Althouse: "A federal judge dismissed the indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday."

November 24, 2025

"A federal judge dismissed the indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday."

"The judge found that the appointment of interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan in Alexandria, Virginia, was invalid. Trump handpicked Halligan for the role amid increasing pressure to bring criminal cases against his political enemies, including Comey and James...."

CNN reports.

114 comments:

FormerLawClerk said...: Democrats are above the law. Accept it, people.; 11/24/25, 12:03 PM
Chest Rockwell said...: 'The judge tossed out the cases “without prejudice,” leaving open the possibility that the cases against Comey and James can be brought again alleging the same conduct.'; 11/24/25, 12:06 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Dismissed "without prejudice", meaning Justice could file them again the proper way? That's what I heard on NPR.; 11/24/25, 12:08 PM
tim maguire said...: “The implications of a contrary conclusion are extraordinary,” Currie wrote of the Halligan appointment. “It would mean the Government could send any private citizen off the street — attorney or not — into the grand jury room to secure an indictment

What is extraordinary about that? Why is that not a description of exactly how it should be? The grand jury issues the indictment, not the person who presents the evidence. But because that person could theoretically not be an attorney, the actual attorney who did it is invalid!?

Roberts needs to get off his ass and get the judiciary back in line and congress needs to get off its ass and make it easier to remove rogue judges.; 11/24/25, 12:12 PM
Howard said...: Another squirrel to chase.; 11/24/25, 12:13 PM
Dave Begley said...: I predicted this.

In Knox County, Nebraska, the Sheriff and former County Attorneys did not comply with Neb. Rev. Stat. 23-1704.01 re: the appointment of deputy sheriffs. Nebraska law - since 1866 - has required that the Sheriff file a certificate of appointment with the County Clerk and that the certificate of appointment "shall" have an oath endorse on it.

When it comes to the criminal law, it must be strictly followed.; 11/24/25, 12:13 PM
Aggie said...: I guess all the outrageous phoney-baloney abuse-of-power shenanigans by the illegally-appointed Jack Smith has made them unusually sensitive to anything that could be said to look similar, however slightly. Heaven forbid (sniffs scented handkerchief tucked in sleeve); 11/24/25, 12:14 PM
john mosby said...: Does this open the window for people to attack any action of the Biden Admin as made by an “improperly elected” president? And/or by an “improperly appointed” Autopen? CC, JSM; 11/24/25, 12:18 PM
BobJustBob said...: The Deep State protects its own.; 11/24/25, 12:18 PM
john mosby said...: Grand juries used to have a lot more power. They could start investigations on their own and issue their own subpoenas and other paper to bring in more evidence. Maybe we should go back to that. CC, JSM; 11/24/25, 12:20 PM
RCOCEAN II said...: We all know that the far-left District and appeals judges are waging "Lawfare" against Trump. The real question is why the POTUS can't exercise his power to appoint interiem US Attorneys. Congress pased some ridiculous law, (and trump signed it), that interim Attorney's can only serve X number of days, and if not confirmed, the Judges get to choose somebody.

This seems blatantly unconstitutional to me. But then its not what the constitution or the law plainly says, or has said in the past. All that matters is who is on the bench. And what their politics are.

