dukkbill

quote:

---

It's probably stupid to clarify legal points here, but

---

I think it’s a prudent discussion

First, I agree that Lemons is a solid attorney and his pleadings and oral arguments are well crafted.

Nevertheless, the magistrate judge’s observation is correct. There will be a new ruling of law. Russell and its progeny identify two non-defective amendments

(1) A scriveners error

It’s unlikely we fall into this bucket. There aren’t typos. There is a procedural issue that must be discussed. That is, Halligan didn’t merely type James Coney or write “Teh”

(2) A lessening of charges on a fully voted on indictment

That is, the government presented ABCD. The GJ voted and approved ABCD. ABCD was presented to the clerk and the court proceeded on ABCD. The government then chooses to amend to only proceed on ABC

This is distinguishable. The government presented XYZ. The issue at law will be if the GJ can separately vote for X then Y and then Z or may it only vote on the transaction XYZ (e.g. like a veto compared to a line item veto). If they can only vote on the transaction then no bill was returned. If they may separately vote on each count, a true bill was returned and the foreman signed the bill reflecting the will of the GJ (e.g. he resolved the hanging chad)

Personally, I think the will of the GJ should control but there is a question of law

quote:

---

course the DOJ can't release documents concerning ongoing investigations

---

Serious and legitimate question - is this the state of law or policy?

More specifically, is there a law that prevents disclosure?

I concur that they should not. It would interfere with the investigation and runs the risk of creating extra judicial punishment and shaming.

Nevertheless, I’m not aware of any statute that prevents such disclosure. Instead most statutes that compel disclosure (e.g. FOIA) have exclusions that allow information to not be disclosed

Thus, I had presumed the hierarchy is

Executive branch can withhold anything unless compelled
They may be compelled by court order or statute
Most statutes have exclusions for ongoing investigations

To make it germain, the issue would then be:

1- what exclusions to compelled disclosure exist in the transparency act; and
2-how would the transparency act intersect with the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch

The 2nd is minefield bc unless you get one of those weird non-textual decisions, the outcome could also impact FOIA. Thus I’d hope there would be superseding legislation to allow

Thus, my seat of the pants answers would be

Can-yes
Should-no
Will-no

I didn’t look deeper and to paraphrase your earlier point- I am here to learn

quote:

---

Is it possible she is so dumb/inexperienced she didn't know this was a no-no?

---

That may depend on which actions we are examining

- I wouldn’t fault her for unknowingly tilting at windmills. If no one ever goes against lost causes, the law becomes statist
- I wouldn’t fault her for procedural errors. The MPRE might say she violated a duty, but I’d be more forgiving if that was a charge on an ethics violation

- She wasn’t a jerk about it. She knew her limitations and did not dogmatically try to sell her experience or her theories. She confined her actions to the tribunals
- They overstep would potentiallybe intentionally misrepresenting the result of prior proceedings to a tribunal. If founded, that is something that could be subject to censure

quote:

---

is mind-boggling that Halligan was allowed by the DOJ to handle the indictment by herself.

---

I hope we learn the behind the scenes story on these events someday, but here is what we do know

- Halligan has done the jr associate work for Trump before. She was the one that appeared at Mar-a-Lago during the subpoena. I feel for her on that. Many fine professionals have had to handle bad situations to appease a client, particularly one who may not listen. Kudos for standing tall and taking the Ls for the team
- Career Justice dept persons resigned rather than even submit the case. Tgat can be for political reasons, but rarely does someone throw away an established career
- No one would help. That can also be political and it may be not to taint oneself with a losing case. Nevertheless, that level of separation is atypical when no one at all will help. To even get her further help, they brought junior attys from another office
- Huge Tik Tok. She not only had to get indictment without help and experience, she had to do it fast due to the SOL

Collectively, that’s a world of shite. I don’t wish it on anyone and I admire anyone standing in to do this work

Nevertheless, you can’t lie about a proceeding to a court. That is wrong no matter what, but it’s also crazy when it’s part of a proceeding that is recorded and the most central part of the proceeding. I’d like to at least here her story before becoming overly judgmental, but the alleged behavior is unchartered territory

quote:

---

bad as the Saints

---

Sounds like Penix envy

Just got a nay

ETA: Now nay is gone

quote:

---

I'm not sure I understand what this means in this context. Are they trying him in traffic court? Is a federal magistrate a judge or not?

---

A federal magistrate judge is a federal judge but much different than a district court judges. They are hired by the district judges rather than appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They will handle preliminary matters. In this case, the discovery request for the GJ records. They will not rule on the motions to dismiss

This motion and hearing is in the discovery matter issued by the magistrate judge

quote:

---

Biden appointee?

---

Fitzpatrick is a magistrate judge. He was appointed during Bidens term, but magistrates are voted on by the existing district court judges Appointment announcement

quote:

---

Is there a "log" of this vote? I'd love to see where republicans landed on it as well.

---

I don’t think there was a vote. From the reporting,

- The resolution was signed. Thus, pursuant to House rules it must be put to a floor vote 7 days after the first day Congress reconvenes. This is the “ripening period” that gives the reps time to talk to their constituents The resolution will still be voted on and the likely target date is mid December

- this rep made a motion to set aside the rules and bring it to the floor now. The motion requires unanimous consent so it fails on any one objection. That’s just recorded as a motion that doesn’t carry in the minutes.

-when there are votes, the clerk will record them. They are published very quickly and can retrieved from the Clerk’s Website

quote:

---

The tech industry is a dying industry because of AI and outsourcing not because of the H1B program

---

Ai is another story. There is always disruptive technology that changes industries. It’s impact can and will be felt in many segments

Outsourcing is a reason why the H1B can’t exist as a loophole. If we incentivize jobs, plants etc in the US. Then it defeats a central purpose if all the the domesticated capital just imports foreign cheap labor also

Even Pre-Trump there was carrot and stick based incentivatives to bring capital back domestically. That’s one of the reasons of the H1B visa abuse. The companies were able to utilize tax incentives to make fixed asset operations even cheaper, but kept labor costs low by abusing the H1B system