Gray Wednesday Part 2: Lindsey Halligan, Puppet
James Comey’s vindictive prosecution brings hope at the fools’ expense.
Editor’s note: This is Part 2 of the Comey Saga, “Gray Wednesday.”
Previous installments:
Gray Wednesday: Comey’s Arraignment.
On Wednesday, November 19, 2025, I checked and rechecked the court calendar to verify that oral arguments were still happening for former FBI Director and crime novelist James Comey’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of vindictive prosecution. Acting United States Attorney Lindsey Halligan should be too mortified to show her face again after her inexplicably weird 33-hour text message marathon with Lawfare’s Anna Bower about her bullshit prosecution of Letitia James, followed by Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick’s blistering report on Ms. Halligan’s “fundamental misstatements of the law that could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process.”
According to Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick, the grand jury was misled—that is how some non-partisan “sanewasher” would put it. Ms. Halligan misled the grand jury. According to that report, it was intimated to them that Mr. Comey’s Fifth Amendment rights were somehow incriminating, which is a clear constitutional error. They were promised that if they indicted, there would be better evidence at trial than they had seen. This is not a reasonable and normal way for grand juries to operate. That Ms. Halligan thought this would slide spoke to her manifest disqualification—I did not think it could get worse for her, but it did.
President Donald Trump foolishly took his prosecution of Mr. Comey to real court instead of Twitter, a battlefield where the former FBI Director could lose. Mr. Trump’s hubris persisted even when the former Acting United States Attorney for Virginia, Erik Siebert, who was a real prosecutor, told him his case sucked. Mr. Trump could have said: “Well, back to the drawing board!” Instead, he claims he fired Mr. Seibert. Mr. Seibert claims he resigned. Perhaps both events happened simultaneously, and we will never know the truth. Now Mr. Trump has a half-baked case and completely cooked U.S. attorney.
Another gray Wednesday, but brighter than the last. I was excited to see Mr. Trump’s profaned and debased Department of Justice sputter and spit as they tried to account for themselves. It was worth waking up at 5:00 a.m., driving the Beltway inner loop in a rainy rush hour, and standing in a security line outside the Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia.
Ms. Halligan has no business in the Eastern District of Virginia. Maybe she believes in herself, plans to fake-it-’til-she-makes-it, but it seems doubtful she will make it, and she puts little effort into faking it. If Mr. Trump wanted a serious lawyer, he could find one. As Mr. Trump’s former personal attorney, she was picked for her loyalty, not ability. For the role of United States Attorney to go to somebody who was not, and never had been, a prosecutor, is obviously wrong. But is it wrong in a way that is beneficial to long-term civic health because it is obvious, or simply more degradation and diminishment about which nothing can or will be done? Either their ignorance and incompetence will be this regime’s undoing, or it will be ours.
In Better Call Saul Season 5, Episode 4, “Namaste,” the titular attorney, Saul Goodman, asked a witness to identify his client, then revealed that the person beside him was an imposter disguised as the defendant. He was summoned to the judge’s chambers, then returned and told his romantic and legal partner, Kim Wexler, that he had gotten the beautiful word he was looking for: “mistrial.”
Similarly, I wondered if Ms. Halligan’s “chicanery” was not in pursuit of an outcome that puts Mr. Comey in the slammer with the Beagle Boys and every other criminal whom his FBI put away, but rather for the case to be dismissed so that Mr. Trump could declare he would have won, if not for those meddling judges. I was wrong. The hearing was so weird and embarrassing that I must conclude no, they are actually really bad at this.
Compared to the cold rain, the courthouse lighting felt warm. Security was smoother and faster than it had been the last time. The motions hearing did not portend to be the same circus as the arraignment, and why would it? Everyone wants to watch the perp walk and the trial, but the nitty-gritty is for sickos. Some in the queue were bragging about how much more “lit” the October line was. Someone even said, “You had to be there.”
These were seasoned, dedicated court watchers, some of minor fame—Talking Feds’ Harry Litman, MSNBC’s Glenn Kirschner, Lawfare’s Roger Parloff, Anna Bower, and Molly Roberts—practically star-studded if you spend your time on Substack.
From conversations I overheard, there was a sense that the grand jury “stuff” Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick wrote the night before was spicier than the malicious prosecution motion we were there to see, and some in line started to chat about cases they would rather be watching—United States v. Letitia James, No. 2:25-cr-00122 (E.D. Va. 2025), United States v. Kilmar Armando Ábrego García, No. 3:25-cr-00115-1 (M.D. Tenn. June 22, 2025), and J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB (D.D.C. filed Mar. 15, 2025), Judge James Emanuel Boasberg’s hearing on the Alien Enemies Act. FOMO has infected every possible slice of life, if even court reporters now suffer it. Or perhaps this administration’s legal slop has exhausted the press. Well, I hope to reduce their worry. I may have no legal training, my punctuality may be unreliable, and my insights are erratic, discursive, and irreverent, but I will step into the gap.
