Trump Prosecutor ABANDONED IN COURT after COMEY INDICTMENT

So the new federal prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia who was behind that indictment of James Comey, former FBI director, she was all alone in the courtroom during the first criminal court case appearance. Nobody showed up with her. I mean, I would say her office threw her under the bus, but in reality, she threw the federal prosecutor's office under the bus and nobody wanted to be there at all. I can't emphasize enough how unusual it is for the actual United States attorney from a district, in this case, the Eastern District of Virginia, one of the most powerful prosecutorial offices in the country, to have the US attorney be there at all during a hearing like this during a

first criminal appearance basically unheard of and then to show up alone like not to have any other lawyers from your office by your side. Assume you weren't the United States attorney from the district where people should want to be with you because you're the top dog. Of course, people would want to be with you right like could you imagine all the young lawyers who would

line up to be next to you? No one wanted to be seen with her at that office, but even if you were just a federal prosecutor on the case, you would show up with a team of people who would

have files and documents and it would show up with a team of people who would have files and

documents. And it's also kind of a show of strength that you got a crew, that you got a team. So here, the new United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia that Donald Trump hand-picked, hand-plucked, put her in right there after firing a career prosecutor, who Trump picked as well, but a lifelong Republican career prosecutor, Eric Seabert. He was pushed out. He brings in Lindsey Halligan. Her background is, I think she's an insurance lawyer, never been in a federal courthouse as a federal prosecutor before. So zero prosecutorial

experience. I don't think she's had any trial experience. I don't believe she's a licensed lawyer in Virginia, although I guess federal prosecutors can get around that, but still it's unusual. You would normally always be a licensed person if you're a federal prosecutor in that district.

So it's very unusual that she's not even licensed there. So she shows up and right away, the judge is like, I'm very confused. Why is the indictment look like this?

How come you have

multiple counts that look like the identical counts? Like what am I even looking at right here? Just look, it's, it was a two page document, um, that didn't even really go through any of the factual allegations. It made like a brief reference. I'll show you how weak these factual, actual allegations are. We know that the grand jury rejected one of the three counts. And we know that the counts that actually survived,

like barely survived, I think it was 14 of the 23 grand jurors ultimately found enough to get it to the next stage where the indictment was able to be brought in the first place. And just to remind everybody,

when you're in that grand jury room, the judge isn't like in that room. And the other side, the criminal defense lawyers and the other side's lawyers aren't there, which in a case like this, it's an easily, it's easy to rebut the allegations

because it is based on a misinterpreted hearsay of Senator Ted Cruz, who basically said that James Comey authorized a leak to the Wall Street Journal back in the first Trump administration when Ted Cruz conflated what he was really asking, which was, James Comey, were you aware of the leak and did you authorize it? And Comey was like, I didn't authorize it. Comey was aware after the fact, when the story ran, the person who worked for

Mandy McCabe told him after the fact, and that's always what's been out there. That that was known and other FBI officers corroborated that when there was an office of Inspector General report. So I'm wondering also what is in this grand jury transcript? What did they tell the grand jury? Because my gut is they probably only even though they have an obligation and I'll bring

Harry Lippman, a former federal prosecutor who should be telling you this more than me, but even though they have an obligation not to hide the exculpatory Brady material and other stuff from the grand jury, I have to imagine that they didn't tell the other side of the story because if they said, actually, our main star witness is Andy McCabe, who worked at the FBI, who worked for James Comey, who actually said that Comey did not, our main witness said Comey did not authorize and I only made him aware after the fact,

would be hard for me to believe that you get an indictment on that basis. By the way, that's why Eric Siebert didn't indict. That's why the Republican, former federal prosecutor said there's nothing there. There's no there there.

So just to remind everybody as well though, like who Lindsey Halligan is, she was like the finalist in a beauty pageant, insurance lawyer, she's 36 years old. That's the background right there. You see her right there. She's the same person who Donald Trump appointed

to like gut the Smithsonian. And she's like, there's too much slavery in the African-American museum. Why do they talk about slavery?

Just in case you don't believe me, let me show you that clip. What I saw when I was going through the museums personally was an over-emphasis on slavery. And I think there should be more of an over-emphasis on how far we've come.

All right, let me bring in Harry Lippman, former federal prosecutor, as the former top federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and you had a top position at Maine Justice as well. You know about this more than anyone.

Break it down, Harry.

Unbelievable. Gobsmacking. Look, I'll just say once, because then we'll move on to your more sort of fine-grained questions. But a dark, dark day

where the Department of Justice has indicted someone on the say-so from on high of the president, a president's enemy and without, to all appearances, adequate evidence. It is, you have the, really,

the entire department in turmoil, but let me go right to the Eastern District of Virginia as you pointed out. Never, ever would you have a new U.S. attorney show up alone. I don't know how she tried to exhort someone to come up there, but what this says about the stink that this case has in the office where, recall, the day before, some what had

to be very respected office veterans do a memo that says, you don't have the case here. And for them to say that, and that's their professional judgment, and the president of the United States, Vermont High, forces it down the throat and as you say through the conduit of a woman who you know probably doesn't doesn't know where the grand jury would sit is so as a matter of corruption, derogation of the DOJ couldn't be worse but now I mean you never would want to go in. I was you as Attorney United

experience going in there alone and going into court alone It really speaks volumes. She's gonna have to staff this case Ben and there's there's not the slightest Possibility that someone who's never had a federal Criminal trial could go in and actually try this case not to mention Against Pat Fitzgerald one of finest, both prosecutors and defense lawyers in the country.

I mean, they would hand her head to them repeatedly, but what's gonna happen? You know, is she, there's the real possibility now. We saw the closest to sort of head banging political force from this department in the Adams case where they closed the door on the public integrity and said somebody's got to sign this motion

dismissing. This isn't dismissing, this is going in every day and putting your integrity and professional reputation on the line that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And by the way, as you probably know, Ben, it's not cost-free. Man, oh man, I don't know if she knows it yet, but somebody better tell her.

Is she ever between a rock and a hard place? And let's call Trump the hard place for now. She's gone forward. She's the one, the only one who signed this. And the charges don't seem to hold up, Judge Nachmanoff, who's a good, solid, thorough judge with a strong defense background, could really just say,

are you kidding me? A, just could get rid of the indictment itself on any of several theories, but could also sanction her personally. It could be absolutely career ending. And the immediate question, he's going to be arraigned next week, who's going to show up? If nobody would come to the grand jury, the secret jury, who will be in open court with the country watching? And it's clear that within that office, where I've worked by the way, very sort of buttoned down street shooting office, there's not a person, not a person ready

to be with her just to give up the indictment to a judge, that's what you do. This is a real crisis and I'm sure she's trying to navigate it, but she's come in as the ultimate quizling, as has been the person who has said, you must violate your prime duty as a prosecutor. I know how there isn't a case here,

you have to do it anyway. There's no greater kind of force or compulsion to try to impose on federal prosecutors. So I don't know. It's a, you know, I've been sort of juggling

or wrestling with this a little on TV because I do not want to in any way underestimate, we're talking frigging rock bottom. I've talked with you about this before. That said, the odds of an absolute humiliating defeat, I think, are high. You could see the case being thrown out before it even gets

to a jury. I think the DVA folks are so outgunned. And it looks to me like there's not a person there, very professional staff there, but if there's not a person there, very professional staff there, but if there's not a person there who will go forward, and now they have, by the way, strength in numbers. I'm positing from what you said, the grand jury, nobody would do it.

And it's one thing if people are prevaricating and maybe Todd Blanche calls up and says, order somebody to do it. But if they're all there and together, you know, I think he can't do it. In fact, he, Todd Blanche, former AUSA

from Southern District of New York, may be a candidate to have to step in. But, you know, whoever does will be putting their license on the line. Anyway, people I think who are just sort of learning about it, it's kind of stinks.

This will reveal it totally stinks. And as you say, there's a couple of different theories about what exactly they're trying, but either one seems gossamer thin and real problems with materiality, not to mention selective prosecution. This has debacle written all over it. And I just don't want to crow at all because it also has disgusting bottom of the barrel, terrible, just, you know, welcome to Moscow.

