Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, The Dog said:

more details on what HJ posted:

I hope this woman prosecutes every case for the DOJ in their witch hunt. She's wonderfully incompetent.

Three things on this:

1) You generally don't get disbarred for gross negligence as a lawyer; it requires intentional and willful malfeasance.  That being said, incompetence of this level can result in some form of discipline from either the Court or the Bar.

2) Lindsay Halligan is really kind of hot, and as an officer of the Court I am willing to offer my services in carrying out whatever punishment the Court may deem appropriate for her.

3) At the risk of being presumptuous, I might suggest a year or two in my sex dungeon (which, we we have established on another thread, does not bear any resemblance to Sei Less in Manhattan) as the appropriate sanction for Ms. Halligan (that naughty and incompetent little minx).

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Posted
On 11/17/2025 at 1:19 PM, DigglerontheHoof said:

Well, they don’t have to worry about facing any consequences, so they’ve got that going for them.

I don't know.  Kirk seems to have faced some consequences.  Keep it up, dumbfucks. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cattail said:

To the lawyers here, how serious is this? Is this something those prosecutors could be disbarred for?

lol...disbarred?  this is baby shit compared to the shit any random prosecutor pulls all the fucking time in every one of Texas' 254 counties.  

here's the deal with this one....someone, somewhere realized that they're right on the ass of the statute, and tried to get the Autistic Wonderbunch (aka "career assistant U.S. attorneys") to put this in front of a grand jury asap and those autistic fucks said "Fuck your face...shit case, shittier timing" because, you know, they can't see what's really going on...they're spectrum folk, a simpler people....who'll cut your mother sans emotions.

anyways, the sitting guy refuses and now you're in a fucking bind b/c statute runs in 48 hrs.  

you're fired.

"lawyer whore!  you!  you've never spoken truth to power, so get in there and fuck this particular guy now!"

et al.

Fine'

Edited by Kyrie Eleison
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 hours ago, gernblansten said:

Trump: That person needs brain surgery!!!!

Brain Surgeon: Uh, no, sir. That person does not need brain surgery.

Trump: Yes, brain surgery is clearly needed!!!!

Brain Surgeon 2,3,&4: No, brain surgery is not justified based on the symptoms and test results.

Trump: Nonsense! Hey, you, doctor! That person needs brain surgery and I need you to do it now!

Podiatrist: Yes, sir! I'm on it!

Mr. Gumby Monty Python - Whose head hurts? You might want to visit Dr Gumby... # MontyPython | Facebook

  • Haha 1
Posted
4 hours ago, cattail said:

To the lawyers here, how serious is this? Is this something those prosecutors could be disbarred for?

Follow-up question: how would that affect her eventual Supreme Court nomination? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Follow-up question: how would that affect her eventual Supreme Court nomination? 

Boosts her credentials for sure 

Posted
3 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

She looks like a Fox News bimbo and will probably be one soon enough. 

She’s got pure 90s Silk Stalkings vibe

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
  • Drool 2
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The actual prosecutors are doing their job, basically, see post 494.  

The problem with them is that they for some unfathomable reason stepped up to handle a case where they knew or should have known that the government/administration would put them in difficult ethical positions.  See also post 494.

So far, what Halligan has been shown to have been done is incompetence, which is an ethical violation, but is usually addressed by malpractice litigation rather than lawyer discipline.

 

Uh, didn't she submit an affidavit that she had no other interaction with the grand jury after providing the original indictment? Perjury is more than a step more serious than mere incompetence

Posted
58 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

She’s got pure 90s Silk Stalkings vibe

 

42 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Go on.....

 

31 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Damn, man.  You nailed it.

And hell yes.


I bet she’s also got one of those super high 90’s landing strips too….

I just had a flashback from flipping through my buddy’s dad’s playboys (he just left them on the end table in the living room!) circa 1995.

Damn.

Anyone got any Mountain Dew, Sam’s Club individual packaged chicken sandwiches from the freezer, and want to play some Sega?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Go on.....

I think we may have discussed this before, but there's a late 80s/early 90s UT grad, a DG, that was a staple in those things.  Although Red Shoe Diaries rather than Silk Stalkings.

Posted
I think we may have discussed this before, but there's a late 80s/early 90s UT grad, a DG, that was a staple in those things.  Although Red Shoe Diaries rather than Silk Stalkings.

Huh. Had a college buddy from that era who appeared in an episode of RSD. He had a love scene with his ass hanging out, and we never let him forget it.
Posted
2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Uh, didn't she submit an affidavit that she had no other interaction with the grand jury after providing the original indictment? Perjury is more than a step more serious than mere incompetence

I believe that is literally true.  She presented the second, revised indictment only to the foreperson, not to the grand jury.

But yeah, there's other stuff behind the scenes that probably has her in an ethical jackpot beyond accepting a legal matter for which she was not competent.

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Huh. Had a college buddy from that era who appeared in an episode of RSD. He had a love scene with his ass hanging out, and we never let him forget it.

