Trump’s new favorite prosecutor is flubbing it big time

On Monday afternoon, former FBI Director James Comey dropped two motions to dismiss his criminal case. Both are related to, in part, the antics of one Lindsey Halligan, everyone’s favorite insurance lawyer turned interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. 

This likely made for a not-fun Monday afternoon for Halligan, but then her day got hilariously worse when Lawfare’s Anna Bower dropped her story that Halligan had texted her out of the blue, via Signal, about the prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Bower had tweeted about the Oct. 11 New York Times story revealing that James’s great-niece lives in the Virginia home that is the basis for the mortgage fraud case against James, and that she had testified to a different grand jury that she lived there for many years without paying rent. 

That seems to be what made Lindsey Halligan lose her mind and contact Bower to complain that “your reporting in particular is just way off.” 

New York Attorney General Letitia James, shown in 2019.

This was probably exceedingly confusing for Bower, who does not work for The New York Times, did not write the story, and was doing no reporting. Instead, Bower had merely tweeted about the story.

Nevertheless, every time Bower asked Halligan what was false about the story or her characterization of it, Halligan offered a grievance-fueled response like, “Continue to do what you have been and you’ll be completely discredited when the evidence comes out.” 

Just after Bower contacted the Department of Justice on Monday afternoon for a comment and to confirm the texts were authentic, Bower’s Signal flickered to life with Halligan saying, “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.” 

There’s so much to unpack here. 

Halligan referred to Bower as a reporter multiple times in their previous exchanges. More importantly, you can’t declare something off the record retrospectively, much less days after the fact. But when Bower explained this, Halligan came up with a different rationale: “It’s obvious the whole convo is off record. There’s disappearing messages and it’s on signal.”

It is gobsmackingly stupid to think that because you communicate on Signal and set your messages to disappear, it is off the record by default. Even setting that aside, there’s another big problem here: Halligan admitted she had set her phone to automatically delete messages that were official government communications, which are generally supposed to be preserved. (Also, hello? Ever heard of screenshots?)

Is this a good time to mention that Halligan studied broadcast journalism in college and could not feasibly have avoided learning what “off the record” means? Also, did she learn nothing from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Signal fiasco?

Actually, she probably did, which is that Hegseth suffered no consequences whatsoever. 

And Halligan likely won’t lose her job over this, because Trump actually loves this sort of petulant, aggressive weirdness. But she might lose her job over Comey’s motion to dismiss based on asserting that Halligan was unlawfully appointed. Not because Trump cares, but because the courts do.

Two of Trump’s other temporary U.S. attorney appointees, Alina Habba and Sigal Chattah, have already been disqualified because the administration’s attempts to string together temporary appointments to avoid the Senate confirmation process are, well, not legal. Halligan is running up against the same issue and could suffer the same fate. If she does, it could render the indictment against Comey void. If she’s not legally in the job, she can’t legally indict anyone. 

And yes, that would apply to the James case as well, should James go that route. 

Former FBI Director James Comey, shown in 2017.

Comey’s other motion wouldn’t result in Halligan losing her job, at least not as far as a court is concerned. Comey argues the indictment should be dismissed because he is being both vindictively and selectively prosecuted.   

Vindictive prosecution is exactly what it sounds like—that the prosecution is motivated by general animus toward the defendant. And Comey has everything he needs to make that argument. After all, Trump admitted that he fired U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert in favor of Halligan when Siebert wouldn’t bring charges, and then Trump celebrated the indictment on social media, making sure to thank Halligan and FBI Director Kash Patel. So thoughtful! 

To prove selective prosecution, Comey has to show that other similarly situated people were not prosecuted for the same actions. Fortunately for Comey, Trump has multiple past appointees who allegedly lied to Congress.

Let’s roll back to Trump’s first term. As noted in Comey’s motion, there was then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions allegedly making false statements to Congress about his communications with Russia. There was Trump’s then-head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, allegedly lying about his use of a personal email account while he was Oklahoma attorney general. Then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price allegedly fibbed to Congress when he denied getting a sweet discount on buying shares of stock. And remember Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin? He allegedly lied about whether OneWest Bank, where he had been chairman and CEO, had used robo-signing of foreclosure documents.  

