40 Comments
User's avatar
Alastriona's avatar

We are discovering judges with lifetime appointments are the last defense of democracy and justice. So far it has been judges with regard for justice and law that have held the line. Unfortunately the weak link has proven to be the Supreme Court.

Expand full comment
Cats&music's avatar

"[W]illing to cut legal and ethical corners to please the President" is a huge understatement! They are willing to lie, elide, & write a whole new novel to please the President. Remembering the fall-out from the last trump debacle, every lawyer involved is looking straight into the gorgon's face of disbarment. Are they so blinded by the cult that they cannot see this staring them down?!

Expand full comment
LeslieN's avatar

They all sold their souls.

Expand full comment
John's avatar
2dEdited

Thank god for our lower courts. They are, in contrast to the dictator’s despicable enabling toadies on the high court, the true defenders of our Constitution. Without them upholding the rules of law, I shudder to think where we’d be now.

Expand full comment
John Lee's avatar

Truth is a commodity, not endless. We look to Lady Justice as impartial, seeking to discern the best outcome for all now the US DOJ has squandered its store of " truth justice, and the American way of life". To what end is a question that needs answering.

Expand full comment
rama's avatar

Corruption of the justice system is a hallmark of a dictatorship. We all saw this coming.

Expand full comment
Elizabeth Fenlon's avatar

Your essays are excellent, Mr. Litman. You slice right through the garbage and obfuscation and tell the truth. I’m afraid I don’t see this DOJ improving at all in the future. As the saying goes, the fish rots from the head. Though bondi herself was rotted all along. If worse comes to more worse and we end up with Vance, the dictator in waiting, we are doomed and the DOJ will be neutered. Thank you always for your essays!

Expand full comment
Irene Finn's avatar

Totally inept, just like everything else put out by this administration.

Expand full comment
Robert Lawrence Gioia's avatar

The title is all wrong!!!! DOJ's credibility? What credibility. It's long gone!

Expand full comment
Marti Williams's avatar

Dissolving trust and obsfucation may be the intent. Or am I giving too much credit to DOJ?

Expand full comment
LeslieN's avatar

Agree. Like the dismantling the trust of the elections process, education, medical vaccines & research, and the list goes on.

Expand full comment
Tom McCurnin's avatar

I’m a former public defender and AUSA.

The 3 count indictment with one declination would have been sufficient in a pinch to take before the magistrate. So I don’t get Halligans stupid exercise, just to get a clean indictment.

What the trial judge should do is call all lawyers, secretaries, and assistants before the court to get a precise timeline of that 2 count indictment from birth to filing. That would be highly embarrassing for Halligan.

I don’t believe the trial judge will presently dismiss the case but will order full discovery. And there may be a subsequent motion to dismiss.

Expand full comment
Fred Krasner's avatar

What you suggest about presenting the three count indictment with one declination has the ring of logic to support it. The snag may be that the Fed. Rules of Crim. Procedure may not allow it. I have no personal knowledge; it's just a thought.

Expand full comment
Tom McCurnin's avatar

I’ve been retired from criminal law quite a while, but I think FRCP 6 merely requires that the Grand Jury vote on it. We were taught to go back and get a clean indictment so as not to alert the defense of possible weaknesses in the case. There was never any reason to do otherwise as we were ahead of the statute of limitations usually by years.

That’s my recollection.

As an aside we had weekly indictment meets every Thursday where supervisors would meet with the FBI, review Form 32s, and the AUSAs and decide which cases to file, which cases to drop, and which cases to send back for further investigation.

Those were fun meetings.

I was a civil trial lawyer for the last 35 years of my career after retiring in 2019.

Expand full comment
Swbv's avatar

I know how to tell if Pam Bondi is sneering, lying, or dissembling. Her lips are moving.

Expand full comment
Ray Zielinski's avatar

Pretty ironic that an administration that has sought to undermine the credibility of all of our institutions of government has now undermined its own credibility.

Expand full comment
Elaine Lueras's avatar

That was the intention all along.

Expand full comment
Steve Foman's avatar

If Judge Nachmanoff does not dismiss this case with prejudice, that would be the greatest miscarriage of justice to date. The current DOJ has proven that they cannot be trusted to be truthful and that they present way too many cases that are primarily driven only to please a maniacal president. They are owed no deference. This case must be dismissed with prejudice.

Expand full comment
Kathy Hughes's avatar

I think he will, it’s possible Ms. Halligan would be sanctioned, and a disciplinary referral could be forthcoming.

Expand full comment
Steve Foman's avatar

Halligan should be disbarred.

Expand full comment
Kathy Hughes's avatar

I definitely agree, because this is a complete fraud on the court. I would love to be a fly on the wall at the disciplinary hearing.

Expand full comment
Brian Collins's avatar

Brilliant essay Harry correctly summarising the shambles that the DOJ has been reduced to. I do wonder if someone on a committee is recording these instances in order to bring bolshie Bondi back in front of the house or senate to explain?

Expand full comment
Olwatzhisname's avatar

We can't trust the DOJ on evidence, we can't trust the jobs reports, unemployment numbers, economic data, health data or recommendations, foreign policy, or pretty much anything. The first part of the decoration of Independence would seen to be relevant now.

Expand full comment
Veilomani's avatar

The entire case should be thrown out and Halligan and Bondi should be disbarred. They have both shown contempt for the lega process, engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, committed perjury with the changing positions of what the Grand Dury did and did not see or do. Halligan's "Trust me, the government has away better and more damaging evidence than this" strikes as a complete fabrication. If the government had more compelling evidence, why didn't the Grand Jury not see it? Grand Jury proceedings are secret, so the Defence would only have seen in when/if it was presented in court. And as for Bondi, she has shown an almost pathological desire to do Trump's bidding, regardless of any evidence that is exculpatory for the target of Trump's ire. She has shown contempt for following the processes of her department as well as the rule of law. Her behavior and responses to House Reps and Senators during what should have been a routine Oversight Committee Hearing was contemptuous, obstructionist and shows that the only person she will answer to is Trump and she will do anything to please him. Both she and Halligan should be stripped of their legal licenses and must never be allowed to practice law again, or even to step foot in a courtroom!

Expand full comment