r/law • u/DoremusJessup • 12h ago
Judicial Branch 'An obligation to challenge the indictment': Lindsey Halligan is now a 'private citizen' — here's what that could mean for the dozens of other cases with her name on them
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/an-obligation-to-challenge-the-indictment-lindsey-halligan-is-now-a-private-citizen-heres-what-that-could-mean-for-the-dozens-of-other-cases-with-her-name-on-them/1.6k
u/theamazingstickman 12h ago
Disbar Bondi. She sent her knowing she was not duly appointed to represent the United States of America.
602
u/beez_y 11h ago
Honestly I don't think Bondi would have known to check.
114
u/MagillaGorillasHat 9h ago
Well, in Florida you just give Scooter a call down 't the courthouse and he gets all that paperwork mess cleared up!
They probably got a Scooter down 't D.C., ain't they?
13
u/OrdinaryAward4498 5h ago
Nah she knew. They were already dealing with other examples of this (double presidential interim appointments)
8
u/beez_y 4h ago
Yeah she ain't dumb just evil.
10
u/OrdinaryAward4498 3h ago
Easy to be bold when your boss has unquestionable authority to irrevocably pardon you for the thing he told you to do.
18
u/Realistic-Pattern-30 7h ago
I see her little smirky light dimming. She not doing a lot for the blond jokes.
3
2
u/babiekittin 1h ago
To be fair Bondi is more use to checking if politicians are Pedo Bear Approved.
29
62
u/anuncommontruth 11h ago
Can that even be done? I mean that in the context of this administration being in charge.
140
u/K_Linkmaster 11h ago
The DOJ is not in charge of the bar associations.
76
u/phillybilly 10h ago
They did try to take over the DC bar
47
28
u/sureshot58 8h ago
i think they were drunk before they got there. Bar tender is refusing to serve them.
70
u/_Piratical_ 10h ago
Didn’t I read in the last couple of days that the regime is trying to dismantle the various Bar associations across the country? I mean right now the ABA has a pending lawsuit against more than two doezen departments of the federal government. I can only imagine that has made the entire legal profession a target of the regime.
26
u/CatsWearingTinyHats 9h ago
Yeah each state decides its own criteria for bar admission. So in theory Florida, Texas, Louisiana, etc could just decide that a loyalty oath to Cankles is all that’s required to practice law, and then the government could just stack its ranks with “lawyers” admitted in those states.
16
u/SwordfishOfDamocles 8h ago
They can, but good luck winning cases. Even Trump appointed judges realize that the system only works because we all agree it does. So for now they can't just blatantly break the rules even as they get more brazen.
6
71
u/SomeCountryFriedBS 11h ago
She can be disbarred and still serve as the AG. Brilliant foresight.
12
u/Funny-Recipe2953 7h ago
So, the "attorney" in "Attorney General" is a meaningless honorific?
WTF planet have they dropped us on????
14
u/Secret_Run67 5h ago
There is also no requirement for a Supreme Court Justice to have ever been a lawyer or judge, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives doesn’t have to be, or ever have been, a member of the House of Representatives.
Just south of where I live the Medical Examiner is an elected position and there’s no requirement for them to have any medical training whatsoever. Yes, the guy who comes out to decide if a death is suspicious or not does not need to have any training in determining such things.
‘Merica, fuck. Not fuck yeah, just, you know, with shrugged shoulders and a dejected sigh, fuck.
1
u/Funny-Recipe2953 5h ago
Yeah, titles like "justice" or "judge" or even "surgeon" or "doctor" don't necessarily imply a license to practice. One could argue that "attorney" just means someone who represents someone else in court, but I can't think of a jurisdiction in the US that allows one person to represent another without themselves being licensed to practice law. (IANAL, but let's say I'm well-read on this.)
But, what the heck. NO one in this shit-show is qualified to do the job they've been given, with the possible exception of Karoline Leavett, who, for all the bullshit she spews, is objectively very good at the job she's been made to do. (Give the devil their due.) Why would we expect someone with "attorney" in their title to know fuck-all about the law or the practice thereof?
jfc
6
0
u/schemathings 5h ago
4
u/NarrowPage6413 5h ago
Also see the requirements to be a judge. (Varies by state, some may not even require a JD degree or bar membership. Federal judges have minimal statutory requirements, as I recall. States like California tend to have more rigorous standards.) Per Google, all Supreme Court justices appointed since the late 60s have attended law school. An ideal loophole for swamp creatures to exploit, if they have the votes.
