- 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 1:44 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Posted on 10/9/25 at 1:44 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Now do the auto pen.
1
Posted on 10/9/25 at 1:48 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Now do the auto pen.
I would love to see prosecutions over that and invalidations of pardons wherever warranted.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 1:57 pm to IvoryBillMatt
It is clearly not a fully resolved issue. A District court case and some histoical uses of it outweigh an OLC memo imo - but it wouldn;t be a shock if this is reolved in favor of ruling her not being a valid appointment.
Assume she is not appointed. What seems to be problematic for DOJ is that she was apparently the only attorney that signed the indictment. Which means there is a decent chance a Court will throw out the indictment. Seems like such a rookie move it had to be intentional on the part of Justice?
Assume she is not appointed. What seems to be problematic for DOJ is that she was apparently the only attorney that signed the indictment. Which means there is a decent chance a Court will throw out the indictment. Seems like such a rookie move it had to be intentional on the part of Justice?
Posted on 10/9/25 at 2:17 pm to JimEverett
quote:
It is clearly not a fully resolved issue. A District court case and some histoical uses of it outweigh an OLC memo imo - but it wouldn;t be a shock if this is reolved in favor of ruling her not being a valid appointment.
Assume she is not appointed. What seems to be problematic for DOJ is that she was apparently the only attorney that signed the indictment. Which means there is a decent chance a Court will throw out the indictment. Seems like such a rookie move it had to be intentional on the part of Justice?
Take it with an entire mine of salt because it's from CNN, but their report suggests that Halligan was set up to fail by main Justice, but that she exceeded expectations by getting an indictment.
I want Comey to be convicted. Like you, my real surprise is at the lack of apparent seriousness from DOJ. After looking into it further, who knows, maybe Halligan will be able to pull it off despite lack of support.
CNN: Lack of Support for Halligan
Posted on 10/9/25 at 2:35 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
So... you are saying that NOBODY connected with the White House... not a single person... thought to see if her appointment was lawful or not? They just said... "Hey, what about her? Let's appoint her"... and boom, she was appointed. Didn't check the legalities of it beforehand?
They appointed an insurance lawyer without any prosecutorial experience as the US attorney for one of the most important federal districts. Do you think they took it that seriously?
ETA: This is not to insult Halligan. Apparently, without much help from main Justice and ZERO support from EDVA, she was able to obtain an indictment which almost all insiders thought wouldn't be possible. Who knows...if she was validly appointed, maybe she'll turn out to be a great USA. Trump had never served in elected office before becoming the best president of my lifetime.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 10/10/25 at 7:58 am to MemphisGuy
quote:It is in question (a.k.a. debatable) that Halligan is currently legally appointed.
So... you are saying that NOBODY connected with the White House... not a single person... thought to see if her appointment was lawful or not? They just said... "Hey, what about her? Let's appoint her"... and boom, she was appointed. Didn't check the legalities of it beforehand?
Whether that is found to be the case or not isn't what matters in this context.
Since it is in question, why did Bondi, with all her resources and lawyers at her disposal - especially in VA, especially in N VA, put her of all people.
That's the point I'm making.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 1:04 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Bumping this to show what a swarm of belligerent ignorance a sincere statement of truth elicited from the Clapping Seals.
Reality doesn't depend on what we WANT to be true. Some of you keep believing the same partisan legal hacks no matter how many times they're wrong, because they tell you what you want to hear rather than the truth.
Reality doesn't depend on what we WANT to be true. Some of you keep believing the same partisan legal hacks no matter how many times they're wrong, because they tell you what you want to hear rather than the truth.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 1:05 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Clapping seals are clapping a technicality, fap on my man fap on.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 1:11 pm to Jbird
quote:
Clapping seals are clapping a technicality, fap on my man fap on.
Did I say it wasn't a technicality? I have made it clear that I loathe Comey and would like to see him convicted of his most serious crimes.
I just told y'all what was going to happen in THIS case and you got your panties in a wad. Pathetic.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 1:13 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:Come on man you are fapping, couldn't wait to drop your big win on the board.
I just told y'all what was going to happen in THIS case and you got your panties in a wad. Pathetic.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 1:17 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
I just told y'all what was going to happen in THIS case and you got your panties in a wad. Pathetic.
Yep. The judge ignored 100 years of precedent and made a very poor ruling. Just as you predicted.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 1:19 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Yep. The judge ignored 100 years of precedent and made a very poor ruling. Just as you predicted.
You’re talking about this judge, not Aileen Cannon, right?
Posted on 11/24/25 at 1:20 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Yep. The judge ignored 100 years of precedent and made a very poor ruling. Just as you predicted.
I've learned that it's useless to discuss law here...even with you, whom I respect. Simple question though: have the statutes involved been in place for 100 years? If not, how do you square that with your assertion of 100 years of precedent?
Posted on 11/24/25 at 1:22 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
have the statutes involved been in place for 100 years? If not, how do you square that with your assertion of 100 years of precedent?
De facto officer doctrine is well over 100 years old.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 1:23 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Comey case will be dismissed b/c Halligan's appointment was unlawful
He needs to stop hiring brainless bimbos just 'cause they are smoke shows.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 1:24 pm to BBONDS25
This guy is a Roger type. "I am CONSERVATIVE!" but always seems to pull for the other side.
He just argued in this thread that an attorney in a specific field has a threshold to which they can be appointed. Not the fact that she is an attorney, but that she has "never prosecuted a case".
BTW, this will be over turned.
He just argued in this thread that an attorney in a specific field has a threshold to which they can be appointed. Not the fact that she is an attorney, but that she has "never prosecuted a case".
BTW, this will be over turned.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 1:31 pm to BCreed1
quote:
This guy is a Roger type. "I am CONSERVATIVE!" but always seems to pull for the other side.
He just argued in this thread that an attorney in a specific field has a threshold to which they can be appointed. Not the fact that she is an attorney, but that she has "never prosecuted a case".
BTW, this will be over turned.
THIS is the essence of the Clapping Seals. I have made it clear over and over that Comey deserved to go to jail for his deeds.
You clearly don't understand the law involved. Quit embarrassing yourself. The lack of Halligan’s experience here is only relevant to the fact that she hadn't been an employee of the DOJ for the 90 days required under the Vacancies Reform Act.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 1:33 pm to BCreed1
quote:
This guy is a Roger type. "I am CONSERVATIVE!" but always seems to pull for the other side.
There isn't a liberal or conservative view of this...unless you consider it "conservative" to ignore the text of the statutes involved.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 1:33 pm to IvoryBillMatt
of course he should be prosecuted. He is a scumbag. However, she has no clue how to oversee a criminal prosecution and guess what? She is the supervisor of the case and is responsible for everything filed in her office.
And when you are prosecuting such high profile officials, the USA is going to give the green light or not. Usually will go even higher to get approval.
Thank goodness Gaetz was not AG, this type of garbage would have been repeated over and over.
And when you are prosecuting such high profile officials, the USA is going to give the green light or not. Usually will go even higher to get approval.
Thank goodness Gaetz was not AG, this type of garbage would have been repeated over and over.
Posted on 11/24/25 at 1:38 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
You’re talking about this judge, not Aileen Cannon, right?
Yep.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News