@haveyouanywool.bsky.social
Doesn’t matter, because the statute of limitations has run, so no do-overs.
November 20, 2025 at 3:03 AM
Doesn’t matter, because the statute of limitations has run, so no do-overs.
Also, given the time of day, all grand jurors but the foreperson likely had bern dismissed.
November 20, 2025 at 3:02 AM
Also, given the time of day, all grand jurors but the foreperson likely had bern dismissed.
The military has first amendment rights, too, and without more facts in your scenario, there is no valid military purpose for this otherwise unconstitutional order.
November 20, 2025 at 2:58 AM
The military has first amendment rights, too, and without more facts in your scenario, there is no valid military purpose for this otherwise unconstitutional order.
The point is the GJ did not vote on the indictment that was signed and filed. Not that one. This is the scenario for “Gaitherization,” to confirm the GJ vote, and to be able to represent to the Judge that the GJ voted to return THIS true bill. Nobody drinks coffee around original indictments!
November 20, 2025 at 2:57 AM
The point is the GJ did not vote on the indictment that was signed and filed. Not that one. This is the scenario for “Gaitherization,” to confirm the GJ vote, and to be able to represent to the Judge that the GJ voted to return THIS true bill. Nobody drinks coffee around original indictments!
The case is that old, and there aren’t any cases on point since that time, because AUSAs have been indicting people properly, except for Halligan, who didn’t listen to more experienced, career AUSAs. Mission accomplished for her, tho, pulling an indictment out when they said it couldn’t be done!
November 20, 2025 at 2:51 AM
The case is that old, and there aren’t any cases on point since that time, because AUSAs have been indicting people properly, except for Halligan, who didn’t listen to more experienced, career AUSAs. Mission accomplished for her, tho, pulling an indictment out when they said it couldn’t be done!
No, no they don’t all do the same thing.
November 19, 2025 at 11:50 PM
No, no they don’t all do the same thing.
Jack Eckenrode is no longer an FBI Special Agent, is he? Isn’t he long past the mandatory retirement age? Did the FBI recruit him out of retirement for some non-Special Agent duties (like, say, “Special Assistant” or some other political position)?
November 19, 2025 at 11:25 PM
Jack Eckenrode is no longer an FBI Special Agent, is he? Isn’t he long past the mandatory retirement age? Did the FBI recruit him out of retirement for some non-Special Agent duties (like, say, “Special Assistant” or some other political position)?
Trump won, so a majority of the voters couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the black lady. A slim majority, yes, but a majority of the voters nonetheless.
November 19, 2025 at 10:42 PM
Trump won, so a majority of the voters couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the black lady. A slim majority, yes, but a majority of the voters nonetheless.
Yes, that’s why in a high-volume district like Washington, DC, indictments are “Gaitherized” before they are returned to the Chief Judge in court, so that the GJ can confirm their votes return a true bill of indictment.
November 19, 2025 at 9:44 PM
Yes, that’s why in a high-volume district like Washington, DC, indictments are “Gaitherized” before they are returned to the Chief Judge in court, so that the GJ can confirm their votes return a true bill of indictment.
Of course she was, among other fringe candidates in the ballot, too, but that’s not who the election was about. That’s why they’re labeled “fringe” candidates. The point stands, this was an election between Harris and Trump, and too many voters couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the black lady.
November 19, 2025 at 9:41 PM
Of course she was, among other fringe candidates in the ballot, too, but that’s not who the election was about. That’s why they’re labeled “fringe” candidates. The point stands, this was an election between Harris and Trump, and too many voters couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the black lady.
Isn’t that the time period when the GJ was deliberating and voting? Halligan would not be in there and no record is made of proceedings by the GJ by itself.
November 19, 2025 at 9:38 PM
Isn’t that the time period when the GJ was deliberating and voting? Halligan would not be in there and no record is made of proceedings by the GJ by itself.
Nope, longtime lurker.
November 19, 2025 at 9:32 PM
Nope, longtime lurker.
Blowing your nose and the snot would come out sooty-black. Going up one floor in the house, and you’d be panting at the top of the flight of stairs, out of breath from the air pollution.
