40 Comments
User's avatar
Johan's avatar

From bungling basic media norms to filing a motion that tried to skip due process and smear defense counsel, the spectacle reveals a system that confuses aggression with strategy.

When governance becomes performance, legal institutions don’t just lose credibility, they lose behavioral coherence.

This whole thing feels like a spoof.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

American Justice … staring The Three Stooges.

Expand full comment
Rena Stone's avatar

This is kind of a slam against the Three Stooges, who were by no means this dumb and ineffectual.

Expand full comment
Geoff Webb's avatar

Confusing aggression with strategy? That's the whole ball game!

Expand full comment
Marycat2021's avatar

As with immigration, the cruelty is the point.

Expand full comment
Diane Bisson's avatar

If this case weren’t so serious in regards to Trump’s retribution plans it would be laughable. I look forward to seeing his (and Bondi’s) very unqualified attorney fall on her face in full view as the rest of the country views exactly how low the DOJ has fallen under his administration.

Expand full comment
Rena Stone's avatar

As a retired lawyer (who practiced insurance coverage law and would never have thought I was qualified to practice criminal law since I'm not a moron), I can't express how much this piece sparks joy. I look forward to Ms. Halligan's public humiliation[s].

Expand full comment
Aaron Rupar's avatar

Appreciate the kind words and glad you enjoyed!

Expand full comment
Michael Chaskes's avatar

I’m thankful for the regime’s persistent incompetence and face-planting in court.

However, even amateurish, doomed performances such as you describe here can have a chilling effect on potential future critics and opponents, who may not wish to risk the trauma and expense of indictment and prosecution, even with a low risk of conviction. Ultimately the regime may value this deterrent effect even over the “thrill” of successfully sending its perceived enemies to prison.

Expand full comment
Steven Branch's avatar

Um, what happened to Drumpf's bold declaration that he only hires "the best people"? If the poor dear Ms. Halligan is any indication, that's a pretty low bar. I hope that justice will be served by the court throwing out these vengeful prosecutions of James Comey and Letitia James and sanctioning or disbarring incompetent Lindsey.

Expand full comment
Rena Stone's avatar

From Day 1 in 2017, it has been clear that by "the best people," Chump meant "the worst." And while many of the folks he appointed in his first go round weren't great, this time they are getting worser and worser [sic]... The saying "he can't go any lower" has been rendered null and void by this Administration as it proves that it can "always" go even lower.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Bears reminding that Herr Drumpf is the chosen avatar of white supremacy—a predator, a liar, a bully, craven and crass.

Expand full comment
Aaron Reifler's avatar

Wonderful analysis, as always! It must be such an infuriating time to be a legal expert, as significant rules and procedures are being completely ignored, misinterpreted and/or sidelined by the executive, DOJ and SCOTUS…not to mention the many domestic and international laws being flagrantly violated directly by POTUS.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

But worst of all is SCOTUS: They must know by now the “character” of Trump, but they still prop him up. Stare decisis, lower court findings—all ignored, as the Third Branch has become the First’s rubber stamp.

Expand full comment
Rena Stone's avatar

Overall, SCOTUS is happy with what's happening. They're all in on Project 2025, and either support, or don't care about, most of the other havoc Chump is wreaking. Indeed, you can tell that the only thing they might have qualms about is the potential destruction of the financial system - which is why they specifically exempted from the Admin's ability to fire civil servants willy-nilly the folks at the Federal Reserve. They don't mind trashing the Constitution and living in an autocracy, but they don't want it to be an autocracy where the financial system is crashing.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

I wonder if they’re also concerned about legacy? Rubber stamp to the King of Ignorance? Constant comparison to the Taney Court? Not complimentary … though maybe complementary.

Expand full comment
Aaron Reifler's avatar

When decisions about government powers seem to depend more on the social outcomes than on the legal arguments and merits, that is basically another way of saying the ends justify the means, and democracy is a justifiable casualty of the culture war—a legacy they must certainly embrace.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Agreed: The court keeps ruling on rules and procedure, clockwork, rather than substance … especially via the shadow docket. Postpones justification, while still dealing out the pain.

Expand full comment
Dayna Wolhart's avatar

Great article. This is why I support independent media. Thanks.

Expand full comment
Samantha Stevens's avatar

is anyone else wondering ‘just how long can I take this?’

Expand full comment
Rena Stone's avatar

Millions...

Expand full comment
RE Garrett's avatar

If Ms. Halligan had any sense of her own limitations, or was a mature adult in any way, she would have declined 🐔🌮’s appointment to the position she now holds. But she didn’t, and tried to carry out a task for which she was in no way qualified. She has botched the whole thing, and is being humiliated by her own incompetence before the legal profession, and the whole world. “Sic Semper Idiotis.”

Expand full comment
Neal Stiffelman's avatar

Y’all are ALWAYS the best.

Expand full comment
Aaron Rupar's avatar

Thanks Neal!

Expand full comment
Neal Stiffelman's avatar

And belated birthday wishes.

Expand full comment
Patricia Jaeger's avatar

This clearly shows Halligan's lack of experience. Any experienced person would know not to lie to the court, or to claim things that can't be backed up by evidence. Not only is Halligan woefully unprepared, but she is full of hubris thinking that because Trump got her appointed, she can do whatever she wants. She has no credibility with the court.

Expand full comment
Sherry Bural's avatar

Trump can pardon her but it won’t help with any claims she should be disbarred as well as civil claims against her for malicious prosecution.

Expand full comment
Koko in AZ's avatar

As I've said before, they're the Keystone Cops of law.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Uh-oh, Bondi and the boyz (and girlies) are finding out that the federal courts are not a bully’s schoolyard … and threats, taunts and tantrums are not enough.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Lastly, both motions to dismiss request “with prejudice” … meaning they cannot be brought again. I wonder, if granted can Comey sue for malicious prosecution?

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Bad at media, bad at law … but hey, she’s blonde!

Expand full comment
RE Garrett's avatar

“Cause I’m a blonde B-L-O-N-D-E,

“I’m a blonde, don’t you wish you were me.”

“I’m a fifth-year freshman at UCLA, and I want to be a veterinarian because I love children.”

Downtown Judy Brown was just a little before her time….

Expand full comment
DR Darke's avatar

That's "Ms. Julie Brown", who's a Caucasian redhead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Brown ), and who was one of the writers of EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY, which starred Geena Davis and Jeff Goldblum while they were married. The song "'Cause I'm a Blonde", co-written by Brown, was added late in production, or so says The Bouffant of All Knowledge Wikipedia.

"Downtown Julie Brown" is Black and British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Julie_Brown ).

Because they were both working for MTV at the same time, their names were separated their cognomens.

Expand full comment
Rena Stone's avatar

OMG, thanks for the guffaw!

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Good one! And both right on point and in tune.

Expand full comment
Marycat2021's avatar

It's ridiculously obvious that these indictments being brought against Trump's enemies are meant as harassment, attempts to financially and professionally ruin the people who stood up to the bully. Loyalists in way over their heads are being deployed as a means to show all the sniveling cowards in the regime what will happen to them if they blow the whistle on this corrupt lunatic.

Expand full comment