Weneedlucretiamott
LightNews LightNews
weneedlucretiamott.bsky.social
Weneedlucretiamott
@weneedlucretiamott.bsky.social
7.9K followers 13K following 3.1K posts
Pro-Democracy progressive American, very very very very anti-Trump and his army of MAGA goons. Mother of two daughters and scared out of her mind for what's next. Daughter of two retired, long-time Federal employees. Baltimore resident, DC native.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Weneedlucretiamott
emptywheel.bsky.social
Link:
DOJ response:
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

FBI affidavit:
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
#172 in United States v. Comey (E.D. Va., 1:25-cr-00272) – CourtListener.com
RESPONSE by USA as to James B. Comey, Jr re 168 Order,, GOVERNMENT'S ADDITIONAL BRIEFING ON DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY MATERIALS (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit)(Diaz, Gabriel) (Entered: 11/1...
storage.courtlistener.com
November 10, 2025 at 5:28 PM
Reposted by Weneedlucretiamott
emptywheel.bsky.social
Meanwhile, DOJ INSISTS there's no way Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer presented tainted or 4A violative material to GJ.

But yesterday those same Loaner AUSAs told Comey they have no fucking clue if they were reviewing responsive sets or not.

[The fourth warrant is where privileged texts came from.]
Even assuming the defendant could prove that the government violated the Fourth Amendment or attorney-client privilege in its grand jury presentation (and to be clear, he cannot), the remedy would be to suppress that evidence at trial—not to dismiss the indictment. So, the defendant has not shown that “a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). He is not entitled to access grand jury material. 5 The Order also required the government to provide, in writing, by the same deadline: “Confirmation of whether the Government has divided the materials searched pursuant to the four 2019 and 2020 warrants at issue into materials that are responsive and non-responsive to those warrants, and, if so, a detailed explanation of the methodology used to make that determination; A detailed explanation of whether, and for what period of time, the Government has preserved any materials identified as non-responsive to the four search warrants; A description identifying which materials have been identified as responsive, if any; and A description identifying which materials have previously been designated as privileged.” ECF No. 161 at 1-2. Despite certifying on November 6 that it had complied with the Court’s Order, ECF No. 163, the government did not provide this information until the evening of November 9, 2025, in response to a defense inquiry. The government told the defense that it “does not know” whether there are responsive sets for the first, third, and fourth warrants, or whether it has produced those to the defense, and said that in that regard, “we are still pulling prior emails” and the “agent reviewed the filtered material through relativity but there appears to be a loss of data that we are currently trying to restore.”
November 10, 2025 at 5:32 PM
Reposted by Weneedlucretiamott
emptywheel.bsky.social
Comey's filing.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
#171 in United States v. Comey (E.D. Va., 1:25-cr-00272) – CourtListener.com
RESPONSE by James B. Comey, Jr re 168 Order,, (Carmichael, Jessica) (Entered: 11/10/2025)
storage.courtlistener.com
November 10, 2025 at 5:32 PM
Reposted by Weneedlucretiamott
emptywheel.bsky.social
Meanwhile, here's what the agent said:
1) They were working directly for Kash's Director's Advisory Team.
2) The apparently got the ENTIRE Cellebrite extraction for Richman's iPhone.
3) They claim not to know who Michael Garcia was but reviewed anyway when looking for comms bt Comey and Richman. 🤔
3¶¶ of an FBI affidavit laying out what this post describes.
November 10, 2025 at 5:36 PM