Nope I was wrong, it was Silk Stalkings, and some other stuff.  And she used her real name, had forgotten that.  AmyLindsay.com

Bahaha, she was in a Ted Cruz ad that they pulled because she's a dirty bitch. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/soft-core-porn-actress-in-new-cruz-ad-choosing-between-him-a

(I would have spared her the dirty bitch comment except she said she's a Cruz supporter).

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
8 hours ago, gernblansten said:

Trump: That person needs brain surgery!!!!

Brain Surgeon: Uh, no, sir. That person does not need brain surgery.

Trump: Yes, brain surgery is clearly needed!!!!

Brain Surgeon 2,3,&4: No, brain surgery is not justified based on the symptoms and test results.

Trump: Nonsense! Hey, you, doctor! That person needs brain surgery and I need you to do it now!

Podiatrist: Yes, sir! I'm on it!

image.gif.ce288e98e84510673a31843a73a7cdc1.gif

Posted (edited)

IMG_5487.thumb.jpeg.0f3ca601db231da7f7f12ea527d68d55.jpeg

DOJ superiors instructing a lawyer not to answer a federal judge’s specific questions about an important issue with law and fact is usually not gonna go over so well.

It also came out that Halligan hung around after the grand jury no true billed the first attempt most of the grand jury went home, but the jury foreperson and one other grand juror were hanging around, so Halligan got two of the Grand jury members to sign the second indictment, which she signed and delivered to the federal magistrate.

Both of those things are far more problematic for them from a discipline standpoint then her being too stupid to know how to conduct a grand jury indictment process.   Inexperienced or no, she was well aware that she presented a totally invalid indictment an indictment that lead to Comey retaining criminal defense counsel to fight that false charge.

There will be lots of popcorn, consuming fun coming out of this.  There is zero way that Comey’s indictment is not overturned.

Edited by Gatorubet
voicemail changing shit as you hit post annoys me
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nope I was wrong, it was Silk Stalkings, and some other stuff.  And she used her real name, had forgotten that.  AmyLindsay.com

Bahaha, she was in a Ted Cruz ad that they pulled because she's a dirty bitch. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/soft-core-porn-actress-in-new-cruz-ad-choosing-between-him-a

(I would have spared her the dirty bitch comment except she said she's a Cruz supporter).

supporting Cruz is dirtier than doing an anal gangbang. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

Correct me if I am wrong, but the current hearing is the defense asking the judge to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, due to malicious prosecution. (I'm hazy on the terms there.).  Since that is very rarely granted, I am curious if the judge might just say there is no valid indictment to dismiss, and sidesteps the bigger question on whether the prosecution overall is malicious. 

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

IMG_5487.thumb.jpeg.0f3ca601db231da7f7f12ea527d68d55.jpeg

DOJ superiors instructing a lawyer, not to answer a federal judges, specific questions about an important issue with law and fact is usually not gonna go over so well.

It also came out that Halligan hung around after the grand jury no true build the first attempt, most of the grand jury went home, but the jury for Person and one other grandeur was hanging around, so Halligan got two of the Granger members to sign the second indictment, which she signed and delivered to the federal magistrate.

Both of those things are far more problematic for them from a discipline standpoint then her being too stupid to know how to conduct a grand jury indictment process.   Inexperienced or no, she was well aware that she presented a totally invalid and no indictment that is lead to Comey retaining criminal defense council to fight that false charge.

There will be lots of popcorn, consuming fun coming out of this.  There is zero way that Comey’s indictment is not overturned.

Yep.

First off, I think it is highly unusual for federal prosecutors to bring an indictment when someone has gone to the trouble of writing a declination memo.  About the only real justification for that is if new evidence comes to light, making the memo inaccurate./Lebowski.

But in the circumstances in which a declination memo exists in an active prosecution, I might think it would be exculpatory material required to be disclosed by the government under Brady.

We're not quite at that point yet, but the government here is making noises that it intends to violate Brady.  And that is the most unforgivable prosecution error that can be made, especially when it is intentional.  Well, short of fabricating evidence and suborning perjury, which I would not put past this bunch.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Tuco said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but the current hearing is the defense asking the judge to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, due to malicious prosecution. (I'm hazy on the terms there.).  Since that is very rarely granted, I am curious if the judge might just say there is no valid indictment to dismiss, and sidesteps the bigger question on whether the prosecution overall is malicious. 

There are multiple questions going on, but this precise one is that they are contending that the indictment, having not been actually heard and true-billed by a grand jury, is defective and should therefore be dismissed.  That is a separate question from many of the others that are now or will be under consideration. like vindictive prosecution, grand jury misconduct, etc.

One of the critical questions is that limitations has passed, so at first glance, the government cannot just re-indict him correctly this time.

