Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Featured Replies

Halligan and the Department of Jesters reverse course:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-halligan-slam-judge-comey-case-hearing/story?id=127709589

The second indictment was now presented to the full grand jury.  

Which creates a problem because there's no transcript of that.

Fucking clown show.

Also, Halligan & Co. lying in public about a "rogue judge."

Edited by TwiceHorn

  • Replies 667
  • Views 41.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Captainant
    Captainant

    Comey getting dragged into a political investigation prosecuted by the man he put into office with a political investigation is some decent irony. I'm sure he'll beat the rap, but I kind of hope it's

  • more details on what HJ posted: I hope this woman prosecutes every case for the DOJ in their witch hunt. She's wonderfully incompetent.

  • HenryJames
    HenryJames

    Neither is Lindsey Halligan.

Posted Images

I hear Judges love it when attorneys lie to them repeatedly.  

Reading that story a little more carefully, I'm not sure it's wholly accurate.

The AUSA said the other day it was "his understanding" that the second indictment was not presented to the full grand jury.

In a written filing, they worded it a bit more "cagily."

Also, before we get too excited about this resulting in dismissal of all charges (there are several other things that could have that result), there's a case that some have trumpeted as being on point.  Many years ago, the DC grand juries weren't presented with indictments, just the evidence and "returned" a piece of paper saying they true-billed or no-billed a charge of a crime, ie wire fraud or perjury or whatever.  The US Attorney then prepared an actual indictment in the form we see that was never actually passed on by the grand jury.

The DC Circuit ruled that that did not satisfy Rule 6 and the requirement that the grand jury be presented with and pass upon an indictment.  It requires an actual indictment, and the indictment that is filed to commence a criminal case.  It also held that that was harmless error in that case, so no harm no foul.

That means that the government will probably continue to be embarrassed and debase itself on Comey's other motions.

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Halligan and the Department of Jesters reverse course:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-halligan-slam-judge-comey-case-hearing/story?id=127709589

The second indictment was now presented to the full grand jury.  

Which creates a problem because there's no transcript of that.

Fucking clown show.

Also, Halligan & Co. lying in public about a "rogue judge."

On Wednesday standing in court they told the truth, with the truth being potentially catastrophic for them. So on Thursday they file a brief lying in the hopes of holding of the catastrophic failure and in a development no one could have seen coming, smeared the Judge by issuing statements contrary to the actual record; you know, lying. Again. 

Lying to a judge to try to indict Comey for lying to Congress, this timeline is amazing

This is all over Comey saying five years ago "I stand by my previous statement", correct? 

When you consider the amount of lies that have been spewed the past 10 years, as well as the testimony before Congress of these shitheads in office, it's just fucking amazing. 

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

This is all over Comey saying five years ago "I stand by my previous statement", correct? 

When you consider the amount of lies that have been spewed the past 10 years, as well as the testimony before Congress of these shitheads in office, it's just fucking amazing. 

Yep.  

There's a good argument that that statement is literally true, unless it could somehow be proven that Comey didn't "stand by" his previous testimony.  The government wants to treat that as repeating false testimony that was outside limitations within limitations.

But it's going to be hard for the government to prove his 2017 testimony was false.

25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Reading that story a little more carefully, I'm not sure it's wholly accurate.

The AUSA said the other day it was "his understanding" that the second indictment was not presented to the full grand jury.

In a written filing, they worded it a bit more "cagily."

Also, before we get too excited about this resulting in dismissal of all charges (there are several other things that could have that result), there's a case that some have trumpeted as being on point.  Many years ago, the DC grand juries weren't presented with indictments, just the evidence and "returned" a piece of paper saying they true-billed or no-billed a charge of a crime, ie wire fraud or perjury or whatever.  The US Attorney then prepared an actual indictment in the form we see that was never actually passed on by the grand jury.

The DC Circuit ruled that that did not satisfy Rule 6 and the requirement that the grand jury be presented with and pass upon an indictment.  It requires an actual indictment, and the indictment that is filed to commence a criminal case.  It also held that that was harmless error in that case, so no harm no foul.

That means that the government will probably continue to be embarrassed and debase itself on Comey's other motions.

Comey played fuck around and find out games. He really could’ve derailed all this chaos bullshit early, but chose instead to publicly announce their Clinton’s email investigation.  Fuck him, albeit the enemy of my enemy and so forth.

1 minute ago, Mdhorn said:

Comey played fuck around and find out games. He really could’ve derailed all this chaos bullshit early, but chose instead to publicly announce their Clinton’s email investigation.  Fuck him, albeit the enemy of my enemy and so forth.

