John Sharples
@johnsharples.bsky.social
NYC prosecutor, conviction review guy, musician, fantasy baseball addict.
Nachmanoff must hold a hearing because the govt is trying to prove its case in part with testimony taken by magistrate judge. A hearing judge must examine witnesses himself to determine their credibility.
November 21, 2025 at 11:48 AM
Nachmanoff must hold a hearing because the govt is trying to prove its case in part with testimony taken by magistrate judge. A hearing judge must examine witnesses himself to determine their credibility.
@alegalnerd.bsky.social I figured it out. This article is garbage. It was sent out of state because if Halligan is bounced the EDVA judges will appoint her replacement. Appearance of conflict, or actual conflict. Appealable issue either way. Smart move.
November 20, 2025 at 2:21 PM
@alegalnerd.bsky.social I figured it out. This article is garbage. It was sent out of state because if Halligan is bounced the EDVA judges will appoint her replacement. Appearance of conflict, or actual conflict. Appealable issue either way. Smart move.
On what facts? Do you know of anything potentially chargeable that may have occurred later than the Ted Cruz exchange? And if so, why didn't they present that to the GJ? No time since this case had to be rushed to beat the clock?
November 20, 2025 at 12:29 PM
On what facts? Do you know of anything potentially chargeable that may have occurred later than the Ted Cruz exchange? And if so, why didn't they present that to the GJ? No time since this case had to be rushed to beat the clock?
Would that mean the judge handling V/S motion pauses litigation until the dismissal issue is resolved on appeal, since no case or controversy exist? 2/
November 20, 2025 at 12:23 PM
Would that mean the judge handling V/S motion pauses litigation until the dismissal issue is resolved on appeal, since no case or controversy exist? 2/
IMHO, if the indictment was not properly endorsed by the GJ, then Comey wasn't indicted, and the govt never stopped the SoL clock. No 6-month grace period to cure the defect and re-present the case to another jury because there is no indictment to cure. 1/
November 20, 2025 at 12:21 PM
IMHO, if the indictment was not properly endorsed by the GJ, then Comey wasn't indicted, and the govt never stopped the SoL clock. No 6-month grace period to cure the defect and re-present the case to another jury because there is no indictment to cure. 1/
My bad. You are correct. The Fourth Circuit assigned the cases to Currie (who sits in South Carolina) to decide only the appointment issue. Due to the sensitivity of the issue the 4th thought an outside judge should handle it. So as I see it, if Currie decides against govt C is DWP James is DWOP.
Who is Cameron Currie? Judge hearing Lindsey Halligan disqualification bid
Senior Judge Cameron Currie has been tapped to weigh a rare bid to remove Lindsey Halligan from the James Comey case.
www.newsweek.com
November 16, 2025 at 10:20 PM
My bad. You are correct. The Fourth Circuit assigned the cases to Currie (who sits in South Carolina) to decide only the appointment issue. Due to the sensitivity of the issue the 4th thought an outside judge should handle it. So as I see it, if Currie decides against govt C is DWP James is DWOP.
Does Currie continue to with discovery/hearings on a case that has been DWOPd? No case or controversy. DOJ may or may not re-present, so why should the court waste its time. Given DT's temperament I suppose they will re-present but no guarantee of a true bill. /2
November 16, 2025 at 11:54 AM
Does Currie continue to with discovery/hearings on a case that has been DWOPd? No case or controversy. DOJ may or may not re-present, so why should the court waste its time. Given DT's temperament I suppose they will re-present but no guarantee of a true bill. /2
It doesn't. Shouldn't be too difficult to rule in a week. Either Halligan was a government attorney or she wasn't. Has a single court yet ruled that the 120-day interim limit has some unwritten wiggle room? My question is what happens next--no ruling on Comey V/S (moot), James is DWOP. /1
November 16, 2025 at 11:50 AM
It doesn't. Shouldn't be too difficult to rule in a week. Either Halligan was a government attorney or she wasn't. Has a single court yet ruled that the 120-day interim limit has some unwritten wiggle room? My question is what happens next--no ruling on Comey V/S (moot), James is DWOP. /1
I think discover and hearings are next, and Currie will end up ruling on all the issues in each case in one order (one order per case).
November 16, 2025 at 3:04 AM
I think discover and hearings are next, and Currie will end up ruling on all the issues in each case in one order (one order per case).
I think there will be hearings and discovery on that issue, and on appointment and vindictive/selective. Bondi and Halligan will be called to testify. I hope Currie issues comprehensive opinions because we need that good V/I caselaw to protect Trump's future V/I targets (like "Shifty" Schiff!).
November 15, 2025 at 11:54 PM
I think there will be hearings and discovery on that issue, and on appointment and vindictive/selective. Bondi and Halligan will be called to testify. I hope Currie issues comprehensive opinions because we need that good V/I caselaw to protect Trump's future V/I targets (like "Shifty" Schiff!).
If the jury was deliberating during the gap, Halligan should have stated "The court reporter & I will now leave the room as you deliberate." They probably were deliberating, but Halligan didn't know what she was doing, and apparently no AUSA was going to assist her. GJ practice is not for amateurs.
November 15, 2025 at 11:49 PM
If the jury was deliberating during the gap, Halligan should have stated "The court reporter & I will now leave the room as you deliberate." They probably were deliberating, but Halligan didn't know what she was doing, and apparently no AUSA was going to assist her. GJ practice is not for amateurs.
Of course the post was included--but my particular point was not.
