@alegalnerd.bsky.social
Attorney w/42 years experience primarily in criminal law and procedure and constitutional law. 100+ jury trials to verdict, including capital cases. 1000s of motions and briefs, in state and federal court at trial and appellate level.
Pinned
Reply – #174 in United States v. Comey (E.D. Va., 1:25-cr-00272) – CourtListener.com
Reply by James B. Comey, Jr re 59 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment based on Vindictive and Selective Prosecution (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Carmichael, Jessica) (Entered: 11/10/2025)
storage.courtlistener.com
My bet: Indictment DISMISSED based on vindictive, and possibly, selective prosecution. Only issue: With prejudice? Perhaps, most outrageous prosecution in history of DOJ. @jamescomey.bsky.social
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
My bet: Indictment DISMISSED based on vindictive, and possibly, selective prosecution. Only issue: With prejudice? Perhaps, most outrageous prosecution in history of DOJ. @jamescomey.bsky.social
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Reply – #174 in United States v. Comey (E.D. Va., 1:25-cr-00272) – CourtListener.com
Reply by James B. Comey, Jr re 59 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment based on Vindictive and Selective Prosecution (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Carmichael, Jessica) (Entered: 11/10/2025)
storage.courtlistener.com
November 10, 2025 at 10:44 PM
My bet: Indictment DISMISSED based on vindictive, and possibly, selective prosecution. Only issue: With prejudice? Perhaps, most outrageous prosecution in history of DOJ. @jamescomey.bsky.social
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
I previously stated James wouldn't succeed on her mtn to dismiss indictment bc of vindictive & selective prosecution. Her brief has convinced me that I am likely mistaken. Like @jamescomey.bsky.social, I expect the indictment against her to be dismissed.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
#53 in United States v. James (E.D. Va., 2:25-cr-00122) – CourtListener.com
MOTION to Dismiss Indictment for Vindictive and Selective Prosecution by Letitia A. James. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 E...
storage.courtlistener.com
November 9, 2025 at 7:31 PM
I previously stated James wouldn't succeed on her mtn to dismiss indictment bc of vindictive & selective prosecution. Her brief has convinced me that I am likely mistaken. Like @jamescomey.bsky.social, I expect the indictment against her to be dismissed.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com
November 8, 2025 at 5:22 AM
@martylederman.bsky.social @stevevladeck.bsky.social
Can you provide your thoughts on Abbe's opinion?
Can you provide your thoughts on Abbe's opinion?
Writing for @scotusblog.com, @solomonctryls.bsky.social Faculty Director Abbe Gluck explains why the Supreme Court may opt to rule on the President’s tariff powers using focused textual analysis rather than major principles of constitutional or substantive law. www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/in-t...
In tariff cases, verbs rather than major pronouncements about presidential power give the court the off-ramp it’s looking for
Clear Statements is a recurring series by Abbe R. Gluck on civil litigation and the modern regulatory and statutory state. Verbs, verbs, verbs. Court-watchers hoping for fireworks over the reach of […...
www.scotusblog.com
November 7, 2025 at 5:43 PM
@martylederman.bsky.social @stevevladeck.bsky.social
Can you provide your thoughts on Abbe's opinion?
Can you provide your thoughts on Abbe's opinion?
That's what get for not eating "Only The Best Meat" Trump Steaks. Maybe he can sign up for Trump RX?
incredible photo that's definitely worth at least 1,000 words from Andrew Harnik of Getty
November 6, 2025 at 6:48 PM
That's what get for not eating "Only The Best Meat" Trump Steaks. Maybe he can sign up for Trump RX?
My bet: 7-2 or 6-3 striking down Trump's taxes (on Americans)/tariffs.
November 5, 2025 at 11:35 PM
My bet: 7-2 or 6-3 striking down Trump's taxes (on Americans)/tariffs.
My bet: 7-2 or 6-3 striking down Trump's taxes/tariffs.
November 5, 2025 at 6:58 PM
My bet: 7-2 or 6-3 striking down Trump's taxes/tariffs.
@nealkatyal.bsky.social oral argument is 10/10. Spectacular!
November 5, 2025 at 5:00 PM
@nealkatyal.bsky.social oral argument is 10/10. Spectacular!
