reduce labor costs ??
Let’s consider an example. Many major consumer electronics manufacturers have their products assembled in China by a company called Foxconn. The list includes Apple, Amazon, Cisco, Dell, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Sony, Nintendo, Roku, Vizio, and many others.
Why do they outsource assembly??
Because it is exponentially more expensive to do this in the US.
Foxconn has an army of more than 1 million employees to do the work, and the workers are paid around $3 an hour. Not only that, the Chinese government gives them substantial subsidies by quite literally building their factories and infrastructure at NO COST. Foxconn pays minimal taxes and the government also provides housing, and healthcare for workers at no cost to Foxconn. Foxconn’s biggest facility consists of a walled and gated community in Shenzen known as Foxconn City. It consists of 15 factories, dormitories for 300,000 workers, its own fire brigade, television network, hospital, bank, grocery stores, restaurants, all built at no cost to Foxconn. There is no need for the workers to leave the facility, and indeed they are actively discouraged from doing so. When Foxconn needs more workers the government simply goes out into the remote rural areas and rounds up people to bring to the factories.
Foxconn is basically taking advantage of slave labor. Obviously this is an awful system, but it provides the only way that American companies can produce their products at an affordable price. There is no possible way that a domestic American company could compete with this system.
Your suggestion that AI could play any sort of role in competing with this system to “internationally divide labor based on cost” is delusional.
Your thinking is delusional. You are trapped in the fantasy world of MAGA madness.
“Once again, your comments are meaningless gibberish. Simply words strung together as if they actually mean anything.”
Coming from a stupid person, it is meaningless. You compress time, believing things remain static. One cannot talk to a person who can not take one idea through completion. Keep looking at the Biden short term, forgetting about foreign policy and how economies can rapidly change for the better. You are thinking in all-or-none terms.
Amazingly, you have actually uttered a comment that makes some sense.
You are absolutely correct when you say, “One cannot talk to a person who can not take one idea through completion.”
You are the one that clearly is unable to take an idea through completion. You made an absurd comment that “in the AI age and a time when one can internationally divide labor based on cost”. I pointed out that this comment is delusional and stupid in the extreme. I gave a concrete example of why it is delusional. I challenged you to explain how AI could in any way reduce labor costs for one of the biggest imports into the US from China in such a way to make production here viable at a reasonable cost.
Your response is to wander off in another word salad of meaningless gibberish.
I gave a concrete example with actual facts to rebut your stupid theorizing. You then simply start making meaningless statements about Biden and compressed time and foreign policy.
Your thinking continues to be delusional. You say I am “thinking in all-or-none terms”, but you are not even thinking at all. You are simply spouting MAGA propaganda that is completely unencumbered by any rational thought processes.
Why don’t you try “taking an idea to completion” and explain how AI will reduce labor costs for the assembly of cell phones in such a way that it could be done efficiently in the US.
It was YOUR idea.
TAKE IT TO COMPLETION !!!!!!!
You provided next to nothing, while you use an anonymous identity to protect your ego. I provided enough in my first comment, but you couldn’t understand something simple and basic. Instead, you rambled. I will not waste time with you, making sure your third-grade mentality can understand what is said.
Anonymous, you have to understand that it is completely pointless trying to engage Meyer in any sort of rational discussion. His responses to criticism are always “meaningless word salads of gibberish” as you have correctly observed.
Unfortunately he suffers from multiple psychiatric disorders that completely abrogate his ability to think in any sane rational way. In addition to his many psychiatric problems he has been brainwashed by the MAGA cult. He is essentially a non-thinking, non-functional MAGA drone incapable of understanding your comments or responding in any rational manner.
If you have paid any attention to his comments in the past you would have realized how delusional he really is. He has confabulated about his life in multiple past comments. One of his strongest and most persistent delusions is that his wife is some sort of secret agent super-spy who works behind the Iron Curtain and smuggles microfilm braided into her hair for the CIA. Truly delusional stuff.
He is profoundly mentally ill and it is not worth trying to engage with him at any level.
The first question is whether Sigmund Fraud and Anonymous are the same. I thought that could be the case for a while, but now I don’t have to ask the question. The dolt is back.
Sigmund, thank you for that information. It just confirms my growing suspicions that Meyer is not really playing with a full deck.
Is it true that he really believes his wife is a secret agent?
Anonymous, yes he really believes his wife is a secret agent. He has recounted this confabulation a number of times. He is something of a modern day Walter Mitty.
I’m sure you have noted that he now thinks that you and I are actually the same person. This is part of his schizophrenia and paranoid personality disorder. He believes that evil forces and evil people stalk him and are “out to get him” so to speak. In his disturbed state of mind he sometimes conflates these entities into a single person.
That is rather sad, but it certainly explains a lot about his bizarre comments. The comments made no rational sense to me, but I guess in his disturbed mind he thinks he is making cogent and rational points.
Do you think his mental illness preceded his indoctrination into the MAGA cult, or is his illness a result of cult brainwashing?
Things have gotten so bad for Sigmund Fraud that he is talking to himself. As Anonymous, he pretends not to know what Sigmund Fraud said before, but he doesn’t miss the minor details.
I feel sorry for the Fraud as he has to make friends up. We saw that in the past with one anonymous, who had many pretend friends.
It’s hard to say which came first, the illness or the MAGA brainwashing, or which is cause or effect. One could argue the case either way, but it really doesn’t matter that much at this point. He is deep into multiple psychiatric illnesses and there really is not much hope for recovery.
Nutcase.
Nutcase along with his pretend friends.
Why is Meyer continuing to make stupid, pointless comments even though we are ignoring him?
Is this part of his mental illness ?
Unfortunately, the answer is yes.
This is known as perseveration. It is a common symptom in schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The patients feel compelled to persevere with pointless interactions. It becomes a fixation that they are unable to shake free from.
One could also argue that this is oppositional defiant disorder. Patients with this illness are persistently argumentative and defiant, and feel compelled to have the last word in any personal arguments or interactions.
This is a very sad case of many psychiatric disorders in a single patient.
Nutcase with split personality.
Sigmund, I see what you mean by perseveration with Meyer’s pointless insulting comments. He has repeated the same “nutcase” comment three times in quick succession. He also seems to be making these stupid insulting comments simply to try to have the last word.
Does this behavior indicate any particular mental incapacity?
Anonymous,
As I have already mentioned, this compulsion on the part of Meyer to have the last word in any interaction is a classic symptom of oppositional defiant disorder.
These individuals are compelled to have the last word, often by repeating the same comment over and over again.
This gives them a sense of victory over their imagined opponent, and satisfies their insatiable urge to feel superior.
He will inevitably respond to these comments with yet another repetition of the “nutcase” insult.