Do you think Currie 1) Orders discovery/holds hearings on both issues, 2) DWOPs on appointment, doesn't address V/I, waits to see if DOJ re-presents James case, 3) decides all 4 motions on papers alone, or 4) something else?
Do you think Currie 1) Orders discovery/holds hearings on both issues, 2) DWOPs on appointment, doesn't address V/I, waits to see if DOJ re-presents James case, 3) decides all 4 motions on papers alone, or 4) something else?
November 15, 2025 at 11:26 PM
Of course the post was included--but my particular point was not.
Do you think Currie 1) Orders discovery/holds hearings on both issues, 2) DWOPs on appointment, doesn't address V/I, waits to see if DOJ re-presents James case, 3) decides all 4 motions on papers alone, or 4) something else?
Do you think Currie 1) Orders discovery/holds hearings on both issues, 2) DWOPs on appointment, doesn't address V/I, waits to see if DOJ re-presents James case, 3) decides all 4 motions on papers alone, or 4) something else?
Trump's Truth Social post that may have been intended to be a private message
November 14, 2025 at 9:50 PM
Trump's Truth Social post that may have been intended to be a private message
Post telling Pam to go after Comey, Leticia, Shifty Schiff...
November 14, 2025 at 9:49 PM
Post telling Pam to go after Comey, Leticia, Shifty Schiff...
1 thing I don't understand, why neither JC or LJ pointed out that the "Pam" post revealed animus, and not legit law enforcement purpose when DJT named JC, LJ and Schiff as a group who should be prosecuted w/o naming specific crimes. The "group" those three belong to is DJT's personal enemies.
November 11, 2025 at 12:41 PM
1 thing I don't understand, why neither JC or LJ pointed out that the "Pam" post revealed animus, and not legit law enforcement purpose when DJT named JC, LJ and Schiff as a group who should be prosecuted w/o naming specific crimes. The "group" those three belong to is DJT's personal enemies.
Much as I'd like to see outright dismissal, I hope the court orders discovery & a hearing (and I get a sense that Comey hopes so, too). It would be best to build a substantial record in the fact-finding (district) court before it goes up on appeal. The appellate courts will be bound by those facts.
November 11, 2025 at 4:16 AM
Much as I'd like to see outright dismissal, I hope the court orders discovery & a hearing (and I get a sense that Comey hopes so, too). It would be best to build a substantial record in the fact-finding (district) court before it goes up on appeal. The appellate courts will be bound by those facts.
"The government cannot explain how a call to prosecute Mr. Comey before the charged conduct occurred reveals a
legitimate prosecutorial motive for this prosecution." LOL
legitimate prosecutorial motive for this prosecution." LOL
November 11, 2025 at 3:32 AM
"The government cannot explain how a call to prosecute Mr. Comey before the charged conduct occurred reveals a
legitimate prosecutorial motive for this prosecution." LOL
legitimate prosecutorial motive for this prosecution." LOL
Yes. James's brief was a barn burner as well.
November 11, 2025 at 3:16 AM
Yes. James's brief was a barn burner as well.
Of course it will be with prejudice. Without prejudice means gov't can bring the case again if....if what? If they cure the defect? How do you cure vindictive/selective?
November 11, 2025 at 3:14 AM
Of course it will be with prejudice. Without prejudice means gov't can bring the case again if....if what? If they cure the defect? How do you cure vindictive/selective?
@alegalnerd.bsky.social What changed your mind? I have to say I found the Facts section staggering. I thought I knew a lot, but I didn't know half of it. I didn't know Bondi pressured James to resign or be prosecuted. Good night Irene!
November 10, 2025 at 3:58 AM
@alegalnerd.bsky.social What changed your mind? I have to say I found the Facts section staggering. I thought I knew a lot, but I didn't know half of it. I didn't know Bondi pressured James to resign or be prosecuted. Good night Irene!
Agreed. But I mean it as a compliment: you're obviously smart and rigorous and frankly know more about this area of the law than I do, so I am sincerely "glad" when we're in agreement.
November 10, 2025 at 3:32 AM
Agreed. But I mean it as a compliment: you're obviously smart and rigorous and frankly know more about this area of the law than I do, so I am sincerely "glad" when we're in agreement.
SCOTUS has also found a liberty interest in doing one's job, so that's another exercise of a Constitutional right, which is guaranteed by 5th amendment due process. Comey missed that one.
November 10, 2025 at 2:49 AM
SCOTUS has also found a liberty interest in doing one's job, so that's another exercise of a Constitutional right, which is guaranteed by 5th amendment due process. Comey missed that one.
@alegalnerd.bsky.social Glad to see you are coming around! And I mean that sincerely.
I like how the brief doesn't shy away from James's prior comments that make it sound like maybe her case vs Trump was in fact political: it provides motive for his reprisal, & two wrongs don't make a right.
I like how the brief doesn't shy away from James's prior comments that make it sound like maybe her case vs Trump was in fact political: it provides motive for his reprisal, & two wrongs don't make a right.
November 10, 2025 at 2:45 AM
@alegalnerd.bsky.social Glad to see you are coming around! And I mean that sincerely.
I like how the brief doesn't shy away from James's prior comments that make it sound like maybe her case vs Trump was in fact political: it provides motive for his reprisal, & two wrongs don't make a right.
I like how the brief doesn't shy away from James's prior comments that make it sound like maybe her case vs Trump was in fact political: it provides motive for his reprisal, & two wrongs don't make a right.
Agreed: Blanche's comments re Garcia = "Pam" tweet.
October 26, 2025 at 3:33 AM
Agreed: Blanche's comments re Garcia = "Pam" tweet.