It’s tough to get more similarly situated to Comey than these four are. They were all high-level political appointees, all accused of lying to Congress, but only Comey was charged. 

Halligan is wildly overmatched here, but judging by her interactions with Bower, she remains blissfully unaware of that. She clearly thinks she’s running circles around everyone else, that she’s a unique genius who figured out how to indict Trump’s enemies when no one else could. 

In reality, she has no idea what she’s doing and no business doing any of it, which means it will be a delight to see what her office manages to file in response to Comey.  

Trump team faces critical shortage of morally flexible lawyers

It’s hard to find good help these days. What’s a president to do when all he wants is to use the might of the state to persecute his political enemies, but all of these pencil-necked geek attorneys keep saying things like “sir, there is no case here”? 

President Donald Trump’s retribution jamboree is being stalled out by career Justice Department prosecutors worried about stupid things like “the law” and “ethics.” 

Lindsey Halligan, interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia

Take Elizabeth Yusi, a career prosecutor who has been an assistant U.S. attorney for about 15 years. According to MSNBC, Yusi will be telling Lindsey Halligan, a real-estate lawyer who has been interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for about 15 minutes, that there’s no probable cause to prosecute New York Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud. 

How dare she? 

Looks like Halligan is going to have to roll up her sleeves and take care of this herself, just like she did with bringing charges against former FBI Director James Comey. Sure, the indictment was comically thin, and sure, she didn’t manage to make one of the ginned-up charges stick, and sure, she had to present it to the grand jury herself. 

Halligan, of course, was installed in her job because she’s perfectly happy to take on the shoddiest, most vindictive prosecutions. She was brought in to bring charges against Comey after her predecessor, Eric Siebert, said he wouldn’t. 

Trump took a victory lap after Halligan secured an indictment against Comey, but for all the fanfare over that, there is so much more that has to happen before Trump can live out his fantasy of putting Comey behind bars. 

Sadly for Trump, all of those steps require prosecutors. Many, actually. 

At the moment, Halligan might need to consider a crash course in trial preparation, because as of Tuesday, no career attorneys from her office have entered an appearance in Comey’s case, even though the arraignment is on Wednesday. Though to be fair, Halligan probably doesn’t know about this, since she’s never been a prosecutor and her only client as a defense attorney was Trump.

Instead, it looks like Halligan is going to bring in prosecutors from outside her office. Can’t wait for a passel of freshly minted Liberty University School of Law graduates to handle a politically explosive and high-profile prosecution. Well, at least those who weren’t smart or vicious enough to land a clerkship with the many Trump judges eager to mold new baby fascists.

Meanwhile, when it comes to the Trump administration’s eagerness to have one state invade another, it seems to all rest—legally speaking—on the shoulders of one lawyer: Eric Hamilton. 

A protester stands draped in an American flag as officers try to disperse protesters near an ICE facility in Portland on Oct. 5.

Hamilton handled Sunday night’s hearing about deploying National Guard troops to Oregon and was then bundled off to Illinois to argue about how cool and legal it would be if Texas troops were deployed to Chicago.

Normally, of course, there is a veritable army of DOJ attorneys to handle these things. But between resignations and purges, the DOJ doesn’t have a lot left in the tank. 

The agency lost 70% of its civil rights division. The top national security prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia was just purged. Multiple high-level prosecutors who refused to sign off on the DOJ’s quid pro quo with Mayor Eric Adams were also fired. Two-thirds of the attorneys tasked with defending Trump’s signature initiatives—like birthright citizenship and immigration—have bolted. And Trump has rapidly depleted the entire federal attorney bench. 

This is also why there’s such turmoil among some U.S. attorneys right now. Trump knows he can’t get people like Alina Habba—another of his former personal attorneys—or Halligan confirmed by the Senate. But he also knows that only the most bone-deep partisan loyalists will do his bidding. 

Eventually, all that the DOJ will have left are people who previously represented Trump in some personal capacity. Fortunately for Trump, that’s a lot of people. Unfortunately for the rest of us, they all suck.