A very sad situation for this poor fellow.
Nutcase and pretend friend.
Sigmund, your prediction was right on the money. Meyer really does feel to compelled to respond by simply repeating the same insult of “nutcase” over and over again to get the last word, just as you predicted. This really does prove that he is mentally unstable.
Fraud is Tweedledee; the pretend friend is Tweedledum. One launches the nonsense while the other hums along with background stupidity so spot-on that Fraud hears it, recognizes himself, and runs away out of pure self-preservation. Which is why the friend is here alone; Fraud, Sigmund Fraud, has already fled
Anonymous, people like Meyer, who have so many psychiatric disorders, are entirely predictable.
They are driven by their compulsions to continue to respond to criticisms with increasingly outlandish comments in an effort to prove their “normalcy”, and in an effort to have the last word in any interaction. They believe that this gives them “victory” over those who point out their psychiatric problems, and helps to satisfy their insatiable desire to feel superior.
As you will also note, Meyer continues to respond even though we are ignoring him.
It would be an interesting exercise to see how long he will persist in continuing to respond.
I suggest we meet here every day around this time to see how long Meyer perseverates with his nonsense.
Sigmund Fraud, your low level of intellect forces you to debate only when you control both sides of the discussion. That is why you, Tweedeldee, adopted a pretend friend to be Tweedledum.
You are a Nutcase with a matching pretend brain.
Sigmund, sounds like a plan. Let’s meet around noon each day.
It will be interesting to see how long Meyer continues to respond even though we are ignoring him.
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.
You are a Nutcase.
Anonymous,
As we can see Meyer persists in responding to us in a desperate attempt to have the last word. He is driven by his obsessions to try to prove that he is superior, and believes that he can achieve “victory over us with the last word.
Also note that he has reverted to the “nutcase” insult for the fourth time. This perseveration is indicative of a deeply seated psychiatric illness. He believes that if he repeats the insult often enough then it will “stick” so to speak, thus proving his “normalcy” and superiority.
Nutcase.
Sigmund, as you have said, this guy is entirely predictable as a result of his psychiatric illness.
How long do you think he will persist with his insults?
Will he keep doing this indefinitely, even though we ignore him ?
Pretend friend Nutcase.
As we see, Meyer continues to perseverate with the “nutcase” insult. He is unable to resist his compulsion to continue this interaction and use the same insult over and over again.
His alogia, a symptom of schizophrenia, again emerges with his short, terse statement devoid of content.
Nutcase. At least your pretend friend disappeared. That is an improvement.
Sigmund, sorry I was unable to meet up today around noon. A family affair kept me too busy.
As you say, Meyer is continuing to perseverate with the “nutcase” insult. I think this brings the count up to 5 now. He really is unable to control himself. This perseveration is remarkable.
I wonder how he will keep it up? I am fascinated to find out.
Nutcase.
S. Meyer
This is complete nonsense.
Volkswagen is taking a hit because of reduced sales and revenue, not because they are paying the tariffs.
Their US sales have plummeted 16% because of the tariffs.
They are not paying the tariffs.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/volkswagen-suffers-15-billion-loss-trumps-tariffs/story?id=124065273
Likewise, Adidas is taking a hit from decreased US sales, not because they are paying the tariffs.
https://www.joburgetc.com/news/didas-trump-tariffs-profit-hit-120-million-euros/
The reality is that both companies have decreased sales because consumers are not prepared to pay the higher prices imposed by the Trump’s tariffs.
The report you cite is from the NY Post. Consider the source. This is a Rupert Murdoch owned MAGA propaganda machine and nothing more.
That is why these companies are reducing their prices.
Buy New Balance and the alternatives. I know you are unhappy with jobs for Americans, but get over it. Trump plans to bring industry and jobs to America, including those jobs going to foreign nationals.
S.Meyer
Why are you just making stuff up ????
Adidas has RAISED prices.
https://www.supplychainbrain.com/articles/42247-adidas-to-raise-us-prices-blames-tariffs
Likewise, Volkswagen has just RAISED prices by 6.5%.
https://www.autonews.com/volkswagen/an-vw-2026-model-year-price-increases-0918/
You are simply making stuff up, or spouting MAGA propaganda.
You have absolutely no credibility.
“German sportswear giant Adidas said it would raise prices for American customers”
“Volkswagen of America is raising starting prices on most 2026 models as the import-reliant brand continues to grapple with President Donald Trump’s tariffs.”
Take note: ” would raise prices “
You don’t know what they will do.
Stop hating the American worker and support American products. Let Americans have the job taken by illegals and non-citizens.
English is apparently your second or even third language.
“Would” is a word that indicates an affirmative intention to do something. It means that Adidas is going to raise prices. They did not say maybe, or perhaps, or might, or considering. They said they would do it. The article I posted, and that you quote, was from July 30.
You make the insane comment that “You don’t know what they will do.” I know exactly what they will do and are doing.
Perhaps you should look at this article from Business Insider from TODAY, November 25. Adidas says they WILL increase prices.
https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-raising-prices-increases-trump-tariffs-2025
“Adidas said it WILL raise prices in the US because of a double-digit million euro hit from tariffs in the second quarter and a further predicted 200 million euro, about $218 million, cost from levies in the second half of the year.”
And Adidas is not the only one raising prices because of the tariffs.
The list includes Abercrombie& Fitch, Autozone, Best Buy, Nikon, Canon, Leica, ConAgra, Columbia Sportswear, Ford, Home Depot, Macys, Nike, Nintendo, Procter& Gamble, Black & Decker, Target, Volkswagen, and Walmart.
All these companies have announced price hikes that they explicitly say are caused by the tariffs.
You should rely on information from actual business sources rather the MAGA rags like the NY Post. You are an idiot. You have no credibility whatsoever. You simply spout MAGA propaganda and make stuff up.
In the end, inflation will tell us much of the results, but so far it didn’t spiral out of control as predicted by your mediaawhich was wrong almost always when Trump was involved, while the media you tried to insult was right.
Should we listen to a person whose predictions and answers are based on media that failed?
Another word salad of meaningless gibberish.
Now that you know you are wrong about tariffs, you change the subject and drift off into bizarre statements about inflation.
You make an insanely meaningless statement: “In the end, inflation will tell us much of the results”
In what “end” ??
Results of what ??
You just string words together in a meaningless way and think you are making some profound observation. You are nuts.
Trump is bringing jobs to America and cash. If he overdoes the tariffs, we will see a dramatic rise in inflation.
In the past, you said inflation would quickly rise, and we would face it by now, but you were wrong— as usual. However, you are consistent in your hate of the American worker, and by not having a coherent policy.
You are clearly one of those unfortunate fools who believes Trump’s lies that foreign governments pay the tariffs.