This Rule by lawyers and unlimited judge power has to be ended. This is not a democracy or a Constitutional republic.; 11/24/25, 12:24 PM
rhhardin said...: Invalid appointments are such a bother.; 11/24/25, 12:29 PM
rhhardin said...: What Austin called infelicitous conditions. Like a marriage performed in a play is not an actual marriage in spite of all the formalities being adhered to.; 11/24/25, 12:30 PM
Yancey Ward said...: I predicted this would happen and, perhaps, it is a logically defensible dismissal but I am not fooled- had a confirmed AUSA filed the exact same indictment, this exact judge would had dismissed the case on some other grounds.; 11/24/25, 12:30 PM
Yancey Ward said...: As I wrote before- with the complete politicization of the justice system it is going to be necessary, to survive as a republic, for defendants to be able choose exactly from which court district their judges and juries get selected in federal prosecutions. It would not have mattered in these particular cases but it is needed to level the playing field between to two political parties.; 11/24/25, 12:32 PM
James K said...: Even if the case is refiled, there may be a problem with the statute of limitations expiring soon.; 11/24/25, 12:35 PM
lonejustice said...: I think most people saw this one coming, whatever their political persuasion.; 11/24/25, 12:36 PM
Enigma said...: Any case filed in Alexandria, VA was going to die sooner or later. If the courthouse is reachable by the D.C. Metro plus a short walk, you can expect 80% to 90% of the locals to vote blue.; 11/24/25, 12:39 PM
Leland said...: DC judges aren't interested in democracy.; 11/24/25, 12:39 PM
Gunner said...: How about Republicans in Congress pass good bills for Trump to sign so he can make a difference instead all his Executive Orders being overturned on January 21, 2029?; 11/24/25, 12:49 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Even if this Congress passed all those bills and had them signed, the exact same judges would put injunctions on them just using different excuses.; 11/24/25, 12:56 PM
Larry J said...: Of course there was prosecutorial misconduct; they tried to prosecute Democrats! Any Democrat-appointed federal judge could see that.; 11/24/25, 12:58 PM
DINKY DAU 45 said...: PURPOSE SERVED, trump hires out another knucklehead and it gets torched. The purpose was just to put it in the MEDIA cycle trump never had a case and he don't care, PURPOSE SERVED. the Kakistocracy moves forward stumbling down the stairs. Now Bolton may have a little teeth but trump will be long gone when any of that comes to fruition, same thng put it in the cycle let MEDIA RUN WITH IT. His persistence in the IRAQ WMD'S was sickening and proved totally without merit.Same with the affiliation with the terrorists groups groups and Hussain.Cherry picked info to try and bolster his lies, another right wing war machine dissolved in lies and deaths of Americans, never stops.. :(; 11/24/25, 12:59 PM
victoria said...: This is the result of sloppy work by unqualified people just to salve the baby Trump. Karma is alive.; 11/24/25, 1:00 PM
doctrev said...: The American justice system doesn't work for normal Americans, and even the NYT is frantically trying to spin the fact.

https://instapundit.com/758444/; 11/24/25, 1:02 PM
Kakistocracy said...: No legitimate prosecutor would manufacture charges against Trump—or against his political enemies—and one willing to do so has failed.Authoritarian abuses don’t succeed without capable personnel or much deeper corruption of the courts, neither of which they have.; 11/24/25, 1:03 PM
Rabel said...: "Violence is necessary. Violence is a part of America’s culture. It is as American as cherry pie."; 11/24/25, 1:03 PM
gadfly said...: Lem Vibe Bandit said...
Dismissed "without prejudice", meaning Justice could file them again the proper way?

Judge Currie's ruling seems to prohibit Bondi from trying to reindict Comey again, but it does not moot Comey's other legal challenges against the prosecution. The door has swung closed on the DOJ due to the statute of limitations.; 11/24/25, 1:10 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: How was her appointment improper?; 11/24/25, 1:28 PM
Skeptical Voter said...: A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling. Does Gadfly at 1:10 know something I don't?; 11/24/25, 1:28 PM
Clark said...: 18 U.S.C. §3288. Indictments and information dismissed after period of limitations

Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information, or, in the event of an appeal, within 60 days of the date the dismissal of the indictment or information becomes final, or, if no regular grand jury is in session in the appropriate jurisdiction when the indictment or information is dismissed, within six calendar months of the date when the next regular grand jury is convened, which new indictment shall not be barred by any statute of limitations. This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution.; 11/24/25, 1:33 PM
Joe Bar said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/24/25, 1:44 PM
victoria said...: No one said her appointment was improper, (which is a pretty snowflake like word).She was horribly unqualified to have such a position of responsibility. Her lack of qualifications and her general ineptitude contributed to the charges being dropped. And that is was nakedly, nakedly weaponized.; 11/24/25, 1:45 PM
narciso said...: No he never knows anything; 11/24/25, 1:46 PM
Inga said...: Trump hires the best people…; 11/24/25, 1:46 PM
Inga said...: “Statute of limitations: The deadline for prosecutors to bring charges against Comey expired on September 30, 2025, making it impossible to start a new case.”; 11/24/25, 1:49 PM
narciso said...: Magic eightball would suggest so

But one has to scale up the mountains of appeals court; 11/24/25, 1:49 PM
narciso said...: Progs support criminals; 11/24/25, 1:53 PM
Peachy said...: Victoria - spell out criteria for why you are insisting she was unqualified.
NOW.; 11/24/25, 1:57 PM
bagoh20 said...: I'm considering changing my registration back to Democrat again. Just in case I do something illegal. The only down side is that people I respect will consider me an idiot, which is understandable. On the pro side, being able to hang out in the ladies' locker room would keep me busy, and give my heart a good workout, but I'm not wearing the uniform or dying my hair.; 11/24/25, 2:00 PM
narciso said...: Those who commit perjury and mortgags fraud; 11/24/25, 2:07 PM
imTay said...: It’s fun hearing the people who are defending Comey fret about weaponizing law enforcement.; 11/24/25, 2:10 PM
narciso said...: More of this three dollar bill business; 11/24/25, 2:21 PM
Peachy said...: Poor Inga - Didn't bother to read Clark's comment at 1:33 prior to her wish-post.

btw - I was out Karma walking - and I happened upon an ancient sea bed.. and there it was. 86 Comey... spelled out with ancient under sea creatures and dinosaur tacks. so strange!; 11/24/25, 2:22 PM
Achilles said...: victoria said...
This is the result of sloppy work by unqualified people just to salve the baby Trump. Karma is alive.

Anyone who doesn’t graduate from the right school or say the right things is unqualified. Basically anyone not in Victoria’s political tribe.

Of course Victoria is too stupid to understand where her attitude leads.

Selective application of law enforcement based on tribal affiliation is the foundation of corruption.

If you want a free high trust society People like Victoria are too stupid to vote. Allowing people this ignorant of systems to vote will lead to social collapse and low trust politics.; 11/24/25, 2:26 PM
gadfly said...: Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the charges against Trump in the documents case after finding Special Counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed, in part because he, like Lindsey Halligan, was not Senate-confirmed. What's good for the goose . . .; 11/24/25, 2:32 PM
Achilles said...: victoria said...
No one said her appointment was improper, (which is a pretty snowflake like word).She was horribly unqualified to have such a position of responsibility. Her lack of qualifications and her general ineptitude contributed to the charges being dropped. And that is was nakedly, nakedly weaponized.

Oh wow. Victoria is even dumber than I thought.

She doesn’t even appeal to an unevenly applied standard. She just skips straight to the end declaring completely arbitrary justification.

I blame public education.; 11/24/25, 2:36 PM
narciso said...: They have already removed all doubt; 11/24/25, 2:38 PM
Craig Mc said...: I'm long past the stage where I read "federal judge" as "some guy".; 11/24/25, 2:51 PM
victoria said...: Thanks Achilles, as entirely private school educated, i believe you choice of words only betrays your lack of education. Just because you disagree with me, resorting to the lowest and least educated attribution is uncalled for. Get some smarts, idiot.; 11/24/25, 2:59 PM
Paul said...: More foot dragging by Democrats. But sooner or later they will be tried for their crimes... give it time folks.; 11/24/25, 3:01 PM
gadfly said...: Peachy: Try to stay up with the conversation. Eighty-six has been around for at least 86 years, first mentioned by Walter Winchell, writing about soda jerk jargon. In the 1972 film The Candidate, a media adviser says to Robert Redford's character, "OK, now, for starters, we got to cut your hair and eighty-six the sideburns." Trump might want to follow that advice. BTW, Gibbs' Rule #86 from NCIS is "Never let suspects stay together."; 11/24/25, 3:09 PM
Peachy said...: gadfly - well - I got if from Comey. your hero.; 11/24/25, 3:13 PM
Inga said...: “Poor Inga - Didn't bother to read Clark's comment at 1:33 prior to her wish-post.”