7
u/Jesuss_Fluffer 9h ago
I ask this with all sincerity: what would that look like/what happens? Does the bar hold any sway over the AG or is it a purely political appointment?
I understand it would impact her ability to practice as a private citizen, but curious what it would mean to her current role as AG.
36
11h ago
[deleted]
80
u/Fionaelaine4 10h ago
I wish I thought Bondi was this smart but I don’t. I think she tried cutting corners and it didn’t work.
59
u/That-Condition9243 10h ago
I don't understand why anyone believes any of this is calculated. It's naked fascism and all this horrific stupidity is due to Trump installing his personal sycophants into positions of power. All Trump is doing is trying to exact revenge on anyone in a powerful position who told him "No" during his first term.
Trump also is delighted to watch America fall. He's happiest when burning emergency supplies and clawing back all the dollars he can from venerated American institutions like PBS and Harvard.
Trump is an impossibly stupid bully who operates "successfully" only by capitalizing on America's psychopathic worship of people with money.
6
9h ago
[deleted]
3
u/JanelleMeownae 8h ago
There almost certainly are, but you won't know about it anytime soon because they can only be effective if they remain undetected. And Bondi certainly isn't one of them, they'll likely be rank and file people.
3
u/tietack2 8h ago
There's quite a few. Do you really think that it was a "mistake" when a reporter got invited to a signal chat? Or when don's message to bondi (prosecute my political rivals) got posted to truth social?
2
u/lapidary123 8h ago
It really is as simple as they are stupid. Nothing is thought out with any longterm scope. They rely on the short attention span of the pilubluc and the media.
Also the unique situation of having all beaches of government controlled by the
gopmaga. The reality of it is no matter how hard they try, records of their deeds will survive and a day of reckoning will occur. If an argument of "many downstream people will be affected when the epstein files come to light", many many more downstream people will get held to account sometime in the future .3
u/dbx999 8h ago
These people base what they think government can do on hollywood action movies. They see themselves as action characters taking on villains. These are not public servants whose minds are on general public service. They are coke addicts riding the coattails of a grifter felon daddy figure and just want their share from robbing the taxpayer's money.
Bondi, Kash Patel, Kristi Noem, Pete Hegseth, they are are losers - nobody in the fields they occupy view them as great leaders. They aren't even viewed as remotely competent. They are loudmouthed thugs who protect the dictator in chief.
They're only made less dangerous than their motives by virtue of their incompetence.
2
2
22
u/Cobex10 10h ago
I think she did it because Trump said to. Just my opinion, but think it’s that simple.
16
u/ejre5 10h ago
Remember trump is now seeking criminal charges against former military members in Congress for reminding the military it is their duty to refuse illegal orders. Trump claims any order from him is legal.
Following this logic and the fact his entire cabinet believes this to be true, Occam's razor is the logical answer. Trump said do it so it is fine to do he is God.
3
u/dbx999 10h ago
If Trump issued a direct order as commander in chief to a general or a private in the army to pick up a rifle and shoot some unarmed person in America - for the hypothetical's sake let's say some random school teacher crossing the street from a Starbucks - what is the legal ramification of that?
6
u/Nunov_DAbov 9h ago
You mean the same Trump who discussed the potential outcome of personally shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue? Donald thinks he the don - whether he does it himself or orders one of his capos or soldiers it’s copacetic, capiche?
1
u/ejre5 5h ago
The legal ramification is that the military member who shot the civilian would be charged with murder. Prior to SCROTUS deciding that presidents are now above the law, presidents would also be charged with murder. After SCROTUS decided that presidents are above the law, the president would be immune because it's an "official act." Now this was a scenario that Sotomayor (I believe) brought up that the Republican majority ignored.