Trump has brought not one single job to America and has not brought a single dollar from other governments or from other countries. He has however brought a lot of “cash” to the American GOVERNMENT, but this is being extracted from the pockets of the American people and American companies.
When you learn to read the numbers the statisticians provide, come back.
What statisticians ?
Who are these people ?
What numbers ?
Where are these numbers to be found ?
Feel free to provide some actual facts and actual numbers to back up your claims, instead of making absurd statements with absolutely no evidence.
I suspect that these “statisticians” and their supposed “numbers” exist only in your head, and that you receive this information from the voices you hear in your head.
You must be the drunk. There are many sets of numbers, both private and government. Choose the numbers you like but be prepared to defend them.
Why don’t YOU choose the numbers and tell me where to find them.
Why aren’t YOU prepared to give the numbers and defend them.
You have never given any factual information in any of your comments here on this blog. You simply indulge in condescending insults like your favorite alcoholism insult, that is clearly projection, and make vacuous statements entirely unsupported by facts.
If there are numbers out there proving that Trump has brought even ONE job back to America, or even ONE dollar from a foreign government or entity, THEN QUOTE IT. Until you do, then the numbers do not exist.
How does one discuss the numbers with one who can’t find them?
You don’t like the discussion of alcohol. Others don’t like your foul mouth or your lies.
Your brain is shot, and you did it to yourself.
Have you been to the gas pump, grocery store, bought a 2×4 or any hardware lately Seth? The consumer IS paying for it Seth. Believe your lying wallet!
Did you read the article? No. This is the typical reflex action of an anonymous blogger. The reflex skips the brain.
The pump prices were rising under Biden, and that rise stopped. Oil is one of the products we export, not import.
Have you bought eggs?
S.Meyer
Did you read the article I posted? No.
The article I posted about Volkswagen says:
“Sales in North America plunged 16% due primarily to U.S. tariffs, said Volkswagen, which owns a host of brands including Audi, Lamborghini and Porsche.”
There are numerous other reports online also saying that both Volkswagen and Adidas are taking hits because consumers are not willing to pay the higher prices imposed by Trump’s tariffs.
The reports also say that both companies have seen a drop in orders from the US.
If the companies were paying the tariffs, then why would orders be down ?
If the companies were paying the tariffs, then why would sales be down?
The answer is that the companies are NOT paying the tariffs, and prices to the consumers are up significantly, so demand has dropped.
You make it clear that you can carry only one set of numbers in your head so it is understandable that you cannot extrapolate from the known data.
” it is already becoming clear that at least some of the costs are being paid by foreign conglomerates and even by foreign governments.” There are many things that impact the number of cars sold in America but extrapolating is not your strong suit.
Your second problem is not identifying the core argument another brings to the table.
“Evidence for Not a Tax increase:” That means there are a lot of things that need to be evaluated and this is only evidence for one side of the line. Likely the true answer will lie somewhere in between the two ends, but for that you cannot continue to think unidimensionally.
Those who you trust so much said inflation would rise quickly, but it hasn’t. They were wrong at the present yet you continue to swallow everything they say whole.
“Evidence for Not a Tax increase:”
You and that wrong-headed writer disagree with Trump (and with centuries of free market analysis).
He just lowered the tariffs on countless food items. And did so, he said, to lower the price Americans pay for those items.
When dealing with other countries that are enemies and people who wish you dead, sometimes free market ideas are best left on a shelf, while there is some focus on pragmatism.
I don’t agree with Trump on each and every item he does, but I take notice of his excellent track record, so I will follow his lead.
“. . . other countries that are enemies and people who wish you dead . . .”
Bananas are imported from Costa Rica, tennis shoes from Italy, steel from Japan.
Those countries are our “enemies” and wish us dead?!
You continuous rationalizations for tariffs fly in the face of reality.
Sam, you are smarter than this. There are many reasons for Trump’s use of tariffs, not a singular one as you suggest. Dealing with tariffs leveled against us is another reason, as is foreign policy. I am sure Trump will err on a few, and based on how he thinks, most errors will be corrected very quickly.
Sam, you are much smarter than S. Meyer who twists himself into a pretzel to justify Trump’s tariffs.
However, to give him some credit, S. Meyer does recognize that, “There are many reasons for Trump’s use of tariffs.” The problem is that those reasons are personal grievance, vengeance and retribution, and not economic.
For example, he doubled the tariffs on Brazil to 50%, and explicitly stated that this was because they had convicted his “good friend”, the former president Bolsonaro, of conspiring with an armed criminal organization to overthrow the government. Trump stated that the charges were a “witch hunt”, demanded the charges be dropped, and explicitly stated that the increased tariffs were punishment for convicting his friend.
Trump also doubled the tariffs on India back in May when Prime Minister Modi made an official statement explicitly denying Trump’s claim that he had facilitated an end to the recent armed conflict between India and Pakistan. Trump had been falsely claiming that he had settled the conflict, and in fit of pique he doubled the tariffs. He explicitly claimed that Modi had ruined his chances for the Nobel Peace Prize.
So you see, “based on the way he thinks”, as you put it, it is crystal clear that Trump’s primary motivation for tariffs is personal grievance and vengeance.
“Sam, you are much smarter than S. Meyer “
Maybe, maybe not. Like we have seen repeatedly, the future mostly turns out to prove Trump correct,
So you have no problem with Trump using tariffs to threaten other countries for punishing his friends who engage in efforts to overthrow their governments by force.
And you have no problem with Trump punishing other countries whose leaders expose the lies that Trump spews on a daily basis. And you have no problem with Trump doing this because he believes that he has been deprived of some personal prize.
How exactly is “the future going to prove Trump correct” on these examples, which are just a few of many instances of Trump using tariffs for personal retribution ?
Try to be specific in your answer, rather than the nonsensical, condescending, wishy-washy, vague, platitudinous, mealy-mouthed, insipid, entirely fact free comments that you are so renowned for on this blog.
“ Trump punishing other countries whose leaders expose the lies that Trump spews on a daily basis.”
You are unhinged. If you want to discuss something, start by being rational. Here is one. Should Trump eliminate all his tariffs on China?
The issue is not the tariffs on China. Don’t try your usual game of deflection. You are the one being irrational.
The issue is, should Trump be using tariffs to extort Brazil into releasing his friend who has been convicted of conspiracy to violently overthrow the Brazilian government, and should Trump use tariffs to punish India whose leader he believes has deprived him of some personal honor.
THOSE ARE THE ISSUES.
Why don’t we discuss these issues first ??
You are the one who suggested that “There are many reasons for Trump’s use of tariffs”. Fine. For the moment let’s accept that premise for the purpose of a DISCUSSION.