Clark said…
”This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution.”

Poor Piggy doesn’t understand this portion of Clark’s comment.; 11/24/25, 3:14 PM
Butkus51 said...: Inga said...

" Trump hires the best people…"

Democrats kill their hires.; 11/24/25, 3:18 PM
Inga said...: “The judge dismissed the cases against Comey "without prejudice," meaning the Department of Justice (DOJ) is allowed to seek new indictments, but the judge noted that it's unlikely to happen because the deadline for the charges has passed. The judge stated that "there is no legitimate peg" to extend the deadline, and Comey's attorneys argue the statute of limitations has expired.”

Gemini; 11/24/25, 3:18 PM
Butkus51 said...: Inga said...

this nugget

"“Statute of limitations: The deadline for prosecutors to bring charges against Comey expired on September 30, 2025, making it impossible to start a new case.”

Statue of limitations? Youre going to get pompous over that?

That wacko E. Jean Carrol has got nothing on you.

Speaking of "Statue of limitations"; 11/24/25, 3:21 PM
Inga said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/24/25, 3:24 PM
narciso said...: She doesnt have an answer

Probably believing in the Constitution is a disqualifier; 11/24/25, 3:26 PM
Peachy said...: AI is often unreliable, or flat out wrong.
Of course comey and his lawyers are going to try using that tactic.
But - there this: (vis commentor Clark)

"18 U.S.C. §3288. Indictments and information dismissed after period of limitations

Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information, or, in the event of an appeal, within 60 days of the date the dismissal of the indictment or information becomes final, or, if no regular grand jury is in session in the appropriate jurisdiction when the indictment or information is dismissed, within six calendar months of the date when the next regular grand jury is convened, which new indictment shall not be barred by any statute of limitations. This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution."; 11/24/25, 3:26 PM
Inga said...: “Victoria - spell out criteria for why you are insisting she was unqualified.
NOW.”

LOL! It’s amusing how Piggy thinks she can demand anything from any commenter here. Who does she thinks she is? What a dope.; 11/24/25, 3:26 PM
Peachy said...: Inag - I doubt that is the loophole you think it is.; 11/24/25, 3:28 PM
narciso said...: Thanks peachy; 11/24/25, 3:29 PM
Inga said...: AGAIN… Piggy reveals that she doesn’t understand this portion of 18 U.S.C. §3288 that Clark posted.

“This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution."; 11/24/25, 3:29 PM
Peachy said...: I'm still waiting for Victoria to answer...
but now is over - and it's later.
Still waiting....

Inag - Still waiting for YOU to give us all the exact in-context quote from Trump's Jan 6th speech - where YOU insist he incited violence.

Still waiting.; 11/24/25, 3:31 PM
Peachy said...: Inag - There was no failure to file an indictment.; 11/24/25, 3:32 PM
Jupiter said...: If I were Comey or James, I wouldn't fire my lawyers just yet.; 11/24/25, 3:33 PM
narciso said...: Well fitzgerald and dreeben are probably co conspirators so; 11/24/25, 3:34 PM
narciso said...: It was well within the interval but as soelled out they dont care about that see manafort indictment; 11/24/25, 3:36 PM
Inga said...: “There was no failure to file an indictment.”

LOL,

“The dismissal was based on the finding that the prosecutor who brought the charges, Lindsey Halligan, was improperly appointed.”
Gemini

Sooo, how was this indictment lawful when Halligan was improperly appointed?