Comey's a dick, no question about it.

But, there are two, mostly unrelated, things driving Trump's animus.  One is a failure to indict Hildawg for "butter emails," which wasn't Comey's call in the first place and should never have been.  But I think the real animus here is Russia, Russia, Russia.  And Comey's criticism of him.  And both of those ignore the huge favor Comey did by going public with the WIener shit.

This is a pretty good piece from Lawfare.  https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/comey--james--and--animus-through-a-megaphone

Although its primary topic is vindictive prosecution, it goes into some detail about the quality of the charges notwithstanding animus, particularly as relates to Letitia James.

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Comey's a dick, no question about it.

But, there are two, mostly unrelated, things driving Trump's animus.  One is a failure to indict Hildawg for "butter emails," which wasn't Comey's call in the first place and should never have been.  But I think the real animus here is Russia, Russia, Russia.  And Comey's criticism of him.  And both of those ignore the huge favor Comey did by going public with the WIener shit.

This is a pretty good piece from Lawfare.  https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/comey--james--and--animus-through-a-megaphone

Although its primary topic is vindictive prosecution, it goes into some detail about the quality of the charges notwithstanding animus, particularly as relates to Letitia James.

My understanding is regardless of all the sexual rape charges, Epstein island ties, real estate fraud, tax fraud, fraud fraud, tyranny, whatever, turnips biggest fear is all the Russian connections. 

Edited by Mdhorn

8 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

My understanding is regardless of all the sexual rape charges, Epstein island ties, real estate fraud, tax fraud, fraud fraud, tyranny, whatever, turnips biggest fear is all the Russian connections. 

He still reminds us unprompted almost daily of the "Russia hoax". 

1 minute ago, Mdhorn said:

My understanding is all the sexual rape charges, Epstein island ties, real estate fraud, tax fraud, fraud fraud, tyranny, whatever, turnips biggest fear is all the Russian connections. 

The thing that's infuriating about all that is that it is clear that Russia has done many things to promote Trump and American discord, with or without Trump's knowledge or consent (it was with but will probably never be proven).

The Carter Page thing was a huge fuckup, but well within FBI apolitical shittiness norms (like most LEO, their zeal to get their man often results in civil rights violations, at best).  And the Steele Dossier is a massive red herring.

Unfortunately, those two things provide just enough taint to give Trump talking, or screaming, points.

James Comey played a far more substantive role in influencing the outcome of the 2016 election, and certainly the aftermath, than any jerkoff for Jesus or hildawg arm wresting satan memes did. 

53 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

My understanding is regardless of all the sexual rape charges, Epstein island ties, real estate fraud, tax fraud, fraud fraud, tyranny, whatever, turnips biggest fear is all the Russian connections. 

The fact that he is promoting a peace plan for Ukraine written by Russia speaks volumes.  

18 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Nice.

I was wrong, sort of, about the holding in Gaither above.  In that case, they found the defective indictment to be harmless after discussing prejudice to the defendant.

But they also said the prejudice standard was unmanageable and going forward all actual indictments would need to be actually presented to and voted upon by the grand jury.  And if they were not, they must be dismissed, regardless of prejudice.

So, it looks like this indictment is going bye-bye on this alone.

Then there's the question whether the government can bring another one in the six month period provided above.

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

I was wrong,

Said nobody, ever, on the football board.

Although I hate to judge before all the facts are in, between this and the Texas map fiasco, it's beginning to look like, uh, Trump is not using the brightest attorneys. 

He’s got SCOTUS in his back pocket. You don’t need good attorneys when you’ve got that.
17 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

Then there's the question whether the government can bring another one in the six month period provided above.

Quote

18 U.S. Code § 3288 - Indictments and information dismissed after period of limitations 

U.S. Code 

Notes 

prev | next

Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information, or, in the event of an appeal, within 60 days of the date the dismissal of the indictment or information becomes final, or, if no regular grand jury is in session in the appropriate jurisdiction when the indictment or information is dismissed, within six calendar months of the date when the next regular grand jury is convened, which new indictment shall not be barred by any statute of limitations. This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution.

Twice, look at the bold language in the quote.  Seems to indicate that the six month add-on would not apply in this situation, as if the indictment was not proper in the first place and a nullity, that means no prior indictment was filed within the applicable statute of limitations.  Which would seem to prohibit the filing of a new indictment within six months of the court finding this one not being a true bill in the first place within the statute of limitations.
 