The question now becomes, is Trump’s use of tariffs to extort Brazil and China for PERSONAL gain a legitimate reason for imposing tariffs. He explicitly stated that he imposed these tariffs as punishment, rather than for any economic purpose.
There, the discussion has now started. Feel free to join the discussion, but don’t simply play your usual game of trying to deflect and change the subject.
I remind you again that you are the one saying that, “There are many reasons for Trump’s use of tariffs” but when confronted with these obviously abusive “reasons”, you refuse to even discuss, let alone defend his actions.
Take note how this joker suddenly runs away from discussing tariffs. First, should Trump eliminate all his tariffs on China?
Stop running away.
*. What’s the reason Bondi doesn’t just sign them herself?
Why must this be a special counsel and not a staff attorney?
^^^ It’s simple mortgage fraud? Why did Seibert resign? Why didn’t he file them in a timely manner?
Halligan was appointed to a vacancy. The court voted to extend Seibert’s appointment? What’s the problem. Halligan was finishing out that extension. Did the court extend Seibert or the office of special counsel?
Call a cop. As to prince Andrew he should have said yes, she told me she was 21? Wth
^^^^ As to all the jew haters, Israel was created so you jew haters could just dump all the jews you don’t want into their own country. That’s the final solution you terrorists. Islam flew a jet into twin towers. JEWS did not. If that’s not terrorism them I don’t know what is.
As to sanctuary cities, give up your stinking criminal drug cartel gangs, huh? Then ICE won’t have to hunt them down?
Whew, someone needs a bagle!
Under English law – which is the solely relevant issue since Giuffre alleged Andrew slept with her in the UK – the age of consent is sixteen. She was over sixteen, and consented. Therefore, Andrew committed no offence under English law even if Giuffre’s allegations are true. Now, public opinion and his brother both think Andrew behaved disgracefully, but disgraceful is not criminal.
She told him she was 21.
Oops, my TOTAL error. Seibert was a fed prosecutor not a special counsel. Forget I thought that.
Because she’s too smart. She knows Comey’s case is pointless and can ruin her career.
Plus Trump ordered Bondi to appoint Halligan.
Ruin her career? She’s attorney general of the United States, she was attorney general for the State of Florida. Her next stop is a cushy retirement and maybe down the road a SCJ. Ruin her career?
Or her next stop is a less than cushy enforced retirement when she is impeached after the mid-terms?
Stop it Smalls, you’re killing us! Merrick Garland, Eric Holder, impeached you say? 🤡
Nothing exudes confidence more than a 5 year old yelling…
“Quiet, Quiet! Piggy”
Here is a great quote about our incompetent in chief. If you’re interested in who said it, look it up.
But then again, like on X, my guess is most of the right wing trump supporting crap on this site comes from foreign accounts.
“Why is it that the party that think people of color can’t possibly be better qualified than white people hire white people who are such incompetents?”
“Why is it that the party that think people of color can’t possibly be better qualified than white people hire white people who are such incompetents?”
Why is it the still-racist party that voted for and elected the recently departed racist Oval Office House Plant demands that their incompetent choice for president proves that racist people of color hires for Vice President and SCOTUS are actually competent?
Rather than an abject embarrassment to those people of color who are told these racist choices by color are representative of just how competent people of color can be.
So stupid, VPN and I’m in Australia
“dismissed without prejudice” dismissal means a case is not permanently closed and can be refiled later. This allows the plaintiff or prosecutor to correct procedural errors, gather new evidence, or address issues before refiling. In contrast, a “dismissed with prejudice” case is permanently over and cannot be brought back to court.
In Comey’s case, irrelevant, as noted by Judge Currie in her judgement, because the statute of limitations for Comey’s alleged offence has expired, with or without prejudice, and no grounds for Bondi and her clowns to “cure” an unlawful indictment. Turley knows this damn well, and avoids the issue, by instead focusing on James rather than explicitly stating a simple fact re: Comey…
In Comey’s case, irrelevant, as noted by Judge Currie in her judgement, because the statute of limitations for Comey’s alleged offence has expired,
You’re actually on the verge of orgasm in your belief that federal basement level Judge Currie has a special immunity from being reversed by a higher appellate court.
Well, it may turn out that your police state fascist orgasm was justified. Well, I guess we shall see…
Oh how pathetic. If any higher court, confronted by the facts of the case, and so very carefully set out by Currie, and the documents that the DOJ admitted to be tainted no less than seven times during the hearings, reverses her judgement, then your judicial system is even more corrupted than the rest of us know it to be; and not because Trump keeps stamping his little feet, and has a harem of plastic Barbies pretending to be lawyers.
Trump keeps stamping his little feet, and has a harem of plastic Barbies pretending to be lawyers.
There’s a big self reveal from an Internet Bar Association lawyer from The Oval Office House Plant’s harem of Tranny Furry Barbie dolls.
FN 21 of Currie’s Opinion and Order:
Generally, “[t]he return of an indictment tolls the statute of limitations on the charges contained in the indictment.” United States v. Ojedokun, 16 F.4th 1091, 1109 (4th Cir. 2021). “An invalid indictment,” however, “cannot serve to block the door of limitations as it swings closed.” United States v. Crysopt Corp., 781 F. Supp. 375, 378 (D. Md. 1991) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Gillespie, 666 F. Supp. 1137, 1141 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (“[A] valid indictment insulates from statute-of-limitations problems any refiling of the same charges during the pendency of that valid indictment (that is, the superseding of a valid indictment). But if the earlier indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which to hang such a judicial limitations-tolling result.” (emphasis in original)).
The SOL has run. This cannot be refiled.
Nuh uh, Senator Grassley recently resurrected his testimony for a new timeline.
Given that US law has its origins in 18th century English law, perhaps you Yanks need to consider actually modernising it? English law abandoned the very concept of a grand jury a century ago, as an outdated, cumbersome, too easily manipulated mechanism that did nothing to advance the cause of actual justice.
You might also ditch the Presidential pardon, again based on the old English monarchical powers, but now hardly ever used, and only granted by the monarch on the recommendations of elected ministers and impartial judges. Biden and Trump have both shown how appallingly it is abused.
Well yes, if it can be abused abuse it. It’s the way people are isn’t it?
Thomas Jefferson recognized that unforeseen problems could arise in the future regarding the Constitution.
He recommended that the Constitution should expire every 20 years, and then be completely rewritten, but he was outvoted.
He was remarkably prescient.
And yet Turley chooses to worship the incompetent Madison…
I doubt Jefferson today would believe for even a second that you could get a completely rewritten constitution ratified with today’s still-racist Democrat Identity Politics states.
None of the Founders nor Jefferson was that prescient – other than ensuring two different ways in the Constitution that future Americans could amend their constitutional documents. Which they have done previously over two dozen times.