“Basis for dismissal: The judge's decision was based on the finding that the appointment of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan was unlawful, making all actions that flowed from her appointment invalid.”
Gemini; 11/24/25, 3:49 PM
narciso said...: And that is an opinion; 11/24/25, 3:50 PM
Jim at said...: Victoria - spell out criteria for why you are insisting she was unqualified.
NOW.

If you get anything other than 'icky' and 'ugly' out of that dumb bint, I'll be shocked.; 11/24/25, 3:54 PM
narciso said...: Because orange; 11/24/25, 3:55 PM
TeaBagHag said...: Demented, vindictive, tin pot pedo is stymied by rule of law.
Quiet, piggies!; 11/24/25, 4:11 PM
best president ever said...: NOTICE no one is making a serious argument that Comey didn't lie to congress or that James didn't lie.; 11/24/25, 4:13 PM
Peachy said...: "improperly appointed" - is a legal opinion....
Separate from the Indictment itself.; 11/24/25, 4:21 PM
Peachy said...: I repeat.
"improperly appointed" - is a legal opinion....
Separate from the Indictment itself.

There was an indictment made. Period.; 11/24/25, 4:21 PM
Christopher B said...: Per John Hinderaker at Powerline the dismissal had nothing to do with her qualifications or even actions, despite the hyperventilating from the judge. She was appointed interim AUSA under a statute that allows the AG to make such an appointment for 120 days with possible extension based on approval by judges in the district. A person so appointed can not have failed confirmation previously but that was not in play here. However there was a previous interim AUSA appointed for over 120 days as approved by the district judges who slow walked and then resigned without indicting Comey and James. The question comes down to whether the statute allows 'stacked' appointments or not. Per John H it appears 'stacked' appointments are not allowed by the text, presumably to keep a President from making serial appointments to avoid confirmation battles, but there are some indications prior administrations have stacked them in other districts without complaints.; 11/24/25, 4:23 PM
Peachy said...: Julie Kelly's opinion:

"The snark and bias of Judge Cameron Currie--a Clinton appointee tasked with handling the disqualification motions--oozes throughout her orders dismissing the indictments against Comey and James.

Who is she to make any comment about Halligan's background or experience?"; 11/24/25, 4:27 PM
Iman said...: “as entirely private school educated, i believe…”

That’s one way to describe the results of attending Clearview Horizon Girls Academy 😬; 11/24/25, 4:27 PM
Howard said...: System gamer move to get indictments delayed by gamer move. Don't Cry for me Trumpasinos.; 11/24/25, 4:50 PM
narciso said...: Of course they dont, they approve of perjury and mortgage fraud; 11/24/25, 4:53 PM
Achilles said...: Howard said...

System gamer move to get indictments delayed by gamer move. Don't Cry for me Trumpasinos.

Since they extended the statute of limitations to get Trump, they wont mind if we extend them for Comey amrite?; 11/24/25, 4:56 PM
Achilles said...: narciso said...

Of course they dont, they approve of perjury and mortgage fraud

The biggest problem with what these people did is that they were law enforcement officers.

James Comey put people in jail for years for exactly what he himself did.

Leticia James tried to steal from Trump and put him in jail for what she herself did.

It is really hard to express how pathetic, stupid, and amoral the a person has to be to be a democrat voter right now.; 11/24/25, 5:02 PM
lonejustice said...: Peachy said...
AI is often unreliable, or flat out wrong. ...

But then she goes on to quote AI extensively on this issue. Go figure.; 11/24/25, 5:15 PM
Peachy said...: Lone Justice. No.

