I'm guessing it was one grand jury, given the time crunch Hooligan [sic] was in, and I'm also guessing that they weren't shown the report of the inspector general on their investigation that totally exonerates Comey and that states in plain language that it was Andrew McCabe who was untruthful in the matter, not Comey. See Lawrence O'Donnell's segment last night on MSNBC where he covers this in his inimitable way:
This prosecution should not only be laughed out of court, it should be laughed into court. Trump's own conduct is criminal.
Some pundits recently have proved (including with clips of Trump speaking about the freedom of speech) Trump, personally, actually knows that his conduct violates our Constitution. Trump's court filings in New York regarding the freedom of speech even more compellingly proved that Trump, personally, actually knows that his conduct violates our Constitution. Trump's knowledge makes Trump's conduct criminal.
The simple truth and the dispositive principle is that Trump knowingly violated his oath of office and our Constitution. No words of any statute can authorize anyone to violate any person's rights secured by our Constitution. Two federal criminal statutes say exactly that.
Lots of conduct purportedly under "color" of "law" or "custom" is criminal. It is a federal offense for any purported public servant to act “under” mere “color of any” legal authority or purported “custom” to “willfully” deprive "any person" of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution” or federal “laws” (18 U.S.C. § 242) or to “conspire” with anyone to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” in "the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to” him “by the Constitution” or federal “laws” or because such person “exercised” such “right or privilege” (18 U.S.C. § 241).
Hopefully this will be the first Trump Administration official to be indicted for obstruction and making false statements … but will anyone be left? Delay and falsehood are the hallmark of this sad needy man.
It's true: "The court can sanction lawyers for signing an indictment they know isn’t supported by the facts." But courts can sanction lawyers for much more than that knowledge, which may well be why no other attorney put his name on that court filing. Lawyers can be sanctioned for failing to conduct a "reasonable inquiry." The sanction also is not limited to those who sign a filing. It can be imposed on any attorney who is responsible for "presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it."
As SCOTUS emphasized decades ago in Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc’ns Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533 (1991), "The certification requirement [in Rule 11] now mandates that all [attorneys] consider their behavior in terms of the duty they owe to the court system to conserve its resources and avoid unnecessary proceedings." Any attorney who presents a paper to the Court “certifies to the court that [he] has read the document, has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law and is satisfied that the document is well grounded in both, and is acting without any improper motive.” Rule 11 “states unambiguously that [the attorney] must conduct a ‘reasonable inquiry’ or face sanctions.”
The governing federal law is Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which covers any attorney who is responsible for "presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it." See https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11
Halligan upon filing (and any other attorney upon advocating it) "certifies" two things: first, that she conducted "an inquiry" that was "reasonable under the circumstances," and second "to the best of" her "knowledge, information, and belief" (after conducting the foregoing inquiry) all the following are true:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Please don't say that Bondi "preposterously" said "no one is above the law.” That's one assertion that is true, and Bondi didn't merely "claim" it. She admitted (and proved) that she knew it. That's what makes her own conduct criminal. See my comment in this thread about 18 U.S.C. Sections 241, 242.
Bondi and Halligan (and every public servant in the executive branch below the president, in compliance with 5 U.S.C. 3331) swore (and publicly acknowledged that they knew) that their first, foremost and constant duty was to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution (not any person, party or ideology that violates or attacks or undermines our Constitution).
As Article VI emphasizes, "the supreme Law of the Land" is, first, our "Constitution, and" then the federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties" and all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" are "bound" to "support" our "Constitution."
As Trump, Bondi and Halligan know, the First Amendment is perfectly clear that no federal public servant was given any power to make or enforce any purported law "abridging the freedom of speech." They know they cannot use criminal prosecutions for the purpose of retaliating against or intimidating Trump's critics. That kind of conduct (retaliating against critics, including for the purpose of intimidating other actual or potential critics) once was called the crime of "seditious libel." Trump, Bondi and Halligan are trying to prosecute that crime under a different name.