Nice try, comrade; no doubt significant ideation was rejected at the Constitutional Convention.
Jefferson’s idea was based on the principle that “the earth belongs in usufruct to the living,” meaning the dead have no right to govern the living.
The dead have no right…
but the law does, and the fundamental law is comprised of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Alas, there is an amendment process in Article 5 of the Constitution.
The 5th Amendment right to private property was completely rewritten by the Juristocracy (i.e. Karl Marx) long ago, as was Article 1, Section 8.
Start here: Governmental rent, price, and wage controls, but three examples, and taxing “ad libitum” for outright “charity” rather than adhering to the prescribed limitations of “debt, defense, and general Welfare.”
Biden and Trump have both shown how appallingly it is abused.
Ah! Here we have a Brit, from the land where modern English law allows Muslims to become the rule of law and look the other way at Muslim rape gangs and Sharia Law, jailing English citizens for the criminal offence of free speech that criticizes government allowing and coddling illegal migrants, is attempting to assure us this is superior to American law!
You really sure you’re correct on that, Skippy?
Then attempting a false flag Democrat-level false moral equivalency between Biden and Trump – while attempting to claim some Brits believe their system is superior to ours.
Maybe you Brit wankers need to stay home long enough to convince your fellow Brits your legal system that protects hajji criminality is just fine.
Utter, utter, utter bollocks. Sharia law has zero standing in English or Scots law.
America’s judicial system is now the most corrupted of all western democracies. You are just too blind to see it. Why is it corrupted? You elect judges, you elect prosecutors. James and Bondi are as bad as each other, both corrupting the law in the pursuit of their differing political agendas.
If there was any justice, Biden and Trump would both die in jail, sharing a cell for their equally corrupt and criminal abuses.
Utter, utter, utter bollocks. Sharia law has zero standing in English or Scots law.
Bollocks indeed, you primping and preening Brit wanker. It doesn’t have to be codified if police state fascist Woke Marxist Idiots are protecting it operating in reality.
If there was any real justice in UK law, Englishmen wouldn’t be regularly being thrown in jail for believing they still had a right to free speech to criticize the government refusing to prosecute Muslim rape gangs and allowing Sharia Law to be in place as a reality in some English communities.
We haven’t started punishing free speech with jail sentences over here as you English communist Useless Woke Idiots have been doing for years now as your vaunted version of a justice system.
What you’re currently doing is good ol’ Stalinist police state fascism. Churchill and Thatcher would be rolling over in their graves at the thought of today’s English Woke police state fascists controlling the English justice system.
We have enough vicious Democrat liars of our own right here at home, without you police state fascist English wankers thinking you might be able to operate over here to help them.
Do go and have a lie down dear, before your xenophobic spleen engulfs you.
I have lots of American friends, and served alongside good men and women in hot and dusty places, but by god I am glad I was born an Englishman when I look at the mess into which you lot have sadly got yourselves. There is a lot wrong in the UK at present, but nothing compared to the clown show of Trump, then Biden, now Trump again.
Do go and have a lie down dear, before your xenophobic spleen engulfs you. I have lots of American friends Jury trials set to be scrapped except for most serious crimes
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jury-trials-scrappes-court-lammy-b2872268.html
And I have some Brit friends – none of which share your elitist commie attitudes and defense of what the police state fascist UK government is today.
You forgot to claim some of your American friends were black Americans – your type usually throws that in. But that’s okay, Hunter Biden and other Democrats of his ilk do not mind having British fluffers among the revenue trailing along behind in their cocaine dust.
Your outrage that Trump has, rightly or wrongly, put you firmly down on your knees kneeling in subjugation before him like surrender monkeys is duly noted.
Now this Brit shyte eater is going to hope the false appeal to authority of claiming time in uniform reverses his status as a pathetic wanker and fluffer. Fail, Walter Mitty, fail.
Tell Americans how we should follow the lead of your current police state fascist UK government and follow them down the road of attempting to eliminate almost all trials before a jury of the peers of the person being tried.
What is the longest tenure in history that a corrupt and illegitimate juristocracy has persisted before suffering its demise?
It works well on planet earth. It doesn’t work well among criminals. Criminals are too stupid .
Let’s imagine George X and the other resident Democrat police state trolls who want Comey (like Biden) to escape legal consequences for his decades long career of criminal behavior are correct. These felony perjury charges against Comey are as dead as the previous 2016 felony charges recommended he be indicted for regarding his repeated perjury in Judge Boasberg’s FISA courts.
Let’s agree with them that Comey is now out of danger, and free to enjoy the ill gotten fruits of his criminality as Biden is. That leaves Comey as low hanging and easily accessible rotten fruit, well within reach of Republicans for Congressional picking.
George X or any of the Democrats’ official Internet Lawyers have a reason that a now safe from prosecution Comey can’t be subpoenaed by Republican Congressional committees to appear before them for questioning on the corruption within the Biden DoJ and FBI? The concealment of Biden criminality during the time Comey was the FBI Director?
Comey can or can’t be subpoenaed to testify to that, and no longer has 5th Amendment protections because prosecution for those crimes is now dead?
After all, trial or not, very few people believed Comey would actually be convicted in that district where jury nullification of Democrat felons is almost a written guarantee. Comey one way or other will have these charges behind him – along with 5th Amendment protections for his long years of felony perjury and deprivation of rights by color of law.
Any legal reason a Republican Congressional committee can’t hold field hearings where they question Comey and others outside of Washington DC? Maybe (in a bipartisan acknowledgement of the Democrats’ latest hero Dick Cheney) holding those field hearings in Wyoming, starring disgraced and fired former FBI Director James Comey?
Just musing… but I don’t believe James Comey would feel all that confident about getting away with perjury as he repeatedly did in Washington DC, when instead the Grand Jury members and criminal trial members would be the hard working blue collar citizens of Wyoming instead of federal Democrat government bureaucrat drones.
Congressional Republicans will not subpoena Comey. They have screwed up so much that the optics of continuing to pursue Comey will look negatively on them, especially with the up coming midterms and the worsening economy.
No problem. Simply go back and correctly appoint the prosecutor.
Won’t work. Because the indictment was never issued in the first place. The statute of limitations prevents the prosecution from charging them with a new one.
Won’t work. Because the indictment was never issued in the first place.
That’s a feeble Joe Biden level lie.
The second indictment was true-billed by the Grand Jury – not by just one or two people as you liars claim.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf
The statute of limitations prevents the prosecution from charging them with a new one.
Nor did this decision agree with your version of the truth anywhere within the words of the decision. The decision is worded “without prejudice”.
Now how do you claim that means this prosecution can not in any way be resumed?
Finally, how do you hope you can get us to believe this basement level federal judge has a special immunity from being overruled by a higher appellate judge?