Thomas & Alito will definitely upheld Trump's massive tariffs/taxes. Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson will definitely reject them. Roberts & Kavanaugh are leaning towards upholding them. Key votes: Gorsuch & Barrett.
Having lots of fun with my @cnn.com colleagues live-blogging our reactions to the #SCOTUS tariffs argument.
You can follow along here:
www.cnn.com/politics/liv...
You can follow along here:
www.cnn.com/politics/liv...
Trump admin faces deeply skeptical Supreme Court in early tariff arguments | CNN Politics
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Wednesday over President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs. Follow here for the latest live news updates.
www.cnn.com
November 5, 2025 at 4:51 PM
Thomas & Alito will definitely upheld Trump's massive tariffs/taxes. Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson will definitely reject them. Roberts & Kavanaugh are leaning towards upholding them. Key votes: Gorsuch & Barrett.
Short version: Trump's DOJ pukes out lots of allegations and half-truths that are irrelevant to the issue at hand (Trump's vindictiveness against Comey) and would never be admissible if the case went to trial, which it won't because it will be dismissed based on vindictive prosecution.
@benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org and @annabower.bsky.social break down the government’s response to James Comey’s motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution—and find that the facts alleged don’t show that Comey lied to Congress. www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...
The Situation: Where’s the Lie?
The government’s response to James Comey’s vindictive prosecution raises one very big and important question.
www.lawfaremedia.org
November 4, 2025 at 11:49 PM
Short version: Trump's DOJ pukes out lots of allegations and half-truths that are irrelevant to the issue at hand (Trump's vindictiveness against Comey) and would never be admissible if the case went to trial, which it won't because it will be dismissed based on vindictive prosecution.
1. @benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org
@jamescomey.bsky.social reply should assert that, in addition to hatred, (unitary executive) Trump, as the de facto prosecutor, wanted Comey prosecuted in order to achieve "self-vindication" of his verbal attacking C as a criminal over many years.
@jamescomey.bsky.social reply should assert that, in addition to hatred, (unitary executive) Trump, as the de facto prosecutor, wanted Comey prosecuted in order to achieve "self-vindication" of his verbal attacking C as a criminal over many years.
November 4, 2025 at 6:50 PM
1. @benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org
@jamescomey.bsky.social reply should assert that, in addition to hatred, (unitary executive) Trump, as the de facto prosecutor, wanted Comey prosecuted in order to achieve "self-vindication" of his verbal attacking C as a criminal over many years.
@jamescomey.bsky.social reply should assert that, in addition to hatred, (unitary executive) Trump, as the de facto prosecutor, wanted Comey prosecuted in order to achieve "self-vindication" of his verbal attacking C as a criminal over many years.
Yes @rparloff.bsky.social that argument is likely meritless. But it doesn't matter because even if "Stalking Horse" Halligan was not authorized to present the case to the GJ, or sign the indictment, the remedy isn't dismissal of the indictment absent prejudice such as H misconduct before the GJ.
In USA v Comey, "for the avoidance of doubt," AG Pam Bondi purports to retroactively appoint Halligan under a different statute and to "ratify" her grand jury presentation & signature on the indictment—a month after the statute of limitation ran out.
November 4, 2025 at 3:29 AM
Yes @rparloff.bsky.social that argument is likely meritless. But it doesn't matter because even if "Stalking Horse" Halligan was not authorized to present the case to the GJ, or sign the indictment, the remedy isn't dismissal of the indictment absent prejudice such as H misconduct before the GJ.
1. Notice how Trump's DOJ avoids any mention of "reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness" by Trump (imputed to "Stalking Horse" Halligan). As I previously stated, even if the court concludes that @jamescomey.bsky.social hasn't established "actual" vindictive prosecution by presenting "direct"
November 4, 2025 at 12:15 AM
1. Notice how Trump's DOJ avoids any mention of "reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness" by Trump (imputed to "Stalking Horse" Halligan). As I previously stated, even if the court concludes that @jamescomey.bsky.social hasn't established "actual" vindictive prosecution by presenting "direct"
Fantastic game. Too bad someone had to loose.
November 2, 2025 at 4:18 AM
Fantastic game. Too bad someone had to loose.
What a FN game!!!
November 2, 2025 at 3:39 AM
What a FN game!!!