The fact that the many criminal practitioner legal commentators have focused on the statute of limitations having being passed - and none of them mentioning an extra six extra months - suggests to me that the additional six months is not an option here. Dunno. 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135.212.0.pdf

Team Comey’s legal team filed this Motion to Dismiss last night, and while not a quick read, is a great explanation of the various problems facing Halligan and Bondi - and his explanation why that criminal indictment should be dismissed with prejudice, forever precluding the government’s ability to charge him criminally for those same acts.

 

Edited by Gatorubet

6 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Twice, look at the bold language in the quote.  Seems to indicate that the six month add-on would not apply in this situation, as if the indictment was not proper in the first place and a nullity, that means no prior indictment was filed within the applicable statute of limitations.  Which would seem to prohibit the filing of a new indictment within six months of the court finding this one not being a true bill in the first place within the statute of limitations.
 

The fact that the many criminal practitioner legal commentators have focused on the statute of limitations having being passed - and none of them mentioning an extra six extra months - suggests to me that the additional six months is not an option here. Dunno. 

I know, there's a question there.  

I've seen it discussed a few times, I don't think it's clear.

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I know, there's a question there.  

I've seen it discussed a few times, I don't think it's clear.

I agree. It’s why they say you don’t wanna watch legislation or sausage being made.   

I’ve never practiced criminal law and know nothing about it.  I am unclear about that whole three count indictment being followed by the two count indictment.  If the original indictment contained three counts, with the the grand jury not finding count one, but blessing count two and three, would that mean that the second and third counts were valid, and therefore did not need a redo?

Because one could argue that the first indictment was legit as far as the two counts the grand jury did find, with the crazy second indictment being brought after speaking to only two grand jury members being a superfluous moot process.  And if two of the three counts were true-billed by the grand jury before the staff of limitations, then you would have six more months.

Normally, I could assume the fact that Halligan made the effort to get a second indictment was proof that the first indictment was rendered invalid when one of the three counts was not true billed.   But she is such an inexperienced incompetent dumb fuck, that assumption would be a mistake.

IMG_5494.gif.b33ba7cfae8d06fa86e191ff541e8cc4.gif

if Halligan’s alleged fourth and fifth amendment violations (using privileged evidence between Comey and his attorney that was illegally put before the grand jury - and improperly telling the grand jury that it was up to Comey to give testimony about his innocence) are found to have occurred, then the first indictment is null for different reasons, and potentially not a legitimate indictment within the statute of limitations for that separate reason - regardless of whether the entire grand jury read the second indictment and voted.

Finally, if Miss Colorado is not a duly appointed interim attorney general, she had no authority to sign the indictment, or any indictment, and that nullity would also seem to prevent the six extra months provision. 

I admit to being fascinated by all of this.

Edited by Gatorubet

12 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I agree. It’s why they say you don’t wanna watch legislation or sausage being made.   

I’ve never practiced criminal law and know nothing about it.  I am unclear about that whole three count indictment being followed by the two count indictment.  If the original indictment contained three counts, with the the grand jury not finding count one, but blessing count two and three, would that mean that the second and third counts were valid, and therefore did not need a redo?

Because one could argue that the first indictment was legit as far as the two counts the grand jury did find, with the crazy second indictment being brought after speaking to only two grand jury members being a superfluous moot process.  And if two of the three counts were true-billed by the grand jury before the staff of limitations, then you would have six more months.

Normally, I could assume the fact that Halligan made the effort to get a second indictment was proof that the first indictment was rendered invalid when one of the three counts was not true billed.   But she is such an inexperienced incompetent dumb fuck, that assumption would be a mistake.

IMG_5494.gif.b33ba7cfae8d06fa86e191ff541e8cc4.gif

if Halligan’s alleged fourth and fifth amendment violations (using privileged evidence between Comey and his attorney that was illegally put before the grand jury - and improperly telling the grand jury that it was up to Comey to give testimony about his innocence) are found to have occurred, then the first indictment is null for different reasons, and potentially not a legitimate indictment within the statute of limitations for that separate reason - regardless of whether the entire grand jury read the second indictment and voted.

Finally, if Miss Colorado is not a duly appointed interim attorney general, she had no authority to sign the indictment, or any indictment, and that nullity would also seem to prevent the six extra months provision. 

I admit to being fascinated by all of this.

It's pretty formalistic. But, hey, it's law, and criminal law at that.

The evidence really seems to be that they voted true on two of the three counts.  The two that are the subject of the current indictment.

But they never saw or actually voted on the two-count indictment, which was the one returned to the court to commence the case.

I'd really like to see more of the vindictive prosecution evidence come to light before anything gets dismissed.