November 19, 2025 at 8:34 PM
Blowing your nose and the snot would come out sooty-black. Going up one floor in the house, and you’d be panting at the top of the flight of stairs, out of breath from the air pollution.
Yes, and still blogged, too. I miss the OTAN. (If you know, you know.)
November 19, 2025 at 8:28 PM
Yes, and still blogged, too. I miss the OTAN. (If you know, you know.)
. . . statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution.”
So to the extent no indictment was in fact returned by this GJ, that would be a failure to file the indictment . . . within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations . . . .”
So to the extent no indictment was in fact returned by this GJ, that would be a failure to file the indictment . . . within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations . . . .”
November 19, 2025 at 8:23 PM
. . . statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution.”
So to the extent no indictment was in fact returned by this GJ, that would be a failure to file the indictment . . . within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations . . . .”
So to the extent no indictment was in fact returned by this GJ, that would be a failure to file the indictment . . . within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations . . . .”
Gotta read all the way to the end of these statutes: “This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable . . .
November 19, 2025 at 8:23 PM
Gotta read all the way to the end of these statutes: “This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable . . .
Halligan seems to have misspoken to the District Court when she claimed not to have ever seen one of the two indictment-looking documents, even though she signed both of them. No doubt she was flustered in the rush of the moment, her first indictment, and against Jim Comey, woo-hoo!
November 19, 2025 at 7:36 PM
Halligan seems to have misspoken to the District Court when she claimed not to have ever seen one of the two indictment-looking documents, even though she signed both of them. No doubt she was flustered in the rush of the moment, her first indictment, and against Jim Comey, woo-hoo!
In the foreperson’s defense, grand jurors are instructed to rely on the prosecutors for advice on legal issues, and the GJ reportedly had voted, in substance, to indict on two of the three charges, so the foreperson could have taken Halligan’s word for it that these procedures were legally valid.
November 19, 2025 at 7:36 PM
In the foreperson’s defense, grand jurors are instructed to rely on the prosecutors for advice on legal issues, and the GJ reportedly had voted, in substance, to indict on two of the three charges, so the foreperson could have taken Halligan’s word for it that these procedures were legally valid.
And the GJ had probably been dismissed for the day (or entirely?), so running back to ask for a final, official vote on the newly typed-up, and now ostensibly operative, bill of indictment was likely not feasible that day, as it was way past 6:00 pm.
November 19, 2025 at 7:31 PM
And the GJ had probably been dismissed for the day (or entirely?), so running back to ask for a final, official vote on the newly typed-up, and now ostensibly operative, bill of indictment was likely not feasible that day, as it was way past 6:00 pm.
Yeah, since when does a member of the public rate an FBI SWAT escort, regardless of the assessed degree of risk from credible threats? Non-federal employees have to hire their own body guards, they don’t get them for free from the local FBI field office. There’s your waste fraud and abuse.
November 19, 2025 at 7:28 PM
Yeah, since when does a member of the public rate an FBI SWAT escort, regardless of the assessed degree of risk from credible threats? Non-federal employees have to hire their own body guards, they don’t get them for free from the local FBI field office. There’s your waste fraud and abuse.
But that is all confidential opinion, in support of a recommendation, not facts. Any exculpatory information is disclosed to the defense when procedurally required, and not by disclosing an internal decision memo, but by producing the actual exculpatory evidence or otherwise conveying the substance.
November 19, 2025 at 7:22 PM
But that is all confidential opinion, in support of a recommendation, not facts. Any exculpatory information is disclosed to the defense when procedurally required, and not by disclosing an internal decision memo, but by producing the actual exculpatory evidence or otherwise conveying the substance.
No, no it doesn’t. The statute has run, and no charges based on those facts may be brought anymore.
November 19, 2025 at 7:08 PM
No, no it doesn’t. The statute has run, and no charges based on those facts may be brought anymore.
No, it’s internal deliberation, the opinion of working-level prosecutors, and not relevant to guilt or innocence of the accused. These prose memos or affirmative action memos or no-affirmative action memos are not typically disclosable to the defense.
November 19, 2025 at 7:07 PM
No, it’s internal deliberation, the opinion of working-level prosecutors, and not relevant to guilt or innocence of the accused. These prose memos or affirmative action memos or no-affirmative action memos are not typically disclosable to the defense.