James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg adopted highly novel legal theories to pursue Trump in New York, including Bragg’s reviving a dead misdemeanor charge and converting it into a multi-count felony indictment.
Just like prosecutor Jack Smith’s signature highly novel legal theories of corruption that he used to pursue and take out the most dangerous GOP opponent to Obama/Biden 2012 reelection, Governor Bob McDonnell. James and Bragg used that as their template. Did they believe they had the advantage that by using state charges, they wouldn’t have to worry about SCOTUS throwing their convictions out unanimously as they did Smith’s, and declaring them a threat to our democracy?
Very well chosen and carefully worded description, Professor Turley: you are the master of of saving by faint criticism your fellow Democrat lawyers. You are still safe from being dis-invited from the cocktails and canapes social circuit.
I got a traffic ticket dismissed once due to spotting a technical flaw on the ticket. You can’t blame Comey for trying every trick in the book. What you can blame is the shoddy attention to detail of Trump’s team in bringing this case.
And, I’m highly critical of the Judge dismissing the case based on a technicality. He should defer to the judgment of the Grand Jury that a Trial Jury be the ones to decide Comey’s guilt v. innocence.
Judges and elitist lawyers no longer respect or fear Juries. They expect to thwart Jury decisionmaking, and we;re seeing it in case after major case, including this one.
The grand jury never saw the second set of charges Halligan drew up after the first set was returned with one no-billed charge. She was supposed to re-file the second set to the grand jury to indict on those two counts, but she never did. She just had the clerk sign it without the grand jury reviewing it. So literally the grand jury never issued an indictment on those two counts. Comey was never indicted from the beginning. That was one of the major screwups by Halligan.
That’s a lie X, already disproven.
Nope. Halligan never turned in the updated charges to the grand jury. She just had the clerk sign the new set. The law requires she show the grand jury the revised charges for the them to consider. She never gave it to them. So legally there never was an indictment.
Maybe she’s just a showgirl huh? Stupid cases.
Another Anonymous/X/George lie: Halligan never turned in the updated charges to the grand jury. She just had the clerk sign the new set.
The opposite is true, versus the Russia Dossier Washington Post and NYT lie cribbed and posted here by X/Anonymous/George. Court records say otherwise. Lyin’ Like Joe Biden isn’t going to change minds.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf
Not a lie, and not disproven.
Read the following carefully.
Note the judge’s TWO statements regarding the FIRST indictment he was given:
” it says that the grand jurors did not concur in finding an indictment in this case.”
“it doesn’t say with respect to one count. It looks like they failed to concur across all three counts.”
From the transcript of the presentation of the grand jury decision to the court:
THE COURT: Okay. When you say one count — so I’m looking at two different –
– I’m looking at case 25-cr-272, United States of America v. James B. Comey, Jr. I
have an indictment with two counts that my courtroom deputy read that looks to
be signed by you, ma’am.
THE FOREPERSON: Yes.
THE COURT: And it says 14 grand jurors concurred in the indictment. And then
I have a report of a grand jury’s failure to concur in an indictment, and it just
reports that — has three counts, and it says that the grand jurors did not concur in
finding an indictment in this case.
THE COURT: So this has never happened before. I’ve been handed two
documents that are in the Mr. Comey case that are inconsistent with one another.
There seems to be a discrepancy. They’re both signed by the foreperson. The
one that says it’s a failure to concur in an indictment, it doesn’t say with respect
to one count. It looks like they failed to concur across all three counts, so I’m a
little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that
are inconsistent.
The first grand jury report from the foreperson showed no indictment on ALL COUNTS as the judge notes in two separate statements in the transcript.
The myth that the FIRST report showed that the GJ failed to indict on only one count is just that, a myth.
The second report concocted after the fact by Halligan was never shown to the GJ.
So they no-billed on the original three charges?
That is exactly correct, as the judge noted.
The judges comments from the transcript are crystal clear that the first indictment document showed no-bill on ALL COUNTS.
The transcript also shows that upon questioning the jury foreperson said that they actually no-billed on only one count. This may have been an error on his part, but the fact remains that we only have his word for that error. Halligan prepared a SECOND indictment to reflect this, but she did not go back to to the GJ to confirm this. The proceeding took place at 6:40pm and the GJ transcript shows that the grand jurors left at 4:28pm. There is no way that she could have confirmed with the full GJ whether the foreperson had made a simple error, or whether in fact there was no indictment on all counts. She simply accepted the word of the foreperson.
This is the problem.
Halligan failed to confirm what the foreperson alleged.
She simply accepted the word of the foreperson. This is the problem. Halligan failed to confirm what the foreperson alleged.
And then there’s those inconvenient truths in the form of this court’s transcripts:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf
If lies were wings, we could hope you Joe Biden level liars would be leaving with the geese right about now to spend the next five months in Mexico.
The full Grand Jury true-billed the second indictment with the remaining two indictments. That was pointed out to this judge FOUR days before this decision. You and the Propaganda Media chose to run with lies after the DoJ did that.
Neither you nor the Russia Dossier Washington Post that you crib from are the actual transcript of Grand Jury proceedings. Procedings that took place a MONTH before this judge brought that claim up – not Comey’s lawyer – five days before this decision.
If your cause is just – why do you feel compelled to lie to defend that?
“The full Grand Jury true-billed the second indictment with the remaining two indictments.”
No, they never got to see the second indicment. There never was a second indictment considered. Halligan just had the clerk sign the second one without having the grand jury review it. They never voted on the second one. That is why there never was an indictment at all. Everything after that is moot.
Another X/Anonymous/George lie: No, they never got to see the second indicment. There never was a second indictment considered.
The opposite is true, versus the Russia Dossier Washington Post and NYT lie cribbed and posted here by X/Anonymous/George. Court records say otherwise. Lyin’ Like Joe Biden isn’t going to change minds. The court records explicitly show that the second indictment was shown to and true-billed by the Grand Jury.
X/Anonymous/George would rather copy, paste, and then reword the Russia Dossier Washington Post lies that were written days before.
X are you going to claim your elementary school level of reading comprehension made this merely a mistake on your part, rather than just a flat out lie?
You could try to help your special education teacher help you through reading this court document:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf
Another X/Anonymous/George lie: The grand jury never saw the second set of charges Halligan drew up after the first set was returned with one no-billed charge.
The opposite is true, versus the Russia Dossier Washington Post and NYT lie cribbed and posted here by X/Anonymous/George. Court records say otherwise. Lyin’ Like Joe Biden isn’t going to change minds.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf
Consider oj trial huh? They threw that case.