I am certainly no fan of James Comey especially for his actions in the waning moments of the 2016 campaign that may have cost Hillary Clinton the election. On Earth 1, this action would have put Comey in Drumpf's good graces forever. Of course, that ended when Comey refused to stop the investigation into Russia's role in influencing the 2016 election. That cooked his goose on Earth 2. HOWEVER, it is ludicrous and a complete farce that these terse and poorly written indictments are the sole basis for causing this man and his family to endure such expense, anguish and trauma. The junta has already cruelly wielded its axe on his daughter who is now suing the monsters for termination without cause.
Day by day, the lights are going out all over our country as the unbridled actions of an orange-faced madman continue his reign of retribution. The time for strong and swift actions is NOW.
My questions are: 1) if Halligan only belongs to the bar in FL, how was she able to present this case in VA? 2) If everyone else who looked at this accusation - people with considerable experience and skills - didn't think they could even get an indictment, how did someone who's never prosecuted a case, or perhaps even been involved in a trial, walk into a grand jury and get an indictment? What was her evidence? There doesn't even seem to be clarity on what the supposed lie was. This whole series of events makes no sense.
Question is, how can she sign off on the charges when she can’t practice in Virginia? She hasn’t taken/passed the bar, so that seems to be an illegal filing. Can someone clarify but from other things I read this would be the case.
Lawyers can get admitted “pro hac vice” to a jurisdiction where they aren’t a bar member for purposes of a specific case, so it’s not an issue. It happens all the time.
I wonder how many different grand juries were empaneled to finally get this indictment.
And this in that context that getting an indictment occurs in 90 to 95 percent of the time.
I'm guessing it was one grand jury, given the time crunch Hooligan [sic] was in, and I'm also guessing that they weren't shown the report of the inspector general on their investigation that totally exonerates Comey and that states in plain language that it was Andrew McCabe who was untruthful in the matter, not Comey. See Lawrence O'Donnell's segment last night on MSNBC where he covers this in his inimitable way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2iYHh4jq68&list=TLPQMjYwOTIwMjWWkeabJdSg7Q&index=4
Unfortunately, prosecutors do not as a rule provide exculpatory evidence in grand jury proceedings.
Agreed—one grand jury … fed an onslaught of misinformation and lies.
I’m planning to file a complaint to the Florida bar against her for filing a frivolous indictment. Any downsides to doing that?
Yes. You are not a party to the action and would be risking a fine. And you really don't want to pay court costs and filing fees, do you?
This prosecution should not only be laughed out of court, it should be laughed into court. Trump's own conduct is criminal.
Some pundits recently have proved (including with clips of Trump speaking about the freedom of speech) Trump, personally, actually knows that his conduct violates our Constitution. Trump's court filings in New York regarding the freedom of speech even more compellingly proved that Trump, personally, actually knows that his conduct violates our Constitution. Trump's knowledge makes Trump's conduct criminal.
The simple truth and the dispositive principle is that Trump knowingly violated his oath of office and our Constitution. No words of any statute can authorize anyone to violate any person's rights secured by our Constitution. Two federal criminal statutes say exactly that.
Lots of conduct purportedly under "color" of "law" or "custom" is criminal. It is a federal offense for any purported public servant to act “under” mere “color of any” legal authority or purported “custom” to “willfully” deprive "any person" of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution” or federal “laws” (18 U.S.C. § 242) or to “conspire” with anyone to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” in "the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to” him “by the Constitution” or federal “laws” or because such person “exercised” such “right or privilege” (18 U.S.C. § 241).
Hopefully this will be the first Trump Administration official to be indicted for obstruction and making false statements … but will anyone be left? Delay and falsehood are the hallmark of this sad needy man.
I sure wish we could read the transcript of the grand jury proceedings. My guess is that they weren't on the up and up.
Can non-lawyers submit ethics complaints to their state board? (I'm in Floorduh).
Most certainly. Check out https://www.floridabar.org/ethics/
Thanks!!! New here and will definitely save that website.
