- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Comey case will be dismissed b/c Halligan's appointment was unlawful
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:17 am to IvoryBillMatt
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:17 am to IvoryBillMatt
Fo sho, AggieHank.
Yeah, post like him but the biggest reveal is the condescending arrogance. Can't hide it no matter how hard you try.
Yeah, post like him but the biggest reveal is the condescending arrogance. Can't hide it no matter how hard you try.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 10:20 am
0
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:23 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
"Was Halligan Validly Appointed?"
I don't know the answer to this question, but I hope it takes several years off this a-hole's life and a couple hundred thousand dollars out of his pocket to find out.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:33 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
I'm not AggieHank. It's not a concern. It's a fact. I know facts don't concern you.
you might want to check your link hank because when i clicked on it to see what crap you were posting i got page not there notification.
just so you know, hank conservatives no longer consider the national respew credible.
thank you for your attention to this matter.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:35 am to Riverside
quote:
Quit watching MSNBC and let the case run its course.
I never watch MSNBC. I get my facts from primary sources. The whole point is that Halligan was NOT legally authorized to sign an indictment because her appointment was invalid.
She didn't meet the qualifications under the Vacancy Reforms Act, 5 USC 3345. Read some statutes sometime instead of mindlessly criticizing those of us who do.
In general, I think MAGA is taken advantage of by grifters who tell us what we want to hear ("special super duper indictment coming down the road against Comey for TREASON!") instead of keeping us informed with the fact-based, objective news.
The facts of the Comey indictment are that the prosecution team is in way over their heads and they are about to get walloped, not because Comey never did anything wrong, but because this particular indictment is trash. The dismissal of the case based on the fact that Halligan had no authority to sign the indictment will be a mercy killing.
Speaking of facts, I have never heard your theory as to why I am an alter for AggieHank despite being a member since March 2020.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:41 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Speaking of facts, I have never heard your theory as to why I am an alter for AggieHank despite being a member since March 2020.
because you clearly are, just so you know hank, the national respew has already pulled the article it's no longer on their website.
if you can find it again re link it i clicked on it because i wanted to see who wrote it. if it was andy mccarthy you can just go ahead and eat my schit!
have a nice day!
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:42 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:That's a bold statement.
ourt dismisses the entire indictment against Comey based purely on Halligan’s appointment defect
If defense brings the issue, and the court finds in its favor, it has options.
E.g.:
If the court disqualifies Halligan d/t unlawful appointment, it could:
(1) Dismiss the entire indictment against Comey based purely on Halligan’s appointment ... unlikely but possible
(2) It could order less drastic remedies (transfer the case to a valid U.S. Attorney, etc.)
But it's a two edged sword.
If the defense pushes for Halligan's disqualification as you say they will, SOL questions could come into play. Rather than risk the case being tossed, which could raise those SOL issues, the DOJ will almost certainly partition for the judge's recusal (which they may anyway).
Recusal considerations would freeze other proceedings, allowing the DOJ to remedy the Halligan issue by appointing a more "seasoned" prosecutor, potentially in front of a judge less favorable to the Comey team. All that would occur before the court could address Halligan.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 10:53 am
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:43 am to Riverside
quote:
An acting USA can prosecute crimes within the federal district.
Riverside, I apologize for responding to you as if you were capable of honest discourse. Who doubts that an interim USA can prosecute crimes? Of course, that wasn't the point. It was whether or not this particular interim USA had been validly appointed.
According to every statutory authority I can find, she was not. To rebut my statement, you offered...NOTHING.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:45 am to IvoryBillMatt
The odds are against getting a guilty verdict out of a jury in that area anyway.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:46 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
That's a bold statement.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I just don't see how the defective indictment could toll the statute of limitations.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:46 am to TrueTiger
quote:In that case, the punishment is the process.
The odds are against getting a guilty verdict out of a jury in that area anyway.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:46 am to IvoryBillMatt
New areas of legal expertise for Aggie Hank unlocked.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:47 am to IvoryBillMatt
No judge has agreed to that in any case involving other "improper" appointments
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:47 am to the808bass
quote:
New areas of legal expertise for Aggie Hank unlocked.
Except he is wrong. NC pointed out just some of the reasons.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:50 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:My understanding is the filing was arguably on the eve of SOL expiration (Arguably because Ted Cruz did get Comey to reaffirm precious duplicitous assertions more recently). If the entire case was tossed, a new indictment would fall outside of SOLs.
I just don't see how the defective indictment could toll the statute of limitations.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:53 am to dickkellog
Well argued as to why I'm AggieHank. Just as valid as your statement that the linked article is not up on NR. As usual, you're wrong on all accounts.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:59 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
My understanding is the filing was arguably on the eve of SOL expiration (Arguably because Ted Cruz did get Comey to reaffirm precious duplicitous assertions more recently). If the entire case was tossed, a new indictment would fall outside of SOLs.
I agree. Sorry if I were unclear. The indictment is invalid. An invalid indictment does not suspend the running of the statute of limitations.
Someone at DOJ dropped the ball by not appointing someone who met the qualifications to serve as "acting" USA as dictated by the Vacancies Reform Act.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 11:01 am to IvoryBillMatt
This is a reach.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 11:09 am to NC_Tigah
Again, thanks for the thoughtful reply, but we learned a great deal of information from yesterday's discussion by the Court of a schedule.
The Court has already set the deadline for dispositive motions for less than two weeks from now. The defense said they would be filing two such motions. One for dismissal of the case based on the fact that the indictment was signed by someone who had no legal authority to do so (Halligan). The other for vindictive prosecution.
The cracker jack prosecution team didn't say they would be offering any motions and agreed with defense that the January 5 trial should take 3 days. I know people WANT this case to be much more, but I think it would have come out yesterday.
The Court has already set the deadline for dispositive motions for less than two weeks from now. The defense said they would be filing two such motions. One for dismissal of the case based on the fact that the indictment was signed by someone who had no legal authority to do so (Halligan). The other for vindictive prosecution.
The cracker jack prosecution team didn't say they would be offering any motions and agreed with defense that the January 5 trial should take 3 days. I know people WANT this case to be much more, but I think it would have come out yesterday.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 11:10 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:A bolder statement still.
The indictment is invalid.
So in the event any ruling on dismissal comes after the Halligan issue has long been resolved, you feel the court would still throw the entire case out?
Posted on 10/9/25 at 11:13 am to IvoryBillMatt
that's not a link, that's a screen capture hank, the link provided in the op tells me page not found.
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News