Read @jamescomey.bsky.social mtn to dismiss & my posts from month ago. My bet: Indictment dismissed bc (1) vindictive prosecution & (2) "fundamentally ambiguous" questioning by Cruz. The "literal truth" argument isn't as strong but still meritorious.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
October 31, 2025 at 6:56 PM
Read @jamescomey.bsky.social mtn to dismiss & my posts from month ago. My bet: Indictment dismissed bc (1) vindictive prosecution & (2) "fundamentally ambiguous" questioning by Cruz. The "literal truth" argument isn't as strong but still meritorious.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
To the extent that McGuire is going to testify at the hearing, his credibility is in issue. @sean-hecker.bsky.social should argue that Abrego is entitled to any Brady/Giglio material in the government's possession that could be used by the defense to undermine McGuire's credibility.
October 31, 2025 at 12:00 AM
To the extent that McGuire is going to testify at the hearing, his credibility is in issue. @sean-hecker.bsky.social should argue that Abrego is entitled to any Brady/Giglio material in the government's possession that could be used by the defense to undermine McGuire's credibility.
@sean-hecker.bsky.social is correct: No evidentiary hearing until (1) the court decides the Govt's mtn quash defense subpoenas and (2) the defense has been provided with all of the discovery that the court finds it's entitled to receive.
JUST IN: Kilmar Abrego Garcia's lawyers ask judge to cancel hearing on vindictive/selective prosecution next week & instead dismiss case due to govt 'stonewall[ing]' by refusing to have high-level DOJ witnesses testify. Doc: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Pretrial Memorandum – #195 in United States v. Abrego Garcia (M.D. Tenn., 3:25-cr-00115) – CourtListener.com
PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM / Pre-Hearing Brief and Submission Regarding Upcoming Evidentiary Hearing on Vindictive and Selective Prosecution by Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia (Hecker, Sean) (Entered: 10/30/202...
storage.courtlistener.com
October 30, 2025 at 6:46 PM
@sean-hecker.bsky.social is correct: No evidentiary hearing until (1) the court decides the Govt's mtn quash defense subpoenas and (2) the defense has been provided with all of the discovery that the court finds it's entitled to receive.
What was Xi thinking during this encounter? Look at his face. Look at his body language.
October 30, 2025 at 5:12 AM
What was Xi thinking during this encounter? Look at his face. Look at his body language.
Yes. I'm glad to see @martylederman.bsky.social did what I suggested (9 days ago) someone do ... file an amicus on meaning of "regular" forces. An issue that IIRC @jnklz.bsky.social was the first to raise.
@stevevladeck.bsky.social
@stevevladeck.bsky.social
October 29, 2025 at 9:40 PM
Yes. I'm glad to see @martylederman.bsky.social did what I suggested (9 days ago) someone do ... file an amicus on meaning of "regular" forces. An issue that IIRC @jnklz.bsky.social was the first to raise.
@stevevladeck.bsky.social
@stevevladeck.bsky.social
October 29, 2025 at 8:06 PM
But no dismissal of indictments bc Essayli didn't sign or participate in presentation to GJ. Contrast that with "Stalking Horse" Hack Halligan: She signed & presented case to GJ. And looks like judge deciding @jamescomey.bsky.social mtn to dismiss wants to see what Halligan told (and hid from?) GJ.
October 29, 2025 at 1:43 AM
But no dismissal of indictments bc Essayli didn't sign or participate in presentation to GJ. Contrast that with "Stalking Horse" Hack Halligan: She signed & presented case to GJ. And looks like judge deciding @jamescomey.bsky.social mtn to dismiss wants to see what Halligan told (and hid from?) GJ.
Reposted
Lots of examples in this report of cases that federal courts allowed to go forward over immunity objections:
statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/featured/202...
I haven't run each of those to ground to see what happened after.
statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/featured/202...
I haven't run each of those to ground to see what happened after.
Explainer: Can States Prosecute Federal Officials?
Bryna Godar, Staff Attorney PDF Available Here Published: July 17, 2025 As state and local officials increasingly clash with federal officials over immigration enforcement,[1] policing of protests,[2]...
statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu
October 27, 2025 at 5:29 PM
Lots of examples in this report of cases that federal courts allowed to go forward over immunity objections:
statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/featured/202...
I haven't run each of those to ground to see what happened after.
statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/featured/202...
I haven't run each of those to ground to see what happened after.