US Magistrate Judge Vaala trying to untangle Lindsey Halligan's first adventure in indicting someone:

The standard for a grand jury is "probable cause" to hold a trial, and not "beyond a reasonable doubt". If a grand jury outcome is not unanimous or nearly so, it is a really bad sign for the prosecution.

I've seen this misreported in so many places, and I'm grateful to reporters like Anna for doing the legwork to get the details right!

I don’t really think this is Kennedy recognizing Trump as a threat; I’m sure it’s a both-sides polarization things. Kennedy liked Trump.

Still, indicates that *at least* two grand jurors did not find probable cause to indict Comey on the counts for which he is now charged. bsky.app/profile/anna...

I reviewed the court transcript. It’s true that only 14 grand jurors voted in favor of the Comey indictment, but the total number of grand jurors who voted is not specified. The minimum number required for a quorum is 16; the maximum is 23.

NEW: Trump falsely suggested today that rank-and-file FBI agents fomented the Jan. 6 attack that a mob of his supporters unleashed on the Capitol, leaning into conspiracy theories as he accuses a second FBI director of committing crimes w/ @iriesentner.bsky.social www.politico.com/news/2025/09...

I had missed this post from Ed Whelan questioning whether Lindsey Halligan was even validly appointed in the first place. One minor point: Whelan says that the 1986 Alito memo "might not be in the public domain," but in fact it is, thanks to the Alina Habba litigation!

On the deployment to Portland, I don’t have much to add beyond noting again that the theory of implied power the president is relying on is incredibly vague, unmoored from constitutional text, and extremely prone to abuse. I wrote about these and other problems soon after the LA deployment.

baby's first mention in the new yorker magazine !!! (sry I know this is cringe but it's v. exciting for me as someone who grew up idolizing the new yorker)

when you’ve lost Andy McCarthy

“JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED!” Trump posted on Truth Social after news of Comey's indictment broke. But as with George W. Bush’s famous announcement of Mission Accomplished, this declaration of victory may turn out to be premature.

Yesterday, I was leaning toward the idea that the indictment is about the McCabe stuff. Now I’m leaning more toward it being about the Richman stuff. Sigh. I need a bill of particulars.

For everyone asking: The Richman stuff isn’t about the memos. Before the memos episode, Richman worked with Comey as a Special Government Employee at the FBI. In that role, he sometimes spoke to reporters, including this story about the Clinton investigation.

This piece is really helpful, highly recommended:

To be clear: It's entirely possible this is about the Dan Richman stuff (as we catalogued in our piece for @lawfaremedia.org), not the Andy McCabe stuff. We don't really know the factual basis for the indictment because the indictment doesn't say. www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

If this indictment really is about the McCabe matter, the government's case appears to hinge on the idea that McCabe telling Comey about the disclosure *after the article published* somehow amounts to Comey "authorizing" it himself.

I'm sorry, I blinked and I missed it.

It’s not even a swearing contest. Both McCabe and Comey agree: They DID NOT discuss the leak before the article published. McCabe has said *he* authorized it, not Comey. Their recollections diverge on whether McCabe told Comey that he had authorized the leak AFTER the article published.

Of course we got the "blink and you'll miss it" Comey indictment minutes after I said I was heading off to find dinner: bsky.app/profile/anna...

Read the Comey indictment: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

🦗 🦗 🦗 🦗 🦗 🦗

Virginia State Bar Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(a): "A lawyer engaged in a prosecutorial function shall not file or maintain a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause." vsb.org/Site/Site/ab...

Paul Clement: Putting on an ongoing one-man demonstration of what the conservative legal movement would have looked in these times had it been touched by anything like principle.

I was back at 26 Federal Plaza today, where an ICE agent violently threw this bereft woman to the ground in front of her kids. She had not touched him. She did not pose any threat. She had to be taken to the hospital. (🎥: Elias Eliahu)

What’s Lindsey Halligan listening to before she presents this loser of a case to a grand jury? Wrong answers only.