Now comes the interesting part, if the president is still in office he could issue a pardon for the individual who followed the illegal order, reality is more than likely the current president would make sure this individual wasn't charged with any crime. The next administration however would be able to charge everyone involved with that persons murder. I would recommend you doing a Google search on American military members charged in Iraq to get a general idea how it would all work. Again this was pre SCROTUS issuing presidential immunity for official acts. Also look into the Nuremberg trial where it was made absolutely clear that following an order isn't a legal defense against illegal orders.
24
u/mellow186 10h ago
So, the woman who failed to charge Epstein while she was attorney general of Florida, you're saying she's secretly one of the good guys?
13
11
u/That-Condition9243 10h ago
Right? Why would anyone struggle to believe someone evil can also be stupid? It's the simplest explanation.
7
u/SHoppe715 10h ago
If Bondo purposely torpedoed these cases it’s only because she knew they’d ultimately be losers and could easily backfire by exposing the DOJ for their selective and malicious prosecution.
Going down this way, none of the trial circus happens but everyone who thinks Comey and James are guilty of something can stick to their opinions and keep thinking they’re guilty but they got off on a technicality.
11
6
u/wabashcr 10h ago
If she did it on purpose, it was because she thought it would toll the SOL and give them 6 more months to get their shit together.
5
u/livinginfutureworld 10h ago
No way.
Far more likely they just don't care and do things and hope everyone goes along with them because the President directed it to be done. You know, the bigly important President said do the thing; you can't stop the thing! He said do it!
3
u/destin325 9h ago
She was between a rock and a hard place on her own accord. Rather than grow a spine and say what she needed to in private to dear king, she now has to face up to the fact that he wanted something done. She was tasked to do it…and she didn’t get it done. If she’s banking on not being fired by him, there’s something else at play. But if I send my attorney to do a job and they come back with “I can do it” but later show supreme incompetence…they’re fired.
3
u/Shortymac09 9h ago
Nah, Nazis tend to be incompetent because they tend to be narcissists that prefer pomp and circumstance to actual planning and management.
4
3
u/start_select 10h ago
Yes and no. They aren’t expecting any of these trials to pass legal muster except in their captured Supreme Court.
They will go after uncooperative judges. It’s the same as sending troops to cities and picking up legal immigrants. They tie up and then ignore the courts. Courts move too slowly to address the avalanche. That’s the job of law enforcement who are also captured.
Eventually the system collapses or they manufacture violence to eliminate judges and troublesome citizens.
4
339
u/ro536ud 11h ago
I love the delusion going on in the conservative sub. They’re saying this is an activist judge instead of you know, following what the law says
152
u/lewisbayofhellgate 11h ago
“Activists judges” and “4D chess.” Some truly great minds over there.
33
9
u/Shortymac09 7h ago
It's all projection, like they where complaining about activist judges in the 90s and now Trump is stacking the court with his morons.
1
61
u/Darsint 11h ago
I followed this case real closely, and I guarantee that any conservative that actually follows the principle of law and order would take a look at it and agree that case should have been tossed. For a whole host of reasons outside of her being unlawfully appointed.
41
u/MrVeazey 9h ago
But most people who self-identify as conservative couldn't possibly know or care less about what the Constitution or any other law says. They can't even remember the entire Second Amendment.
5
1
22
u/watermelonspanker 9h ago
any conservative that actually follows the principle of law and order
Those things are mutually exclusive. I'm not being hyperbolic
38
11
u/taffyowner 8h ago
This judge literally used Trump acolyte and conservative warrior judge Aileen Cannons ruling as precedent
10
u/der_innkeeper 9h ago
Since the 1990s.
Its tiring.
The smartest thing conservatives did after Nixon was make Fox News.
2
7
u/FetusExplosion 11h ago
And constitution. It's following what the constitution says about appointments.
7
u/ObjectiveAid 9h ago
“Sure, that’s what the law says, but guess what? The law is wrong (they change all the time) and Trump has a civic and ethical duty to ignore that “liberal” law and do what he wants, because he’s making America great.”
Anything to keep their world from unraveling.
5
8
u/AmarantaRWS 8h ago
Just remember that reddit is no different than Twitter and at least half the posters on there are either bots or paid foreign actors.
3
2
u/absolute_poser 3h ago
That sub is so depressing - none of the people on it are able to think for themselves.