Trump moves even closer to indicting his enemies—first stop, Comey

The pace at which President Donald Trump is committing impeachable offenses is quickening.

On Wednesday, multiple media organizations reported that Trump's new U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia is planning to seek an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey—even though the Department of Justice does not believe probable cause exists to charge Comey with a crime.

The news comes days after Trump already fired the former U.S. attorney for the EDVA, Erik Siebert, because Siebert wouldn't heed Trump's demand to charge his enemies with crimes.

That’s an impeachable offense in and of itself. But now, Trump's replacement is actually following Dear Leader's orders and will seek charges against people Trump has vowed to get retribution against. It's a terrifying and stomach-churning instance of lawfare that should get Trump impeached and removed from office, but won't because Republicans are cowards who excuse Trump no matter how deplorable his actions.

Interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan

MSNBC, which first reported the news, said interim EDVA U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan will move to charge Comey with lying to Congress. She will do that even though Halligan was told by DOJ officials that in a memo that, "there isn’t enough evidence to establish probable cause a crime was committed, let alone enough to convince a jury to convict him," according to MSNBC reporter Ken Dilanian.

Comey would be the first Trump "enemy" charged by the Trump administration.

But Trump is also demanding that Halligan indict New York Attorney General Letitia James and California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff with mortgage fraud, even though there is no evidence that either committed that crime.

Halligan is reportedly gearing up to charge James—who Trump loathes because she successfully sued Trump for business fraud, with a judge finding Trump liable for inflating his net worth in order to receive more favorable loans.

Aside from using the power of the presidency to try to jail his opponents, Trump is also trying to silence dissent and speech he doesn’t like.

Trump’s Pentagon is attempting to limit what reporters can report. And Trump is trying to pressure media organizations to remove programming from the airwaves in order to avoid being hit with costly lawsuits (see Kimmel, Jimmy).

What’s more, Trump is also closing criminal investigations into his allies (see Homan, Tom), and engaging in blatant corruption by giving out pardons to people who line his pockets with crypto cash.

"The point here is to get a few of Trump's political adversaries in jail, but the real point is a tried and true tactic of despots all over the world, which is to just harass and intimidate their political opposition so that protesters don't show up, candidates don't run,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said Thursday morning on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “That's how democracies die."

Murphy: "The point is to get a few of Trump's political adversaries in jail, but the real point is a tried & true tactic of despots all over the world, which is to just harass & intimidate their political opposition so that protesters don't show up, candidates don't run. That's how democracies die." [image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) September 25, 2025 at 9:17 AM

Top Trump aide: Who really cares about slavery?

A senior White House official thinks the Smithsonian museums are way too caught up on that whole slavery thing.

During a Wednesday appearance on Fox News, White House senior associate Lindsey Halligan discussed President Donald Trump’s push to make the renowned museums parrot his racist, revisionist history of the United States. After conceding slavery was “awful,” she quickly pivoted to underplaying it and chastising the museum.

“What I saw when I was going through the museums personally was an overemphasis on slavery. And I think there should be more of an overemphasis on how far we've come since slavery,” Halligan said. “Our country is a country of progress, and it's the greatest country in the world. And we should be able to take our kids, our students, through the Smithsonian and feel proud when we leave. There's a lot of history to our country, both positive and negative. But we need to keep moving forward. We can't just keep focusing on the negative.”

Halligan's "Don't Worry Be Happy"-style monologue echoes her boss’ insane remarks on social media, criticizing the Smithsonian for being “WOKE” and overly focused on “how bad Slavery was.” In July, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History briefly scrubbed mentions of Trump’s first two impeachments from an exhibit on presidential impeachments and resignations, though it later added them back in a strongly modified form. 

The White House also plans to rewrite history across the Smithsonian ahead of America’s 250th anniversary, which will be celebrated next year.

Similarly, under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Department of Defense has purged Black American military heroes from its websites.

The ongoing white supremacist project to rewrite history and underplay the significance of slavery—which dominated U.S. history and prehistory—is one of the administration’s most ignoble pursuits. It dishonors the hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers who gave their lives fighting for a more perfect democracy.