It's true: "The court can sanction lawyers for signing an indictment they know isn’t supported by the facts." But courts can sanction lawyers for much more than that knowledge, which may well be why no other attorney put his name on that court filing. Lawyers can be sanctioned for failing to conduct a "reasonable inquiry." The sanction also is not limited to those who sign a filing. It can be imposed on any attorney who is responsible for "presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it."
As SCOTUS emphasized decades ago in Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc’ns Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533 (1991), "The certification requirement [in Rule 11] now mandates that all [attorneys] consider their behavior in terms of the duty they owe to the court system to conserve its resources and avoid unnecessary proceedings." Any attorney who presents a paper to the Court “certifies to the court that [he] has read the document, has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law and is satisfied that the document is well grounded in both, and is acting without any improper motive.” Rule 11 “states unambiguously that [the attorney] must conduct a ‘reasonable inquiry’ or face sanctions.”
The governing federal law is Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which covers any attorney who is responsible for "presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it." See https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11
Halligan upon filing (and any other attorney upon advocating it) "certifies" two things: first, that she conducted "an inquiry" that was "reasonable under the circumstances," and second "to the best of" her "knowledge, information, and belief" (after conducting the foregoing inquiry) all the following are true:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Thank you for this very insightful article!
Please don't say that Bondi "preposterously" said "no one is above the law.” That's one assertion that is true, and Bondi didn't merely "claim" it. She admitted (and proved) that she knew it. That's what makes her own conduct criminal. See my comment in this thread about 18 U.S.C. Sections 241, 242.
Bondi and Halligan (and every public servant in the executive branch below the president, in compliance with 5 U.S.C. 3331) swore (and publicly acknowledged that they knew) that their first, foremost and constant duty was to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution (not any person, party or ideology that violates or attacks or undermines our Constitution).
As Article VI emphasizes, "the supreme Law of the Land" is, first, our "Constitution, and" then the federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties" and all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" are "bound" to "support" our "Constitution."
As Trump, Bondi and Halligan know, the First Amendment is perfectly clear that no federal public servant was given any power to make or enforce any purported law "abridging the freedom of speech." They know they cannot use criminal prosecutions for the purpose of retaliating against or intimidating Trump's critics. That kind of conduct (retaliating against critics, including for the purpose of intimidating other actual or potential critics) once was called the crime of "seditious libel." Trump, Bondi and Halligan are trying to prosecute that crime under a different name.
https://strongfixion.substack.com/p/reading-leon-trotskys-the-assassination?r=26v1w7
I am certainly no fan of James Comey especially for his actions in the waning moments of the 2016 campaign that may have cost Hillary Clinton the election. On Earth 1, this action would have put Comey in Drumpf's good graces forever. Of course, that ended when Comey refused to stop the investigation into Russia's role in influencing the 2016 election. That cooked his goose on Earth 2. HOWEVER, it is ludicrous and a complete farce that these terse and poorly written indictments are the sole basis for causing this man and his family to endure such expense, anguish and trauma. The junta has already cruelly wielded its axe on his daughter who is now suing the monsters for termination without cause.
Day by day, the lights are going out all over our country as the unbridled actions of an orange-faced madman continue his reign of retribution. The time for strong and swift actions is NOW.
My questions are: 1) if Halligan only belongs to the bar in FL, how was she able to present this case in VA? 2) If everyone else who looked at this accusation - people with considerable experience and skills - didn't think they could even get an indictment, how did someone who's never prosecuted a case, or perhaps even been involved in a trial, walk into a grand jury and get an indictment? What was her evidence? There doesn't even seem to be clarity on what the supposed lie was. This whole series of events makes no sense.
Why does EDVA have jurisdiction and not DC? Was his testimony by zoom from VA and not actually in Congress?
Why does EDVA have jurisdiction and not DC? Was his testimony by zoom from VA and not actually in Congress?
Question is, how can she sign off on the charges when she can’t practice in Virginia? She hasn’t taken/passed the bar, so that seems to be an illegal filing. Can someone clarify but from other things I read this would be the case.
Lawyers can get admitted “pro hac vice” to a jurisdiction where they aren’t a bar member for purposes of a specific case, so it’s not an issue. It happens all the time.