But, a statute provides a six month tolling of limitations when an indictment is dismissed under certain circumstances.  https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-655-statute-limitations-and-defective-indictments-superseding

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but the current hearing is the defense asking the judge to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, due to malicious prosecution. (I'm hazy on the terms there.).  Since that is very rarely granted, I am curious if the judge might just say there is no valid indictment to dismiss, and sidesteps the bigger question on whether the prosecution overall is malicious. 

That is one of the several things in play. One is the targeted prosecution issue, another is the fact that Miss Colorado was not a properly appointed attorney general.  Another is the legal insufficiency that should result in a no true bill ever being presented, the statute of limitations having run now.  

Granted, that amount of chicanery can result in a dismissal with prejudice that moots the statute of limitations thing.

The Comey indictment will be dismissed, the only question is, which of the many reasons is decided first.  IMO

Edited by Gatorubet
what twice said
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I really don't give a flying fuck about Comey, but I hope he walks.  I really enjoy watching these chucklefucks step on rakes.  The more egg that ends up on their collective face, the better. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Gil Bang said:

I really don't give a flying fuck about Comey, but I hope he walks.  I really enjoy watching these chucklefucks step on rakes.  The more egg that ends up on their collective face, the better. 

Yeah true.  And he will.  I'm more sympathetic to Letitia James, but I honestly think that case may have to go to a jury.

The only real question is how embarrassing is this going to get for the DOJ?

Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah true.  And he will.  I'm more sympathetic to Letitia James, but I honestly think that case may have to go to a jury.

The only real question is how embarrassing is this going to get for the DOJ?

The superseding question is "is this DOJ capable of being embarrassed?"  Of course, the answer is "no."  Clowns expect to be performing in a circus.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah true.  And he will.  I'm more sympathetic to Letitia James, but I honestly think that case may have to go to a jury.

The only real question is how embarrassing is this going to get for the DOJ?

assuming they didn't fuck up THAT indictment as well. 

  • Like 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah true.  And he will.  I'm more sympathetic to Letitia James, but I honestly think that case may have to go to a jury.

OTOH, evidence of ethical and result oriented improprieties in the Comey case should be admissible in the James case to support the premise that Trump is selectively targeting political enemies. 

The fact that the same AG who disregarded declination letters in Comey pursued the action against James is arguably relevant to both actions, as they are both prosecutors who pursued Trump and are seen by Trump as his enemies.

If Miss Colorado was not properly appointed, that leaks into the James case as well.       I will quote an article below as a pretty good cheat sheet of the James defenses.

Quote

In October 2025, after President Trump publicly called for the prosecution of New York State Attorney General Letitia James, interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan filed charges against James for alleged mortgage fraud. James filed two motions to dismiss in response to the indictment.

One motion contended that the indictment is invalid because it was signed by an unlawfully appointed interim U.S. attorney. The other argued that the prosecution constitutes impermissible selective and vindictive enforcement motivated by James’s prior civil and political disputes with the president and his allies. That motion points to facts such as Trump’s repeated public attacks on James, the government’s decision not to pursue similar charges against other public figures, and the abrupt filing of the indictment following the appointment of a new interim U.S. attorney allegedly aligned with the president.

A bipartisan group of 58 former state attorneys general, represented by the Brennan Center for Justice, Democracy Defenders Fund, and the law firm Perry Law, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting James’s argument that the charges against her were improperly motivated by political animus. The brief emphasizes that recognizing a vindictive prosecution claim in this context would not undermine legitimate prosecutorial discretion or invite frivolous motions. Rather, it warns that allowing politically motivated federal prosecutions of state attorneys general would have a chilling effect on the independence of state law enforcement officials and undermine the balance of federal and state authority essential to the rule of law.

The Eastern District of Virginia will hear oral arguments on James’s selective and vindictive prosecution motion on December 5.

 

Posted
31 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I really don't give a flying fuck about Comey, but I hope he walks.  I really enjoy watching these chucklefucks step on rakes.  The more egg that ends up on their collective face, the better. 

I appreciate your commitment to the use of idioms.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, The Dog said:

assuming they didn't fuck up THAT indictment as well. 

They weren't operating under the gun there with respect to the statute of limitations.

I haven't seen the evidence in that one, just heard what educated commentators say.  In Lisa Cook's and other James mortgage cases, the technically incorrect mortgage documents are strongly contradicted by the rest of the documents/record. 

The one James was actually indicated on instead turns on what the language of the document permits and does not permit (rentals in the first year of the mortgage).  It's my understanding that because of that vagary, DOJ rarely or ever brings fraud prosecutions, but it seems to present a jury question and not something that can be resolved on pretrial motions.

Also, something to keep in mind about fraud.  Most fraud requires a present intention not to do what you represent you will do.

Changing your mind and not doing what you represented you would do may be a breach of contract, but if it was a change of mind and not the intention at the time of the representation, it ain't fraud.  And proving it was a present intention and not a change of mind can be mas dificil, amigos.  It's gotten a lot of dirty fuckers off.

Edited by TwiceHorn


×
×
  • Create New...