Ms. Halligan’s “incompetence” was another common topic of chatter. “Everything is going to evaporate,” I heard someone say. I assumed they meant the charges were so weak as to disappear under bright light, but they were talking about a vodka spill. The Trump administration’s haphazard handling of matters was so amateurish these legal eagles seemed more bored than outraged. I can relate—I once had a Taco Bell order of three tacos go so badly that the tacos were shoved into each other like a matryoshka. That was an interesting fiasco. This was more akin to someone handing you a bag of trash. It is no novelty how this went so wrong, only gross.
“If this is dismissed today…” was another common refrain. There was even some speculation on how Ms. Halligan could resign and keep some dignity. Does she know that she should feel shame? That even her haters and neutral observers are embarrassed for her? If he had a heart, Mr. Trump would give up his pursuit of vengeance and spare Ms. Halligan the indignity of this role.
Someone else suggested that perhaps Ms. Halligan was “in over her skis.” I hear this phrase in DC with increasing frequency, enough that its meaning has gone from evocative to limp. What caused this explosion in usage? Have we had an uptick in skiers, or did this show up in one notable tweet or podcast that embedded itself in the Beltway DNA? I suspect the answer is blander: Many out-of-their-depth Republicans are fucking up.
I keep thinking back to Mr. Trump’s McDonald’s Summit, which Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark deconstructed in excruciating detail. Mr. Comey is being prosecuted on the whim of a man who thought 25,000 people, including Google’s Sundar Pichai and Sergey Brin, squeezed into a drive-thru, who has so lost his inhibition that in one day he called a reporter “piggy,” downplayed the murder of Jamaal Khashoggi, called for ABC’s broadcast license to be revoked, and most recently called for Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, as well as Representatives Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, and Chrissy Houlahan to be put to death.
I could have slept in, but because the president is both malevolent and mentally degenerating, America bears the cost. Anybody else would be sectioned for inflicting themselves on the world so incoherently, but he cannot be humored—he must be stopped. Does he know how poorly this is going for him?
I thought U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who presided over the arguments, had real star quality. He was smart, incisive, and witty. Once he even made me belly-laugh, which earned me some dark stares in the overflow room, where spectators watch via video feed when the main courtroom is full. If he tires of this nonsense and wants to start his own television show on the model of Judge Judy Sheindlin, I will happily subscribe to whatever service sells it.
Mr. Comey’s defense was straightforward. The government cannot use the power of prosecution to express animus, to punish speech, or as a “cudgel to damage and intimidate his political opponents.” But for Mr. Trump’s vindictive motive, the case would never have been brought, so it should be dismissed. His attorney, Michael Dreeban, cited Mr. Trump’s retaliatory tweets and calls for prosecution. He then stipulated that when Mr. Comey stopped talking publicly, the president went silent, which seemed dubious. That jackass never shuts up.
Mr. Dreeban dropped one throwback that sent me into a flashback: Mr. Trump’s 2017 threat that Mr. Comey “better hope there are no tapes,” to which the former FBI director reportedly exclaimed: “Lordy, I hope there are tapes!” Seven years later, the closest we have gotten is Showtime’s 2020 drama The Comey Rule, starring Jeff Daniels as James Comey and Brendan Gleeson as Donald Trump, available streaming now on Showtime/Paramount+. As always, Mr. Trump disappoints.
Mr. Dreeban also cited the now-infamous e-mail to Attorney General and notoriously corrupt bimbo Pam Bondi listing the political enemies he wanted prosecuted, which Mr. Trump accidentally posted to Truth Social instead of e-mailing her, somehow. “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” the message read, but prosecutions like this kill not only his scant credibility, but also that of prosecutor Tyler Lemon and Mses. Bondi and Halligan. People are less scared now that they see this is all the ability that the weaponized DOJ can summon. As ever, hope is born from Republican stupidity.
Jesus Christ. A few days prior to the hearing, Mr. Trump also tweeted out a “hit list” of his “Russia HOAX Treason Club” (reminder for 🐍Tulsi Gabbard🐍: “Russiagate” was not a hoax), and Mr. Comey had an X on his head? Could this be more of a cartoon?
Man, the advertising on Truthsocial is pretty sketchy, isn’t it?
Mr. Dreeban compared Mr. Trump’s actions to King Henry II’s stochastic incitement for the Archbishop Thomas Becket’s assassination, “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” to which Judge Nachmanoff retorted, “We all agree Henry II can’t be binding precedent.” Is it meddlesome priest? I thought it was turbulent priest. I will go mad trying to pin down the most correct version of this quote, but not, perhaps, as mad as Mr. Comey’s lawyer must feel explaining Mr. Trump’s sloppy, obsessive targeting of his political foes. (“I am your retribution!” was a campaign pitch.)
Mr. Lemon gave the government’s case, which got off to a rough start. Mr. Comey was “indicted because he lied,” according to the prosecutor, which was a great line! But he followed that up by saying that Mr. Comey had been properly indicted by a grand jury, to which Judge Nachmanoff interrupted with, basically, “About that…”
How badly this administration has warped the DOJ. Taxpayers are stuck paying lawyers to rationalize Mr. Trump’s slapdash venom—had he avoided inserting himself so personally, thus forcing Mr. Lemon to profess the president’s alibi instead of any facts, I wonder how dangerous the prosecution would have been.
