DOJ resuses to provide discovery in the tish james case

[moonshinegnomie]

they were ordered to by a judge . their respose was nop,not going to happen.

teh judge should order teh case dismissed with prejudice and seek sanctions against the lawyers involved
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-judge-2674264873/

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. Judge Currie wants to know what "Stalking Horse" Hack Halligan told the grand jury.

Link to tweet

[RedWhiteBlueIsRacist]

2. Looks like the DOJ takes issue with...Justice!

[C_U_L8R]

3. Presumption of innocence

If the DOJ is going to throw tantrums, defy the judge and hide evidence, this case should be dismissed immediately. Enough of Trump’s stupid games.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Deadline Legal Blog-Judge says DOJ failed to give full transcripts of Halligan's Comey grand jury proceedings

A federal judge considering the legality of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment gave the government until Wednesday at 5 p.m. to comply with her order.

Judge says DOJ failed to give full transcripts of Halligan’s Comey grand jury proceedings
A federal judge considering the legality of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment gave the government until Wednesday at 5 p.m. to comply with her order.

apple.news/Azj4nd5n0Q3K...

— Redeem the soul America (@rneagle.bsky.social) 2025-11-04T22:55:02.873Z

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/james-comey-grand-jury-transcript-lindsey-halligan-rcna241879

The federal judge considering whether Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully installed by the Trump administration had ordered the Department of Justice to provide the “complete grand jury transcripts” in James Comey’s case for the judge to review. The DOJ failed to do so, and now it has a deadline of 5 p.m. Wednesday to comply.

On Oct. 28, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie issued an order that said she needs to “determine the extent of the indictment signer’s involvement in the grand jury proceedings.” Halligan, a former personal lawyer for President Donald Trump who lacks prior prosecutorial experience, presented the Comey case to the grand jury herself, over the objection of career prosecutors.

Currie had ordered that by Monday, Nov. 3, the DOJ was to provide her with “all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts.”

But on Tuesday, Currie issued a new order that said the material she received “fails to include remarks made by the indictment signer both before and after the testimony of the sole witness, which remarks were referenced by the indictment signer during the witness’s testimony.” The judge gave the government until Wednesday to comply....

Lawyers temporarily installed by the Trump administration to lead U.S. attorney’s offices across the country have had their tenures deemed unlawful by federal judges. Currie may well deem Halligan’s appointment unlawful, too, but she has yet to rule. The judge had also ordered the government to provide her with grand jury information for James’ proceedings, but as of the time she issued the order for more information in Comey’s case, she hadn’t issued a similar order in James’ case.

[onenote]

5. Amateur night. Judge not happy.

On October 29, Halligan signed a joint filing requesting the adoption of a discovery order that contained the following footnote: "For cases where an early pretrial motion deadline or other circumstances make this timeline infeasible (e.g., any motion to dismiss for vindictive or selective prosecution), the parties will discuss alternatives for disclosure and, if appropriate, request an extension of the pretrial motion deadline as needed to satisfy the disclosure obligations under this provision and facilitate preparation for trial"

The judge adopted the proposed order as submitted.

And then, less than a week later, Halligan files a "notice" saying, in effect, we don't have to do what we not only agreed to do, but what we actually asked the court to order us to do.

It didn't take long -- the judge has responded as follows: "The Order on the parties' jointly recommended discovery plan (ECF No. 32) governs discovery in this case. To the extent any discovery dispute arises, the parties may address it in a motion."

[AverageOldGuy]

6. I'm not an attorney . . .

. . . and don't play one on TV. And I don't understand everything I read in the OP and the comments.

However, from what I gather, it sounds as though the judge is telling the prosecution that their suit/charges/whatever read as though they were written by a 2nd grader using a dull crayon and the judge us suggesting they get their shit in order, get a real attorney, and stop wasting my time.

Does that about cover it??

[SSJVegeta]

7. Lol of course they wont...

[azureblue]

8. then the case gets thrown out

and James has grounds for a malicious prosecution suit.
How they got a GJ indictment, is really hinky, which is why they left it out. The judge would read what they did and toss the case immediately.

[moonshinegnomie]

9. she should seek disbarment of the prosecutors

[slightlv]

12. This is what needs to happen to all of trump's lawyers...

and, of course, any lawyer for the U.S. is actually "trump's lawyers".... and the very moment they start acting the fool they are for the man, then they should be brought up on disbarment charges. Stop giving them rope and start prosecuting for the law. Maybe we might have a change of heart of these lawyers if they see *their* money and careers are being sacrificed on the golden altar of trump. Maybe a few of them might actually ask themselves, "Is it worth it."

[Native]

10. I love news like this!

[TomSlick]

11. The obvious response for disobedience of the Court's order is to dismiss the indictment as a sanction.

[FSogol]

13. They haven't finished making it up yet.