 

 

  • Popular Post

HIDE THE KETCHUP

Not a criminal lawyer, but "without prejudice" means subject to potentially re-filing, but then I understand there's a statute of limitations problem?

  • Popular Post

Dismissed the case against Letitia James too.

Just now, South Austin said:

Not a criminal lawyer, but "without prejudice" means subject to potentially re-filing, but then I understand there's a statute of limitations problem?

Yeah, not sure how that 6 month extension statute Twice Horn pointed out above figures in (whether they can legit re-indict or not).

1 minute ago, HenryJames said:

Dismissed the case against Letitia James too.

yup

 

  • Popular Post
3 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Not a criminal lawyer...

Neither is Lindsey Halligan.

10 minutes ago, The Dog said:

HIDE THE KETCHUP

image.png.59cc9a758787f6482e710281948a74a1.png

From what I understand, the James statute of limitations is 10 years from 2020.   

So that will ultimately be refiled, and then James will tee up the malicious selective prosecution defense again.

 

Edited by Gatorubet

34 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

IMG_5500.thumb.png.b015939ae61537bd825689cf062a9fc5.png

What's going on with her two toned makeup?  Makes her look like she's got a 5 o'clock shadow or something.  Still would.

38 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

From what I understand, the James statute of limitations is 10 years from 2020.   

So that will ultimately be refilled, and then James will tee up the malicious selective prosecution defense again.

 

Except Halligan was the only attorney at the DOJ willing to sign the first James indictment, and even if they can find another blonde with a law degree, the case will still be kicked for vindictive prosecution 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, not sure how that 6 month extension statute Twice Horn pointed out above figures in (whether they can legit re-indict or not).

The caveat I have is Judge Currie doesn’t “argue”, the court ruled that there was no valid indictment, so no tolling 

These both apparently are "without prejudice," which means they can be brought again with a properly appointed USA.

That means at this point one confirmed by the Senate or appointed on an acting basis by the district court.

The limitations and tolling issue might preclude that for Comey, unsure.  Not for James, though.

But, it would seem that it's going to be hard to get a lackey confirmed in the interim.  And the district court is unlikely to appoint one.

This is insufficient embarrassment of the Administration, imo.

But, this is going to impact Trump's practice nationwide of having "acting" USA's that are unconfirmable.

Edited by TwiceHorn

10 minutes ago, Captain Ron said:

I thought this bit from the last NY Times update was gold

 

image.png.2fc5c9f0cc1305a601e1900c468a0324.png

 

 

Here is a gift link for their live update page: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/11/24/us/trump-news?unlocked_article_code=1.3k8.c-Kr.rw6B4bRn-GPI&smid=url-share

 

Yeah, like I told y'all, this "appointments clause" stuff has real teeth.

This doesn't make Cannon's ruling correct, as the appointment procedure here is quite different from that  in the Special Counsel area.

But some truly FAFO shit.

48 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Except Halligan was the only attorney at the DOJ willing to sign the first James indictment, and even if they can find another blonde with a law degree, the case will still be kicked for vindictive prosecution 

Or grand jury misconduct.

Or failure to state an offense.

Good chance both of these cases are dead now.

Anyone appointed by the district court isn't going to touch these, and anyone nominated by Trump that's able to get confirmed likely won't go for it, either. 

Trump will throw his usual temper tantrum and his lackeys will go on Fox News and cry about it though. 

They almost definitely will appeal, but who is going to do it? 

41 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Except Halligan was the only attorney at the DOJ willing to sign the first James indictment, and even if they can find another blonde with a law degree, the case will still be kicked for vindictive prosecution 

IMG_5502.thumb.webp.63c7ffc0d5201accb64e8dbb5f25f8a6.webp

Briscoe Cain is tan rested and ready…and can be a blonde if you really want that…

3 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Good chance both of these cases are dead now.

Anyone appointed by the district court isn't going to touch these, and anyone nominated by Trump that's able to get confirmed likely won't go for it, either. 

Trump will throw his usual temper tantrum and his lackeys will go on Fox News and cry about it though. 

They almost definitely will appeal, but who is going to do it? 

Oh, for the appeal, this is probably kind of a juicy issue of statutory interpretation that you could get a civil-servant appellate lawyer interested in that's a step removed from the politics.

It's probably a lot easier to keep those civil servants around than trial attorneys exercising prosecutorial discretion.

4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

IMG_5502.thumb.webp.63c7ffc0d5201accb64e8dbb5f25f8a6.webp

Briscoe Cain is tan rested and ready…and can be a blonde if you really want that…

I think the Texas bar exam requires you to be at least 18 years old.

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.