Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Chub_Law on Reddit: I went to the joint dismissal hearings in U.S. v. Comey/U.S. v. James. Here are my impressions.
Posted at r/ Democratic Party. https://www.reddit.com/r/democraticparty/s/rjbRH2WSAb
I went to the joint dismissal hearing in U.S. v. Comey / U.S. v. James. Here are my impressions.
As Reddit's aspiring resident court reporter in the coming political trials, here's what I saw today:
* Defense council for Comey and James (Ephraim McDowell and Abbe Lowell, respectively) completely outclassed the Gov't lawyer (Henry Whitaker). I know it was a tall order for the Gov't lawyer, but Defense were direct, crisp, and on the attack throughout. The Gov't started a bit timid, stammered at times, and could not give satisfying, worked-through answers when questioned by Judge Currie. It felt like Defense was prosecuting the Gov't.
* Halligan did not say a word. Whitaker was the only one arguing for the Gov't.
* The most contentious part of the hearing was when the Gov't claimed AG Bondi ratified the potentially defective Grand Jury indictments after reviewing the Grand Jury transcript. Judge Currie immediately, and sternly, asserted this was impossible as **there is still a large chunk of the transcript that is missing** (from 4:28 pm until the Grand Jury was released, around 6 pm I think). The Judge also indicated it was possible, if not likely, that the court reporter was out of the room during this period of time.
* The law appeared to be completely in Defense's favor today. Without getting too bogged down in the legal minutiae, the Gov't's core pitch is: the AG (Bondi) can re-appoint an interim US Attorney and later ratify any Grand Jury action, eliminating any defect in either case. Defense's argument is grounded in the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and statutory language in 28 U.S.C. § 546, which governs the appointment of interim US Attorneys. Essentially, if there is not an authorized Gov't official securing indictments, then a defendant's civil rights are infringed upon.
* And, there is an outstanding motion in this case that accuses Halligan of leaking Grand Jury material to a journalist.
Judge Currie said she would have a decision with respect to these motions to dismiss by Thanksgiving.
As Reddit's aspiring resident court reporter in the coming political trials, here's what I saw today:
* Defense council for Comey and James (Ephraim McDowell and Abbe Lowell, respectively) completely outclassed the Gov't lawyer (Henry Whitaker). I know it was a tall order for the Gov't lawyer, but Defense were direct, crisp, and on the attack throughout. The Gov't started a bit timid, stammered at times, and could not give satisfying, worked-through answers when questioned by Judge Currie. It felt like Defense was prosecuting the Gov't.
* Halligan did not say a word. Whitaker was the only one arguing for the Gov't.
* The most contentious part of the hearing was when the Gov't claimed AG Bondi ratified the potentially defective Grand Jury indictments after reviewing the Grand Jury transcript. Judge Currie immediately, and sternly, asserted this was impossible as **there is still a large chunk of the transcript that is missing** (from 4:28 pm until the Grand Jury was released, around 6 pm I think). The Judge also indicated it was possible, if not likely, that the court reporter was out of the room during this period of time.
* The law appeared to be completely in Defense's favor today. Without getting too bogged down in the legal minutiae, the Gov't's core pitch is: the AG (Bondi) can re-appoint an interim US Attorney and later ratify any Grand Jury action, eliminating any defect in either case. Defense's argument is grounded in the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and statutory language in 28 U.S.C. § 546, which governs the appointment of interim US Attorneys. Essentially, if there is not an authorized Gov't official securing indictments, then a defendant's civil rights are infringed upon.
* And, there is an outstanding motion in this case that accuses Halligan of leaking Grand Jury material to a journalist.
Judge Currie said she would have a decision with respect to these motions to dismiss by Thanksgiving.