Molly Roberts

Confirmation that Letitia James is *not* a ham sandwich. (On a more serious note, this failure to get a true bill is a pretty remarkable indictment of the would-be indicters.)

Prosecutors expected to seek re-indictment of Letitia James this week After Lindsey Halligan found unlawfully appointed, Trump's DOJ expected to seek re-indictment of Letitia James, with Comey's fate uncertain.

Per MS NOW, the Trump DOJ is expected to seek to re-indict Letitia James tomorrow in Norfolk. www.ms.now/news/prosecu...

Public Service Fellowship Alumni of the federal workforce and civil service with expertise in national security, law, and policy

On this #GivingTuesday, I want to draw your attention to the @lawfaremedia.org Public Service Fellowship, a unique program that is genuinely making a difference for people who leave government with important things to say:
givebutter.com/f7fpQk

FWIW Judge Currie includes a footnote in her opinion saying that an invalid indictment “cannot serve to block the door of limitations as it swings closed”—suggesting she, at least, doesn’t think the government gets another go at Comey.

Whoops first of these posts is garbled. Should begin “Judge Currie has ruled”!

These were dismissed without prejudice, so the government *could* bring new cases (a lawfully appointed U.S. attorney could, that is!). May prove tricky for Comey, where the statute of limitations would have to be extended. Easier for James.

Lindsey Halligan's appointment as interim U.S. attorney invalid and dismissed the indictments against James Comey and Letitia James. Screenshot from order in the latter below:

One final note. The difference between the degree to which the opposing parties seem to have been collegial/collaborative in this case vs. in the Letitia James case—which Abbe Lowell is also defending—is stark.

Judge says he’s fine with the extended timeline. They’ll do a joint filing embodying the request for that ruling. So this is over!

They’ll also set a Feb. 13 date for pretrial motions that can be made without reference to classified material. Some of the motions the defense is considering—possibly for search issues, possibly for multiplicitous charges—may require more knowledge of the classified material.

Now they’re going through the schedule on the CIPA proceedings—basically, the filings/hearings that will determine how classified info will be used at trial.

The government will submit its proposed redactions to those initial 10 documents by Jan. 12 (with defense given 2 wks to respond). The parties will also give a status report on the next goal/deadline. The documents themselves will be produced, gov expects, “in the next 2 weeks or so.”

Judge still really doesn’t want everything to wait til May, so he is hoping to set an interim deadline to try to move things along.

But basically the defense is fine with the long timeline given the complications of reviewing/redacting the necessary documents. “Ambassador Bolton totally agrees these issues outweigh any normal right he would have to a speedy trial.”

Judge, now speaking with the defense, wonders how the government could “know someone is using classified information” if it doesn’t already have the “documents in hand?” Says, “They shouldn’t be off looking for it. I assume they probably have that.”

The government’s response is that it has the 10 charged documents—those in the indictment—essentially ready to go once clearances are sorted. But the “total universe” of docs is 65, estimated to be “in excess of 1,000 pages.” Takes time to review/consult with relevant intel agencies.

Judge is wondering why the government needs 7 months to prove its case. Says “a good prosecutor” would have discovery ready to go the day a defendant was indicted.

Abbe Lowell was just reprimanded for not standing up in court when answering a question. Judge already seemed annoyed about requests related to the D.C. SCIF—where Lowell says it would be more convenient for him to review materials—filed to a judge there instead of here, to him.

Back-and-forth about whether the defense can use a SCIF (secure compartmented information facility!) in D.C. to review classified materials in the case vs. using a SCIF currently being constructed for this purpose in Greenbelt.

Seems like Bolton isn’t appearing today, btw.

Amusing exchange ahead of John Bolton status conference. Lawyers confabbing in the courtroom, and Abbe Lowell tried to ask the counsel for the government about the Martin/Pulte drama. He wouldn’t bite, jokingly asked whether Lowell had a mole in his office, because “you seem to know more than I do.”

Comey, James, and ‘Animus Through a Megaphone’ Claims of vindictive prosecution are usually hard to win. But James Comey and Letitia James both have unusual cases.

It is usually really hard to get a case dismissed for vindictive prosecution! But thanks to President Trump, James Comey and Letitia James have unusual cases. Read all about it in my latest for @lawfaremedia.org: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/come...

Lots more happened, too! Lindsey Halligan even briefly spoke in open court! My colleagues and I will be discussing all of it on Lawfare Live later today, so stayed tuned.

The judge asked counsel for the government whether someone instructed him that he couldn’t reveal the answer to that question. He said yes, and referenced the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.

Along the way, the government also wouldn’t respond “yes” or “no” to the question of whether a declination memo was prepared before the prosecution was ultimately brought.

This morning’s hearing in the James Comey case was a doozy. Was supposed to be about vindictive prosecution—but ended with the government admitting the full grand jury never had a chance to see the operative indictment.

Threshold for winning on such a motion appears to be that the government's conduct "shock the conscience."

Also references Special Attorney for Mortgage Fraud Ed Martin's stunt appearance at James's home wearing a Columbo-style trenchcoat, and says Lindsey Halligan's "only credential is loyalty."

Latest motion to dismiss by Letitia James, this one for "Outrageous Government Conduct," says criminal referral could have been based on "exclusively on a single fringe blogger's 'evidence'" or unlawfully accessed Fannie Mae loan files. www.courtlistener.com/docket/71601...

Fitzpatrick also says that either Halligan is wrong about the grand jury minutes being complete or we are in "uncharted territory" because the indictment returned in open court is not the same as the one presented to & deliberated upon by the grand jury. (h/t @emptywheel.bsky.social )