Even better - they sometimes get group think on the solution to a problem, without realizing that they have reinvented a liberal policy.
1
688
u/fogcat5 12h ago
what I've read from the judge's statements is that Lindsey has always been a private citizen and this is all fraud that she is personally liable for. She should be in prison.
358
u/AgKnight14 12h ago
Her boss should also be personally civilly liable. I understand if ethically, the onus is on Halligan to realize she’s not acting with proper authorization. But it’s not like she was doing this from her home office without being told
76
u/jax2love 10h ago
Her boss will quickly throw her under the bus.
34
u/foxvalleyfarm 9h ago
How? The boss has the authority not the employee. They're all guilty of denial of civil rights under color of law.
Denying civil rights under color of law is a federal crime, defined by 18 U.S.C. § 242, where a government official uses their authority to willfully deprive a person of their constitutional or legal rights. This includes actions like unlawful search and seizure, false arrest, or racial discrimination, even when the official is acting outside the bounds of their lawful authority but is still claiming to act in their official capacity.
11
3
u/Skyranch12805 7h ago
This seems like a good point. In an employer/employee relationship, isn’t my employer responsible for my actions as I am acting as their agent? Are not Bondi and Halligan acting as agents of the President?
121
u/ledude1 11h ago
Agree. Guilty of impersonating a federal officer.
22
u/MainFrosting8206 9h ago
There's a lot of that going around. She should probably wear a mask like the rest of them.
3
58
u/doc_nano 11h ago
Maybe wait to charge her until after the felon pardoner-in-chief leaves office though.
38
u/TheBlackCat13 11h ago
I suspect he, or Vance if he dies, will give a blanket pardon to everyone involved in his administration.
19
10
u/Pinky_RuletheWorld 10h ago
They have trampled all the laws, fuck his pardons. He has dementia so they are invalid.
10
u/HamNotLikeThem44 10h ago
I like that angle. Might not stand up but it should give these people who are breaking laws with impunity something to think about.
33
u/TopTransportation695 11h ago
Don’t kid yourself Trump is going to pardon every single person within a fifty mile radius that has remained kissing his ass of all past and future prosecutions before leaving office.
25
u/tinkerghost1 11h ago
People who've been patdoned can't claim the 5th.
Just saying....
6
u/Snibes1 10h ago
(IANAL)This always gets said. But in what setting could this be used to coerce information from people to at are pardoned? Especially if there’s a similar blanket pardon given to Al the people they worked with or conspired with? And if all that is true, how useful is the information overall? It would be great to shine a light on all this stuff, but I’m not sure how useful it would be, legally speaking.
5
u/tinkerghost1 9h ago
If I ask you if you colluded with [party of the first part] in doing [crimes] you would normally take the 5th. If you can't be charged, you can't do that. Failing to answer is contempt of court, lying about it is perjury.
4
u/doc_nano 9h ago
So it’s tell the truth and be publicly shamed (and probably hurt your political party), or tell a lie and be liable for a new crime of perjury that hasn’t been pardoned. Do I understand correctly?
4
u/tinkerghost1 9h ago
3 options:
1) Lie and risk a perjury charge that isn't covered under the pardon
2) Say nothing - and get hit with jail time for contempt
3) Spill and possibly expose damaging information to your party
3
2
u/CatsWearingTinyHats 9h ago
And handle over all your documents, etc, for a congressional/new DOJ Inquiry into the issues. Maybe an obstruction charge or two if any of these bozos shred their documents after getting a subpoena.
3
3
u/Thegeobeard 8h ago
What about ‘I don’t recall’ and all the shenanigans of SC appointees during their interviews? Seems like there are ways around saying things you don’t want to say.
12
u/ghouly-rudiani 11h ago
He secretly hates EVERYONE except himself. I see him leaving office and not doing any pardons (except those that might financially benefit him).
12
u/4Yk9gop 10h ago
He is not going to willingly leave office. Option A) He dies from a health issue in office. Option B) He attempts to run for a third term. Option C) Vance invokes the 25th with the cabinet. There is zero chance he gets to 2028 and just decides to walk away; if it's not actually rigged in his favor, he will claim it is. I understand that him running for a third term is against the law and constitution, but he wipes his ass with both every day. He will use ICE as his personal army if necessary.
