by liberal japonicus
I was thinking this morning that maybe I was going to run out of stuff to post about. But then this, by Anna Bower of Lawfare, about how the interim prosecutor Lindsey Halligan, who is pursuing charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James, contacted her because of a tweet she made summarizing some NYTimes reporting, popped up.
While I love reading all the details, short version is Halligan contacted Bower to tell her that she was all wrong, Bower asked exactly what was wrong and Halligan kept blustering. Here is the end of the piece.
Earlier today, I reached out to the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs, seeking comment for this story. In addition to a transcript of my Signal exchange with Halligan, I also outlined some of my questions related to the story: Were these authorized communications? Is it consistent with DOJ policy or other applicable guidance for senior Justice Department officials to discuss ongoing prosecutions on Signal disappearing messages? Does the Department take the position that the contents of the messages are consistent with its legal obligations and DOJ policy? Does Halligan deny that these were in fact her texts? Does the Justice Department dispute any of the facts reported in the New York Times article discussed in my exchange with Halligan?
I told the Justice Department that my deadline was 4:15 p.m.
In response, the department sent the statement quoted at the outset of this piece. In addition, just a few minutes before the deadline, my dormant Signal connection with Halligan suddenly came alive again.
At 4:10 p.m., she texted me: “By the way—everything I ever sent you is off record. You’re not a journalist so it’s weird saying that but just letting you know.”
I responded: “I’m sorry, but that’s not how this works. You don’t get to say that in retrospect.”
Halligan was unpersuaded: “Yes, I do. Off record.”
“I am really sorry. I would have been happy to speak with you on an off the record basis had you asked,” I said. “But you didn’t ask, and I still haven’t agreed to speak on that basis. Do you have any further comment for the story?
To my surprise, she kept going: “It’s obvious the whole convo is off record. There’s disappearing messages and it’s on signal. What is your story? You never told me about a story.”
I didn’t respond. It was time to publish my story. I’ll text it to her.
Discuss.
The extent to which these folks seem to have mush for brains (to phrase it politely) is astounding. In this particular instance, it makes me think that all that’s required to get thru law school and pass the bar exam is a good memory. No actual cognitive ability necessary.
That wasn’t previously my view, for all that I have a somewhat jaundiced view of some lawyers. But the ones who work for Trump, personally or as his appointees in the Department of Justice, are not only ethically challenged but, in the evidence, dumb as rocks besides. No offense intended to any rocks in the audience.
Remember: It is perfidy to quote GOPsters verbatim and a felony to provide audio or video proof when the quotes get challenged. That includes public speeches made to an audience of millions.
The extent to which these folks seem to have mush for brains … is astounding.
That was my first thought also. It’s a Trump thing – to be willing to do what it takes to work for him you have to be stupid, in advanced cognitive decline, or hoping for get rich or powerful from it.
They all float down here.
by this point, no decent person would sign up to be anywhere near Trump. working for him means you run the risk of destroying your career by either having to lie for him or by getting a face full of MAGA hatred by refusing to lie for him.
that leaves utter idiots and cynical grifters who think they can ride the Fox/MAGA gravy train for the rest of their careers.