The president says, do this person, even though you've told me there's no evidence, doesn't get worse. But let me just finish with that other D word, debacle. This could be an absolute humiliation of really the entire Department of Justice. And everybody, just put your politics aside right now.

Just think about it like this. If this was a good case, if this was a strong case, why is it that the only lawyer that Donald Trump could find in the entire country, Trump finds lawyers for his other cases. Trump made those deals with those big law firms. Remember Trump made all those deals that those firms that capitulated, so he knows big law firms. Why was the only lawyer anywhere he could find?

A 36-year-old who has zero federal prosecutorial experience, not even as an intern, yet alone as a line prosecutor or rising up the ranks, someone who's never stepped foot in a courtroom as a prosecutor is the only person willing to sign this. And why, if this is such a strong case, why would no other prosecutors want to even be there in the courtroom on Friday to have themselves be seen?

This could be, if you thought this was a great case, then you would say, this is a great move for my career. Let me volunteer and let me be there. And then why would the former top dog federal prosecutor at the Eastern District of Virginia, Eric Siebert, why would he, after basically being forced out, why would he resign and draft a memo saying that there's no facts sufficient

to support the prosecution in a case like this when he was a Republican guy? Then ask yourself this final question or think about this final concept. This is bigger than this prosecution now because now the Eastern District of Virginia, which is known with this proud history of counterterrorism prosecutions, of public integrity prosecutions, of going after people, spies who have gone after the government because of

the proximity to that Eastern District of Virginia, to Washington DC. Now they're led by someone with no prosecutorial experience. And just think about the danger that poses in other cases, which now may be meritorious, where you've just basically shut down

the Eastern District of Virginia. You basically have shut down in many ways, the New Jersey district, uh, prosecution's office, because Alina Haba is there. You've got similar kind of Trump lackeys in other States as well. Think about if you're an FBI agent and you're asked to testify in some of these cases, now you you're on the line because you don't want to be suborning perjury and you're being put

in all of these positions that are very difficult. So remove your Democrat Republican independent cap. Just view it as common sense. The only lawyer you could find in this spectacular case is a 36 year old who's never been a prosecutor before. To me it boils down to that but Harry I'll give you the last word. Well it does boil down to that Ben but Harry, I'll give you the last word. Well, it does boil down to that, Ben, and it's worse. Look, you mentioned you can't even find a lawyer. You can find a lawyer to do a crazy job on, think about Trump's recent defamation cases, it's civil stuff. These are criminal cases. The Constitution, not to mention the Bible of the US Attorney's

Office, has as its first entry, you know, you may not do this and we have this now incendiary document as you said. It's gonna be a little tricky how it comes out, if it comes out, but I think it will and so now you're talking about this naive who doesn't know where the prosecution sits and where the defense sits being really subject to what could be serious sanctions,

could be career ending, certainly in that district. This has now come to stand for the corrupt overcoming of everyone's professional obligations. And it's just, it's going to keep going and kind of get worse and worse. And so it should. So, they've done their... Oh, and by the way, you know, oh, one more thing. It wasn't just Tim, it was his first assistant who did the same and said, no, there's no case here.

She was fired today, just Samara. She was, so it's not simply, if you don't say the right thing, you're out. She was fired today. She's a living voice for saying there's no case. And, you know, they get to, by the way,

they dirty him up with all this stuff before you remember the rules. You're not even allowed to say who's the subject of an investigation because that would give undue prejudice to an innocent defendant.

For them, it was part of the point. And they now bring him in. I thought, by the way, he handled himself very well in that statement. And general he's going to be a very tough witness for them. They in turn may call some DOJ brass. I think there'll be a little bit of fight. We want Bondi here. We want whoever said Halladay and you go and do this, etc. We want the you know, the new US attorney so they've done their

big, you know, dirtying of Comey up in public. I think from here, it's downhill for them. We'll be following it every step of the way. Harry Litman, thanks for joining us. Harry Litman runs the Talking Feds YouTube channel, the Talking Feds sub stack, and the TalkingFeds podcast.

Subscribe across Harry Littman's various platforms.

Thanks Harry.

Thanks man.

And hit subscribe here, everybody. New Midas merch. Head to store.midastouch.com today and get yourself the best pro-democracy gear and show your support. your support. That's store.midastouch.com.