Not at all.
I quoted another commentor and someone on X.
NOT A I; 11/24/25, 5:20 PM
narciso said...: Surprisingly got it wrong; 11/24/25, 5:42 PM
boatbuilder said...: Inga and victoria demonstrate why courts appoint real lawyers to provide counsel to pro se litigants, whether they want it or not.; 11/24/25, 5:47 PM
Kakistocracy said...: The Comey case may be dismissed "without prejudice" -- meaning that charges may be refiled. However, given that the statute of limitations has passed in the Comey case (one of the likely reasons for the expedited filing of charges), this has the same practical effect as the case being dismissed "with prejudice".; 11/24/25, 6:02 PM
John said...: Christopher B has mostly explained why the case was dismissed. The only thing not mentioned is that once the 120 days temporary appointment was up, the Federal Court in that district is supposed to appoint the interim US Attorney, rather than the President doing so serially. If the Court does so, that appointment is valid until Trump gets his appointment through the Senate. Per Andrew McCarthy at NRO.; 11/24/25, 6:05 PM
John said...: Also, the DOJ has six months to refile. McCarthy didn't seem to think that would put a refile outside the SOL, which were satisfied by the original indictment.; 11/24/25, 6:07 PM
narciso said...: Note his former client, hsbc long history of money laundering; 11/24/25, 6:16 PM
Kakistocracy said...: Say what you will, she managed to resolve two cases simultaneously. Ms Halligan managed to lose two cases at once, which is honestly impressive; 11/24/25, 6:18 PM
Butkus51 said...: Inga loves when dems get away with crimes.

Loves it.; 11/24/25, 6:21 PM
narciso said...: Yes but the judges would control the us atty this is largely to the possum senates inaction; 11/24/25, 6:21 PM
Kakistocracy said...: John writes: 'Also, the DOJ has six months to refile. McCarthy didn't seem to think that would put a refile outside the SOL, which were satisfied by the original indictment.'

Appealing the dismissal instead of re-indicting is a way to kick the can down the road and avoid a lot of short-term humiliation over the other flaws in the case.

I mean you could drag an appeal out for a year, easy. That way you’re not faced with litigation of the embarrassingly meritorious vindictive prosecution motions or any of the other dumpster--fire elements of this; you get to litigate a dry statutory interpretation issue.

You’ve already flexed your power and cheered up the base by going after enemies of the people and cost the defendants a fair amount of money and stress. So just appealing and not trying to re-indict may be the smartest course.

Which is why I’m not sure they’ll do it, as absolute morons.; 11/24/25, 6:23 PM
narciso said...: They ultimately dont want to be held accountabke thats why comey used cutouts like richman to leak to the tjmes; 11/24/25, 6:26 PM
narciso said...: General Mike Flynn Tells James Comey, 'Don't Think It's Over' – Twitchy https://share.google/B8Mwb782gypZ3Hx5E; 11/24/25, 6:32 PM
Kakistocracy said...: Client management has to be tricky here, there’s a pretty good chance the client is yelling “PROSECUTE THAT JUDGE FOR TREASON”; 11/24/25, 6:40 PM
GRW3 said...: A) Would not be surprised if this very same judge denied improper appointment motions against Jack Smith, since pretty much recognized
B) You know he searched up and down in the indictment to find a prejudice or law interpretation mistake that would have let him dismiss with prejudice.; 11/24/25, 6:47 PM
boatbuilder said...: I mean you could drag an appeal out for a year, easy. That way you’re not faced with litigation of the embarrassingly meritorious vindictive prosecution motions or any of the other dumpster--fire elements of this; you get to litigate a dry statutory interpretation issue.

Do you ever stop to ask yourself how much your pronouncements reveal you to be an absolute hack?

The judge came up with this novel basis for dismissal, not the prosecution.; 11/24/25, 7:14 PM
Christopher B said...: @John, I think that is the open question. My read on John Hinderaker's post is that the statute is not clear on what happens if the interim appointment expires for some reason without a successful confirmation of a permanent AUSA. I have read that the judges can perform an appointment on their own as you suggest but that would seem to violate separation of powers, and I don't know if it's the same statute because it seems clear this on says they can only extend a previously made appointment.; 11/24/25, 7:14 PM
victoria said...: Peachy, i do not obsessively read the postings from this rag tag group as you do. Sorry, not sorry.; 11/24/25, 7:14 PM
boatbuilder said...: Jack Smith was designated a "Special Counsel" for the Biden DOJ to go after Trump. There is no statutory authority for such a "Special Counsel," which is why the Trump prosecutions were dismissed. That is not a technicality. It is nothing like the "temporary appointment" technicality at issue here. Apples and giraffes.; 11/24/25, 7:19 PM
Tina Trent said...: CNN reports.