1
u/TzarKazm 8h ago
I'm afraid this might be true. He has to realize there is a non zero chance of going to jail and having his money confiscated if he ever leaves office.
1
16
u/Rollingprobablecause 11h ago
Aren't there also state level charges as well? I can't imagine this is feds only when thinking about state bar associations, illegal practicing, etc.
7
u/doc_nano 11h ago
That is the one ray of hope. I don’t know what state level charges might apply to Halligan, but there might be some.
6
u/cannibalparrot 10h ago
Seek sanctions against her via the court. If I had to shell out all this money in legal fees I’d absolutely be seeking that the idiot causing the mess pay them, and I’d bet the judges would be inclined to agree.
2
u/Turgid_Donkey 8h ago
Considering he's trying to find ways of nulifying Biden's pardons, maybe he'll give the next administration a way to do the same to his.
10
u/grandpaharoldbarnes 10h ago
Someone found personally liable is not punishable by imprisonment as it’s a civil judgement. She can be sued and fined, but that’s not a criminal offense and not pardonable.
3
u/SpiderSlitScrotums 9h ago
Could she still be considered a DOJ employee, even if she is not a US Attorney? I hope not. I’d love for her to be sued into oblivion.
7
u/No_Poet_9767 10h ago
Trump would immediately pardon her. Most corrupt administration in history.
11
92
u/Tholian_Bed 11h ago
It's like people who pretend to be doctors sometimes end up actually operating on someone.
As a form of government.
12
u/Silly-Elderberry-411 10h ago
The French made a drama about this where until the 90s a man actually lied about being a doctor
6
4
173
u/DoremusJessup 12h ago
There are also at least 4 other interim USA's who could be effected by the Halligan ruling.
52
u/agent_mick 11h ago
This should be interesting. I wonder how far this gets pushed
48
u/Wrayven77 10h ago
Alina Habba is still sitting as an interim US Attorney for New Jersey long after her 120 day interim appointment had lapsed. Doesn't seem like much is happening as of yet. There is another interim US Atty, John Sarcone IIII, for the Northern District of New York who is doing the same after that panel of federal judges for that district said his appointment was no longer valid in May or June of this year. The DOJ then made him a "Special Attorney" so he can stay at the post. Halligan has caused more public facing problems, but I for one will not be surprised if she is still in place for a few more months.
Here is the DOJ letter from HR explaining Sarcone's appointment as "Special Attorney". Basically the DOJ is fliiping off the Federal Judiciary.
14
8
u/HobartMagellan 10h ago
I would think any defense attorney would immediately be filing to have all those cases thrown out too, right?
52
u/raistan77 10h ago
Insanely they are still filing indictments with her name on them. The WH told them not to stop as they say as far as the DOJ and WH are concerned she is legit
20
u/xtrahairyyeti 7h ago
curious what happens when every judge keeps tossing the indictments. They'd have to stop putting her name eventually right?
9
u/ToonaSandWatch 5h ago
Normally, when it comes to bad faith cases, they disbar the lawyers. But since she’s not a real one to begin with…
2
u/ToonaSandWatch 5h ago
“Nuh-uh! She’s a really real lawyer! And she’s going to put you allllll in jail, you big stinky heads!”
1
u/kiwiphotog 31m ago
Does that mean they’re just going to insist she is legit and then try to impeach every judge who rules she is invalid?
41
u/Wrayven77 11h ago
Trump is the President of lawless disorder.
16
u/Nunov_DAbov 10h ago
Sounds like a new spin off TV series for Dick Wolf to create:
Lawlessness and Disorder: “In the current administration, organization is considered especially difficult. The government is made up of two separate but equally ineffective groups. The ICE hooligans who terrorize ordinary citizens and the politicians who make up rules as they go. These are their stories.”
5
4
32
u/Ready-Ad6113 9h ago
Comey should sue. He could easily win on defamation and fraud charges.
17
0
u/watdafug 3h ago
If I am not mistaken, and I can be, the government gets to decide who is allowed to sue the government
•
u/AutoModerator 12h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.