“Judge Currie effectively declared “time’s up.” She also noted that this rush to indict followed the President’s posting expressing anger over the failure to indict these individuals. The President asked “What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.” -JT
OK THEN, There is no Litigation holding Us up, Screw them All!
There are 5 Burn Bags of Evidence just sitting there (The Murder Weapon of the Political Hit Man: James Comey)
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
“Law seems to have become entirely improvisational in the age of Trump. James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg adopted highly novel legal theories to pursue Trump in New York, including Bragg’s reviving a dead misdemeanor charge and converting it into a multi-count felony indictment. …”
I wounder if this maybe an effect of A.I. in the Legal field. Michael Cohen claimed to have used “bogus artificial intelligence-generated legal case citations he got online before they were submitted to a judge.”*
One has to question: How did Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg dig up “a dead misdemeanor charge” -JT, and connect-the-dots ” into a multi-count felony indictment” – JT.
The more prolific A.I. becomes, you begin to realize that Lawyers, Paralegals, and Judges are going to become irrelevant, and the Court will be nothing but an A.I. Terminal of Justice. Someday it may become the producer of: A.I. generated Legal Political Theater. So much for the ‘billable-hour’ of which will be reduced to ‘billable-micro seconds’ (a.I. Mainframe time) but remain equally expensive. (just Musing).
The Future is Bright, The Future is Now.
* https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/michael-cohen-says-he-unwittingly-sent-ai-generated-fake-legal-cases-to-his-attorney
Professor Turley,
The Comey case cannot be “resuscitated.” The statute of limitations expired on Sept. 30. And Currie agreed that the deadline had passed without a valid indictment.
Please correct the error in your article.
Thanks!
The Comey case cannot be “resuscitated.”
Your belief that this basement level federal judge has immunity from being reversed by an appellate court is almost orgasmic in nature.
“Quiet, Quiet” Piggy”
Under what grounds could an appellate court reverse?
Under what grounds could an appellate court reverse?
Why did this basement level federal judge take care to include the words “without prejudice” while dismissing this case if it is truly dead as you Anonymous/X claim it is?
Why not dismiss “with prejudice” instead?
Your move, sealion. You could at least get up on a stool and balance a beach ball on your nose if you want to try amusing us.
Sealioning:
Sealioning is a form of adolescent trolling where someone persistently demands answers to insincere questions to provoke a response, often pretending to seek a civil debate while actually trying to exhaust or frustrate others with no intention of real discourse. This behavior is characterized by a facade of politeness and a refusal to acknowledge previous answers. Often used as a tactic by whining Democrats in online forums and podcasts
By dismissing the cases outright, the judge certainly showed contempt for the grand jury process and the citizens who served on it. It is worth noting that the grand jury rejected one count while returning a true bill on two counts. That suggests that they took their work seriously. In a leftist, government-dependent enclave like Alexandria, that decision would have some social cost and perhaps even economic consequences. For most in that community, Comey in particular is “one of us.” It seems curious to me that the judge did not find a way to dismiss Halligan from the case and her appointment while respecting the work of the grand jury and preserving the grand jury indictment under new counsel.
In that regard, there is room for good faith differences in interpretation of the statute, as well as its constitutionality in the wake of recent Supreme Court decisions on executive appointment power. Had DOJ simply flouted clear statutory and decisional authority, the judge would be on more defensible grounds dismissing the cases outright. But the issue is still being litigated out of the NJ US Attorney appointment, and now this.
Finally, based on the public record to date, is there still room for doubt that Mr. Comey, having been entrusted with great power and privilege as Director of the FBI, misled and deceived Congress? And that AG James falsified her mortgage and tax filings to advantage herself financially? Those defending Comey especially — aside from sophistry and technicalities to evade and distract from these merits — seem to resort at the end of the day to two basic defenses. First, the Bonhoeffer Defense — that Trump is such an existential threat that any illegal conduct can be justified, echoing Barry Goldwater (“extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”). Second, the “everybody does it defense” — which is far more reflective of the character of our leadership class than a defense of Comey or James.
Am I the only one who finds troubling the selective outrage on display in the judiciary? Ms. James and Mr. Comey were elevated by their country to high office, entrusted with great power and privilege in comparison to the average person. Yet they seem perfectly at ease using (and, in my opinion, abusing) their office and that trust to advance their personal and ideological interests. And members of the judiciary seem perfectly at ease holding them to a lower standard than they would an average citizen. How can any red-hat MAGA have faith that they will receive fair and impartial justice before these judges?
*. Didn’t someone want to look at the idea of “special counsel” generally as having a sunset date?
James has an email stating the Virginia digs were not her primary residence? Shouldn’t someone have worked on on these horrible cases in advance or as they were occurring especially the Bragg’s daisy chain? These are just cogs in the wheel. The heads of the hydra need severing. Someone call in Perseus.
The opposition is armed.
The crazy part about Judge Currie’s opinion is that he cited Judge Cannon’s goofy opinion on illegal appointments. If Jack Smith can be deemed an illegal appointment, so can Halligan. Yikes.
For pity’s sake, Judge Currie is a woman. I thought you lot were obsessive about getting the gender right!
It’s true, the left can’t tell the difference between a male and a female.
Thank you JT, Finally saying trump is a blithering idiot without actually saying the words “trump is a blithering idiot”.
DUMB KAMALA VOTER!~ ANON
Please save your childish TDS manure for a less-worthy website.
If anyone is to blame for this fiasco it’s Pam Bondi. She is facing potential disbarrment for supporting and backing Halligan’s incompetence.
Keep in mind that Trump appointed Seibert and everyone agreed he was a good pick. Until he and the other professionals found that there was no probable cause to indict Comey. So Trump demands Bondi replace him with his own handpicked choice Lindsey Halligan. An insurance lawyer with zero criminal prosecution experience. She just looked pretty and was above all…loyal like a puppy. What a disaster that turned out to be. I thought Trump only picked the best. Apparently not.
I just googled it and did not find any references to Bondi “facing potential disbarment for supporting and backing” Halligan. And how does the district court’s interpretation that Halligan was not validly appointed mean Halligan herself was incompetent?
As for no probable cause to indict Comey, the grand jury which heard all the evidence decided otherwise. So that argument fails.
So . . . pretty much every word of your comment misses the mark. Perhaps you are a mindless drone paid by Chinese Communist overlords to make stupid comments just to stir the pot.
….. except the grand jury never saw the final indictment.
Why do you keep repeating this lie, it was stripped of one charge and resubmitted and approved. Quit lying.
What was the “lie”?
To be legally valid, an indictment must be presented to the grand jury, and at least 12 grand jurors must approve of that indictment. That basic requirement was not satisfied.
The DOJ acknowledged that the full grand jury never saw the final indictment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/19/comey-trump-abuse-power-hearing/
I said precisely that.
What was the lie?
