"The Tl;dr of the response to the observation that Lindsey was not lawfully appointed (DOJ submitted the same motion in both Comey and Tish James' case) is that Lindsey was lawfully appointed even though two judges had said she wouldn't be by the time she was appointed, and if not, then the indictments are still valid because Pam Bondi retroactively appointed Halligan to be a very Special Attorney on Halloween."
"Gov. Ex. 5 (Oct. 30, 2016 emails). Mr. Richman stated that he was "not inclined" to "write something," but that he would "do it" if the defendant thought it would "help things to explain that [the defendant] owed cong absolute candor," and that the defendant's "credibility w cong w[ould] be particularly important in the coming years of threatened cong investigations.""
Lindsey Halligan was lawfully appointed despite two judges previously concluding otherwise, and Pam Bondi retroactively designated Halligan a Special Attorney to validate the indictments if necessary. The filings deny vindictive or selective prosecution claims and assert that Donald Trump's animus toward Jim Comey related to alleged leaks rather than protected speech. None of the times Richman acted as a source meet the criteria raised by Ted Cruz; the closest instance concerned a flowchart about Comey's decision to announce reopening the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Email exchanges show Richman was reluctant to write an op-ed but agreed to help if asked to support the defendant's congressional credibility.
#lindsey-halligan-appointment #pam-bondi-retroactive-appointment #vindictiveselective-prosecution #richman-source-emails
Read at emptywheel
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]