I'm a reporter not a political strategist, but one answer to the question of "What can the opposition do?" is "Use the extraordinary investigative powers members of Congress have even when in the minority to get new information courts and journalists can't get."

ME TOO, PLEASE (I won’t attribute anything to you/keep the sourcing anonymous) Signal username: annabower.24

Morning. ☕ ICYMI: House and Senate Dems are going after law firms giving Trump millions in free legal services. They may not get far now, but what they're really doing is laying groundwork for full-blown congressional investigations the moment they flip the House. www.huffpost.com/entry/democr...

This is pretty thorough.

NEW WIRED led the way in reporting on Elon Musk's efforts to dismantle the US government. My colleagues and I spoke to 100s of employees at dozens of agencies to understand what happened. This is the definitive story of DOGE as told by those who experienced it www.wired.com/story/oral-h...

Anna and Ben just did more criminal procedure analysis than Lindsey has done in her career.

Tick, tock. Lindsey Halligan, the newly-installed prosecutor in EDVA, has less than a week to secure an indictment against James Comey before a key statute of limitations runs out. Ben Wittes and I examine her charging options. Spoiler alert: they all suck. www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

“In short, whatever way you play Halligan’s hand, you lose. You lose by bringing a conspiracy case. You lose by bringing a false statements case…The only question is whether you lose at the hands of a grand jury, a federal judge, or the president who just finished praising you on social media.”

“In short, whatever way you play Halligan’s hand, you lose. You lose by bringing a conspiracy case. You lose by bringing a false statements case…The only question is whether you lose at the hands of a grand jury, a federal judge, or the president who just finished praising you on social media.”

If Halligan tries to get an indictment, watch for two things: 1) Another mass resignation event of prosecutors who refuse to violate their ethical obligations by helping her; 2) The grand jury refuses to indict. There’s a decent chance we will see one or both.

A great read from @benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org & @annabower.bsky.social I think Halligan’s gonna shoot the moon and go with Stephen M’s red meat case. The Situation: Choose Your Own Adventure: Lindsey Halligan Edition www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

CHOTINER: And you didn’t know this person - what did you call him again? CELEBRIMBOR GREATEST OF THE ELVEN SMITHS: Right, his name was Annatar but CHOTINER: And you taught him to create a ring harnessing all his malice and cruelty? CELEBRIMBOR: Well I mean I was deceived CHOTINER: So you’ve said

Unless there’s an indictment under seal, I think it’d be preferable for reporters to say “prosecutors are expected to seek an indictment in the coming days.” Based on the public evidence, I’m not convinced we should expect the grand jury to return a true bill. www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

A pre-analysis of the @jamescomey.bsky.social indictment with the very estimable Ms. @annabower.bsky.social: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

The plan: get Jimmy Kimmel suspended so his ratings would quadruple. People are more interested in shows they’re not allowed to watch. This also allowed me to manufacture the biggest First Amendment issue in decades.

Can Lindsey Halligan make a case against James Comey? Outlook not good. www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

"You face an immediate problem: What should you charge him with? "This isn’t normally a problem prosecutors face, as they start with a crime, then figure out whodunnit …. But Trump wants Comey charged and is convinced he’s guilty of something, and it’s your job now to figure out what."

"This isn’t normally a problem prosecutors face, as they start with a crime, then figure out whodunnit, rather than starting with a person and only then deciding whathedun. But Trump wants Comey charged and is convinced he’s guilty of something, and it’s your job now to figure out what."

"But assuming you decide to move forward with the Comey case—you face an immediate problem: What should you charge him with?" @benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org and @annabower.bsky.social delve into the Trump administration's push to prosecute James Comey and the weaknesses of a case against him.

Tick, tock. Lindsey Halligan, the newly-installed prosecutor in EDVA, has less than a week to secure an indictment against James Comey before a key statute of limitations runs out. Ben Wittes and I examine her charging options. Spoiler alert: they all suck. www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

It was on Zoom! cc @ericcolumbus.bsky.social @kovarsky.bsky.social