The DOJ acknowledged that the full grand jury never saw the final indictment. I said precisely that. What was the lie?
The lie is your claim the DoJ agreed with Russia Dossier WaPoo, CNN, George X, you and other Democrat police state fascist trolls that the GJ didn’t see the second true bill of indictment. The DoJ did the opposite. FOUR days before the decision – and two days after the Russia Dossier WaPoo article you quoted. Not even the judge handing down this decision agrees with you police state fascists.
The Russia Dossier WaPoo, you, and George X are not the official court transcript. Nor do you get away with pretending that you are – or pretending you actually read the transcript rather than cutting and pasting earlier Democrat lies and omissions.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf
The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively establishes that the grand jury voted on—and true-billed—the two-count indictment.” any assertion that the grand jury ‘never voted on the two-count indictment’ is contradicted by the official transcript. This confirms that the grand jury failed to obtain concurrence on Count One, and that Counts Two and Three were placed into a separate two-count indictment that the grand jury approved.
This completely bogus attempt by the government to “correct the record” does not prove what you think it proves.
In fact it proves that Halligan failed to confirm the foreperson’s allegation that the grand jury indicted on two of the three count.
The transcript you posted showing the interaction between the judge and the jury foreperson is selectively edited. It fails to reflect the judge’s comments that the FIRST document showed that there was no indictment on ALL COUNTS.
The foreperson ALLEGED that there was a clerical error and that the GJ had actually indicted on two of the counts, and failed to indict on Count 1.
The problem is that Halligan did not confirm this with the full GJ. She simply accepted the allegation by the foreperson
This completely bogus attempt by the government to “correct the record” does not prove what you think it proves.
Your continued bogus Lyin’ Like Joe Biden does not make you and the Russia Dossier Washington Post the actual record of the proceedings.
What would you like to defend first: your claim the full Grand Jury never saw the full transcript?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf
Or explain why your claim these indictments are dead is true when the judge dismissed them “without prejudice” – instead of “with prejudice”.
Without Lyin’ and Denyin’, you Democrats wouldn’t have anything to campaign on, and you still have nothing to honestly debate on.
oldmanfromkansas,
You’re a bit confused. Halligan’s appointment was deemed invalid. Her competence is separate from that.
There was no probable cause for Comey’s indictment. Halligan is the only one who presented evidence to the grand jury and they no billed one of the charges. She doctored up a second indictment with two charges and had the clerk sign it. She was supposed to reintroduce the second indictment to the grand jury to review and she never did that. The grand jury never issued an indictment on Comey’s charges. Halligan just assumed she just needed to remove the no billed charge and re-write the two charges on a different document. The law required that the grand jury review the two charges she kept and have the grand jury return an indictment on those two charges. She didn’t do that. Because of that the GJ legally never issued an indicment of Comey. He was never indicted from the get-go. That is one of her biggest mistakes.
The appointment issue is just another of multiple fatal flaws in the case.
The charges of Comey lying to congress under oath don’t hold up because due to the AUSA’s helping Halligan and their incompetence they tried to use privileged attorney-client information and the problem is using Dan Richman as the FBI agent he allegedly recruited to leak info fails to mention Richman was NOT an FBI employee at the time. There are so many problems with the case and Halligan’s incompetence just made things worse. This is why more experienced lawyers, true professionals, refused to touch this case.
Comey never lied to Congress. That is why Seibert could not press charges against Comey. Trump wanted comey punished no matter what and that is where vindictive prosecution comes in. Seibert knew that and that is why he resigned.
There was no probable cause for Comey’s indictment… Comey never lied to Congress.
Lyin’ Like A Proud Biden – how cute! And who would have expected that!
The Grand Jury in that overwhelmingly Democrat jurisdiction returned a true bill on two of the three charges – you’re here Lyin’ Like Joe Biden to claim they didn’t. Then you double down by claiming Comey never lied to Congress.
Going to tell us he didn’t repeatedly perjure himself in Judge Boasberg’s FISA courts as well? And that he hasn’t repeatedly been referred for prosecution by the Inspector General, Congressional committees, etc?
The grand jury no-billed one of three charges in the ORIGINAL indictment. Halligan reissued the indictment with only the two charges, BUT instead of returning the indictment to the grand jury to vote on the two remaining charges she had the clerk sign the document and file it. That is NOT what the law requires and this shows how incompetent she is. She never showed the second indictment to the grand jury so they never voted on the two charges. Legally Comey was never indicted in the first place because of that screwup by Halligan.
Second, yes, Comey did NOT lie to Congress. He never did. Halligan relied on evidence that Dan Richman was the person Comey talked to. But that was not true. Halligan, again because of her incompetence, tried to use privileged information to “prove” Comey lied, but…the more experienced lawyers helping her realized her arguments were not lining up with the facts. Comey never lied. The allegation was based on a totallly different set of questions he was asked.
Halligan reissued the indictment with only the two charges, BUT instead of returning the indictment to the grand jury to vote on the two remaining charges she had the clerk sign the document and file it. That is NOT what the law requires and this shows how incompetent she is.
This Joe Biden level lie shows just how incompetent you lawyers sent here from the Demcrat Borg are.
You, George X, the The Russia Dossier WaPoo, CNN and whoever you cribbed and copy and pasted your post from are not the official court transcript. Nor do you get away with pretending that you are – or pretending you actually read any transcript rather than cutting and pasting earlier Democrat lies and omissions.
The Grand Jury saw and true-billed the second indictment a month before this decision was handed down. And that fact, with supporting evidence, was put before the judge handing this decision down four days before he made his decision, after Comey’s lawyers put forward that argument.
Can you at least get your masters at the Democrat Borg to agree to send us a more entertaining type of Democrat lying apparatchik?
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf
The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively establishes that the grand jury voted on—and true-billed—the two-count indictment.” any assertion that the grand jury ‘never voted on the two-count indictment’ is contradicted by the official transcript. This confirms that the grand jury failed to obtain concurrence on Count One, and that Counts Two and Three were placed into a separate two-count indictment that the grand jury approved.
Until he and the other professionals found that there was no probable cause to indict Comey.
Keep in mind that Trump didn’t know Seibert had close personal relationships with James Comey and Seibert was careful to avoid acknowledging he had them when he did his little political theater on his way out to maintain his loyalty to his personal ties to Comey.
She is facing potential disbarrment for supporting and backing Halligan’s incompetence.
Same bar association who refused to disbar The First Felon Crackhead Kid and the FBI lawyer who pled guilty to forging documents in order to fraudulently obtain spy warrants against a patriotic American naval veteran?
The Democrat Borg never sends us their best apparatchiks – we get kids that think the Internet forgets.
And this is why public confidence in the legal system is at an all time low.