Post

Lindsey Halligan, along with Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi, go on the attack against Trump appointed federal Judge Novak in an extraordinary, pugilistic brief. They accuse Novak of a “gross abuse of power” for asking why Halligan keeps falsely describing herself as a US Attorney.

Can someone explain to me the distinction, in terms of how DOJ responded, between Judge Currie's ruling on Halligan and Judge Cannon's ruling on Jack Smith (see p 5 in this response)*? Does it have to do with the fact that in Smith's case gov't appealed, and Halligan didn't even bother?

In this document, Halligan — fully backed by the top DOJ officials — characterize Trump-appoined Judge Novak's order as an "inquisition." They call it an "insult," a "fixation," "gross abuse of power," and a "cudgel" against the executive branch. They accuse him of making "rudimentary error."

“They accuse him of making ‘rudimentary error.’ “ That the most projection-y thing the Projection Administration has ever done.

To put it mildly, this isn't the type of language one typically sees by a party addressing a judge. Halligan, Blanche and Bondi downplay the ruling disqualifying Halligan as a "disagreement" with the government, which they say isn't binding on any other case.

When questioned about an unhinged ICE immigration officer shooting and murdering an unarmed mom, driving away from him slowly, Trump described her as “ disrespectful”, implying the murder was justified. The AG & her peeps are more disrespectful to the judge than that mom was, by far!

Is it just me? or has the “Halligan jeremiad” (TM) omitted and avoided the issue of the precedent created by a special ruling? IE *out of District A* District Judge appointed to decide constitutionality of USAttny appointment when ALL District A judges are recused due to operation of statute👀‼️