YouTube video by Cheri Jacobus

An interior designer sounded the alarm this week about a key safety issue facing the demolition of the East Wing of the White House: asbestos. Taking to Threads for the past two days, Sarah Boardman n...

The New York Times reports U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan may have left out important information in her indictment against New York AG Letitia James that might have derailed some charges. “In the indictment, … Halligan accuses Ms. James of having misrepresented the purpose of the house when she purchased it in August 2020 for $137,000,” reports the Times. “The indictment says that while Ms. James indicated to her mortgage broker that she expected to use the house as a second home, she had instead used it as a “rental investment property, renting the property to a family.” Only it does not look like she rented it at all. The Times reports occupant Nakia Thompson — Letitia James’ grandniece — testified to a grand jury in Norfolk, VA. that she “had lived in the house for years (with her children) and that she did not pay rent,” according to a person familiar with her testimony. Additionally, The Times reports prosecutors did not ask Nakia Thompson to testify again, and the grand jury that voted to indict Letitia James was not seated in Norfolk, where this information was revealed, but in Alexandria. Lawfare Senior Editor Anna Bower posted on X that she suspected prosecutors “used the other grand jury for testimony, then moved things over to Alexandria to seek indictment.” But the big problem in the testimony, according to legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold, is that Halligan may have excluded this evidence to pad her case against James, which — if proven true — would not go well for her in court. “Did Halligan present this exculpatory evidence?” asked Gold on X. “… If not, or if she explained it away without proper basis, the government already has a huge problem in the James case.” Federal rules on the presentation of evidence state that “It is the policy of the Department of Justice … that when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury before seeking an indictment against such a person.” The rules further state that appellate courts “may refer violations of the policy to the Office of Professional Responsibility for review.” “Halligan — President Trump’s handpicked replacement for Erik S. Siebert after he concluded there wasn’t sufficient evidence to charge either James or former FBI Director James Comey — presented evidence to grand jurors herself in the case,” reported Lawfare analyst Molly Roberts. “That’s unusual, and not only because Halligan is an insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial experience; career staff would typically do the job of presenting, but in this case … they balked. In fact, Halligan reportedly didn’t even inform Attorney General Pam Bondi or the main Justice Department the indictment was coming.” “No wonder,” Molly added.