Those people coupldn't stop sorting coke lines long enough to report on snorting come lines.; 11/24/25, 7:20 PM
Tina Trent said...: Victoria: you are so coy, bless your heart. Have you ever heard of Aunt Alexandra Finch?

Read the novel.; 11/24/25, 7:26 PM
Tina Trent said...: Oh, shut the hell up, Inga. All your heroes have been outed as pedophiles. I think modest silence from now on is best now.

And tell the truth. How many times did you vote for Ted Kennedy, knowing he killed that girl the way you son died?

Too crude? Dwell on it, sweetie. Waters in the lungs hoping for help is a terrible thing, though no worse than I have witnessed more thanonce.; 11/24/25, 7:48 PM
Inga said...: “Oh, shut the hell up, Inga.”

Oh you shut up yourself, you weirdo. What the hell is wrong with you? I have heroes who are pedophiles, who might that be? You say the strangest things, not only to me, you’ve said odd things to other commenters, even fellow conservatives.

I don’t know what you think you’re getting at with your comment about water in the lungs. Are you making a comment about my son’s death? Again, I ask what is wrong with you? I never voted for Ted Kennedy, I voted for Jimmy Carter.

I think you need some professional help. I recall a few months ago you actually said you were contemplating suicide. What an odd thing to say on a public forum. Maybe you should contemplate not telling strangers on the internet that you are depressed and are considering suicide. Maybe modest silence would be something that would benefit YOU.; 11/24/25, 8:20 PM
boatbuilder said...: Does this mean that any indictment brought by Halligan's office must fail? This seems to be fundamentally incorrect. Surely someone must have the authority to act as AUSA. If Halligan wasn't authorized, isn't it incumbent upon the court to: a) notify the US Attorney's office, and b) appoint somebody else?; 11/24/25, 8:33 PM
Mark said...: boatbuilder, Trump can nominate someone for Congress to appoint whenever he wants. Doesn't he have a majority?

Should be a slam dunk.; 11/24/25, 9:13 PM
boatbuilder said...: Brilliant, Mark. Thanks for playing.
Do you think that there should be no AUSA while the political games get played?; 11/24/25, 9:47 PM
Mark said...: He had 120 days of an appointee if he decides to fire the last office holder. Why isn't that enough time to nominate someone for approval?

AFAIK, he hasn't bothered to follow the process.

Seems like an own-gosl.; 11/24/25, 9:55 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: This is playing out like an episode of The Apprentice. I wonder who Halligan will take with her to the boardroom. Bondi? The First Assistant U.S. Attorney?; 11/24/25, 10:56 PM
Tina Trent said...: Yeah Inga, I'm very ill. Apparently (I'm still trying, but the money disappears and the doctor pool gets smaller) an inoperative tumor in my throat. I haven't had solid food in years. I might kill (probably just drive to the Kroger and buy it) for a hamburger and fries. We both have burdens. And they are odd to share with strangers, which we have both done.

I've been thinking about my training as a poet. Years of it, by one of the greatest writing teachers. Somehow, like alchemy, he brought out and carved enormously talented people's voices Early on, he said to me: you and I will never be great poets. We can't climb that last staircase. We are, however, great poetry teachers and editors.

I'm glad I learned that early. Some people never keep trying and never keep failing. I feel secure in my skill, yet I broke a promise to you.

I recommit to human decency towards you, whether or not you keep accusing me of heinous crimes against humanity.

This website is an unique object lesson in true free speech. And its responsibilities.; 11/25/25, 3:20 AM