When Mr. Siebert’s refusal to prosecute came back up, Judge Nachmanoff asked the government for the declination memo. Marble-mouthed Mr. Lemon at first claimed he did not know if such a memo exists. Judge Nachmanoff was skeptical. “Did you seek out a memo to see if one existed?” he asked, then “squeezed” from Mr. Lemon that the Deputy Attorney General had instructed him not to talk. No snitching! Mr. Parloff’s notes capture the exchange:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G6JMKIsXkAAXvzJ.jpg
Mr. Lemon stated a rational position, that mutual hostile rhetoric cannot be a “shield” to prosecution, or else one could pick fights to get charges dismissed. Sort of like how Mr. Trump, in 2016, said that the Mexican-American Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel could not fairly serve as his trier in the fraud case against the scam college Trump University because of his nationality, as Mr. Trump said a lot of racist shit about Hispanics during that campaign. Well, damn. They are onto my plan to claim my DONALD IS A BITCH shirt (available now at the Partisan Hex webstore) is the real reason anyone tells me to stop doing anything, and thus if someone says I cannot smoke and drink where I want to smoke and drink (the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center), it is a violation of my civil rights.
Mr. Lemon suggested that regardless of how awful Mr. Trump was about Mr. Comey, only Ms. Halligan’s animus should count for vindictiveness. That seems too narrow to be plausible—if everyone is out to get you but the prosecutor has no “beef,” it is no problem if they reluctantly “just follow orders” to bring the hammer of government on your head? Mr. Dreeban countered that it was implausible to think anyone without prosecutorial experience and with a directive from the president would, four days into the job of U.S. attorney, prosecute a complex case that career prosecutors declined. And also, the whole country saw the orange clown barking orders.
Judge Nachmanoff asked the defense that, if they thought she was acting to execute the president’s enmity, if they would call Halligan a “stalking horse” or a “puppet.” Mr. Dreeban demurred, but later Mr. Lemon argued that Ms. Halligan was not a puppet. (Flashbacks to 2016: “No puppet! You’re the puppet!”)
The interim U.S. attorney’s response freaked me out. She nodded so vigorously that her body shook like a marionette.
Judge Nachmanoff said the presumption of regularity is not a given because of Grand Jury concerns, at one point noting discrepancies in ink color as evidence that the grand jury was a fucking mess. The prosecution had to huddle. I did not know why Mr. Lemon was so rattled—as a proper writer and editor, I carry black, red, and blue pens, as well as washi tape and five colors of highlighters, everywhere I go.
I knew I was missing something important—I saw knuckles clench around pens and heard gasping, furious scribbling through the overflow room. It was explained by the judge more clearly: the full grand jury had not seen or signed the same version of the indictment that was filed—the “document [] was never shown to the entire grand jury or presented in the grand jury room.” I suppose her reasoning was that “While the Fifth Amendment says, ‘No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, but it never says that presentment cannot have some light forgery after-the-fact, like a poor student’s report card! Lindsey is very clever.” The whole case could be as phony as a degree from Trump University.
Ms. Halligan was called to the podium, where she was mumbling, passive-aggressive, and nasty—she interrupted Judge Nachmanoff once, then petulantly threw an “okay” at him like a teenager. If I had spoken to a judge like that in traffic court, when I was a hellion, I doubt I would be driving the Hexmobile today. If she is not experienced as a prosecutor, lacks warmth, charisma, charm, grace, or tact, and even botched the grand jury, what good is she to anyone? Afterwards, Ms. Halligan stayed very still, presumably thinking the judge was like a tyrannosaurus and might not notice her if she never moved.
Judge Nachmanoff declined to rule from the bench and gave both parties homework: submit briefs addressing Gaither v. United States, which held that a grand-jury indictment must be presented to all jurors, by 5 p.m. An anticlimax, but I doubt the proceedings will end in Mr. Trump’s favor. If I gambled, I would bet the case gets tossed before trial. Polymarket agrees.
When his cloud lifts, will Mr. Comey return to his retirement or work to protect anybody else similarly “caught up”? I came out for him. Will he do the same for Letitia James, Kat Abughazaleh, Robby Roadsteamer, or the Democratic lawmakers that Mr. Trump decreed must be hanged? Will the judiciary accept the task of smashing this corrupt regime with their gavels? Can this administration get its act together and at least hire some competent thugs, so we do not have to suffer both authoritarian slide and secondhand embarrassment? This farce shows a path the light breaks back into our civic landscape, by proving that, for all Mr. Trump’s power, without any direction, wisdom, or competence, his government is small, weak, and stupid; it cannot even settle his petty scores. This is possible, if the law keeps its strength and will to protect itself.
How many more such gray days will there be over the next three years? I will be at the Dropkick Murphys protest in DC on November 22, wherein the assembled will “peacefully descend on the seat of power in Washington, DC to demand unmistakably that this lawless administration come to an END.” I hope to see everyone there.
https://www.mobilize.us/mobilize/event/869555/
Next installment:
Gray Wednesday Part 3: In re Comey dismissal, Blue Monday, Black Friday