Key Witness Undercuts Trump DOJ’s Witch Hunt Against Jim Comey

Many things have happened. Here are some of the things. This is the morning memo of TPM. Register for the e-mail version.

“Problems” and “insurmountable problems”

Previous reports had already suggested that a key witness in the false prosecution of the former FBI director, Jim Comey, was not useful for prosecutors, but ABC News has a new story this morning which develops the obstacle that the witness presents for temporarily the American lawyer Lindsey Halligan.

The witness is the longtime friend of Comey Daniel Richman, professor of law at Columbia University.

ABC News has always had good sources apparently within the American prosecutor’s office for the Virginia Oriental District. His sources for the last story know the content of the internal note in which career prosecutors have presented the reasons for not requesting an act of indictment from Comey. This decision led Trump to force the American prosecutor at the time, Erik Siebert (Trump’s own candidate for the permanent position) and replaced him by Halligan, who quickly charged the case personally.

By reading ABC News Story, the sentences cited “problematic” and “probable insurmountable problems” come directly from the pursuit of the prosecution:

Federal prosecutors investigating the former FBI director James Comey for having pretended to make false declarations in the congress, determined that a central witness of their investigation would prove to be “problematic” and would probably prevent them from establishing their case for a jury, said familiar sources with their conclusions in ABC News. …

According to prosecutors who investigated the circumstances surrounding Comey’s testimony in 2020 for two months, the use of Richman’s testimony to prove that Comey knowingly provided false declarations in the congress would result in “probable insurmountable problems” for the accusation.

Investigators detailed these conclusions in a long memo last month, recommending that the office does not reach Comey’s charge, according to sources familiar with the content of the memo.

To put it frankly, a key witness is “hostile”, in the words of Halligan’s deputy, to the case. Some cases can survive this kind of weakness, but prosecutors in Virginia and earlier at DC, did not find any additional evidence that Comey lied to the Congress as alleged. There are therefore precious evidence to use for prosecutors to overcome the weakness presented by Richman:

Investigators who examined Comey emails equipment, including his correspondence with Richman, could not identify an instance when Comey approved a journalist anonymously, sources told ABC News.

What does it mean?

(1) It strengthens the misconduct of the Halligan prosecutor by requesting an indictment against Comey despite the fatal defects with the case already identified and stated by the prosecutors.

(2) He shows how vulnerable the case will be vulnerable to dismissal (for various reasons) before it is judged.

(3) This confirms that the interest of this whole exercise – and all of Trump’s politically motivated proceedings – is to damage the reputation of the target, to force them to spend time and money to defend themselves, and in some cases remove them from the political playground (or at least the pain). A successful conviction is only the cherry; This is not the ultimate goal.

Another distinct point from the ABC News Story: Halligan is always likely to face a challenge to the validity of its appointment as an American interim addraction, identical to acting Trump in New Jersey and Nevada. Whether Comey or another criminal accused in the Eastern District, someone will make this argument, and if he wins, this would probably cancel Comey’s indictment that Halligan personally presented to the Grand Jury.

Comey is in court this morning in Alexandria, Virginia, for its indictment.

Dark times and observe

I have become much more circumspect in the past decade about the Maga’s worst trail trumpet, because a large part is performative and intended to shock, to provoke and stir the pot. But since the elected officials of President Trump and the GOP began to use the assassination of Charlie Kirk to paint all the political opposition as a terrorist, violent and radical, the rhetoric has moved to a darker and more disturbing place than we have seen in American politics for at least a century.

The Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, candidate for the GOP Senate, is a leading Maga troll, but the press release he published yesterday in his official capacity is so propagandist and scary in the history he turns that he serves a good indicator of the place where things are right now. It reads in part:

In response to the political assassination of the national hero Charlie Kirk and to the disturbing rise in violence on the left across the country, the Attorney General Ken Paxton launched infiltration investigations in various groups affiliated with the political violence of the left known to operate in Texas.

“Left political terrorism is a clear and present danger. Corrupded ideologies like Transgender and Antifa are cancer on our culture and have triggered their disturbed and drugged soldiers on the American people, “said Attorney General Paxton. “The martyrdom of Charlie Kirk marks a turning point in America. There can be no compromise with those who want us dead.

During the testimony of the Judicial Committee of the Senate of yesterday, the prosecutor General Pam Bondi, Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) used a similar scary language: