Judicial hijinks does move the plot in fake reality teevee-land and Ms. Halligan does have the right look for a 47 US Prosecuting Attorney so come on, what's the problem here? Real prosecutors are so smug but she'll be just fine after being disbarred. She'll be back: "And now here's Fox "News" legal expert, former US Attorney, Lindsey Halligan with her expert legal analysis on this late breaking story!"
Another itso fatso or “itsa facto if I say it is!” 😄😆😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 if this were a tv show, people would find it unbelievable… but in Trump land, it is just another day, ho hum, nothing to see here folks!
I'm not sure if it will make it as far as a court room, but the complaint raised by the Campaign for Accountability against Lindsey Halligan with the Florida Bar looks to contain some particularly treacherous landmines for her to try and dodge.
Page 2 of the complaint opens with this:-
"Through her actions, and as set forth in further detail below, Ms. Halligan may have violated,among others: RPC 3.3(a)(1) (requiring candor to the Court); RPC 1.1 (requiring competence);RPC 3.6 (prohibiting extrajudicial statements); RPC 3.8 (prohibiting the prosecution of a charge the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause); and RPC 8.4 (prohibiting conductinvolving dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation, or conduct prejudicial to the administration ofjustice)."
Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 3.8 looks particularly interesting - since it prohibits the prosecution of a charge the prosecutor knows is not supported by probably cause. The thing is, Erik Siebert already investigated the allegations and concluded that there was no charge to Answer. Erik Siebert is a *much* more experienced and capable prosecutor than Lindsay Halligan - who as we know has *zero* prosecutorial experience.
So we have a potential scenario in which someone is going to face off against DA Halligan with a copy of the written basis that Erik Siebert provided when he declined to prosecute - and then say, "Now... in order for you to conclude that former DA Siebert made materially incorrect conclusions underpinning each of the reasons he gave to *not* prosecute, you would have had to investigate each of his points - as outlined in this document - and establish a predicate for concluding he reached the wrong conclusion. Let's now take each of his conclusions in turn, and I would like you to explain, with any evidence you can bring, to show : 1) What steps you took to investigate the finding; 2) the complete and full results of your investigation as facts; 3) the subsequent legal analysis you took to determine the illegality or otherwise of each data point found by Siebert; and finally 4) please walk us through any exculpatory data or evidence. Please augment your responses with complete details concerning all any individuals or colleagues with whom you consulted when drawing your conclusions."
Now Siebert, as a practised and experienced DA, is almost certainly going to have conducted his investigation "by the book" - because he wuld have know that his findings would be unpopular with the White House and AG Bondi and as a result of that he would have wanted to have an absolutely bulletproof justification for not bringing charges. Does anyone - anyone - think that DA Halligan would have been so diligent and produced such work product?
It seems unlikely. Of course, given how deep in the "doo-doo" these folk have already sunk, what's to say they won't be furiously generating supporting justification and materials now, after-the-fact?
Does anyone know if a DA's computer has to be "tamper proof" and to generate a legally admissable chain-of-evidence for produced documents?
I have a hunch DA Halligan could be in even hotter water here if it comes out that she brough the charges "Because the President wanted it..." [which is what it looks like] as opposed to actually bothering to create the full paper trail.
Judicial hijinks does move the plot in fake reality teevee-land and Ms. Halligan does have the right look for a 47 US Prosecuting Attorney so come on, what's the problem here? Real prosecutors are so smug but she'll be just fine after being disbarred. She'll be back: "And now here's Fox "News" legal expert, former US Attorney, Lindsey Halligan with her expert legal analysis on this late breaking story!"
Thank you so much for this helpful explainer.
Another itso fatso or “itsa facto if I say it is!” 😄😆😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 if this were a tv show, people would find it unbelievable… but in Trump land, it is just another day, ho hum, nothing to see here folks!
I'm not sure if it will make it as far as a court room, but the complaint raised by the Campaign for Accountability against Lindsey Halligan with the Florida Bar looks to contain some particularly treacherous landmines for her to try and dodge.
Page 2 of the complaint opens with this:-
"Through her actions, and as set forth in further detail below, Ms. Halligan may have violated,among others: RPC 3.3(a)(1) (requiring candor to the Court); RPC 1.1 (requiring competence);RPC 3.6 (prohibiting extrajudicial statements); RPC 3.8 (prohibiting the prosecution of a charge the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause); and RPC 8.4 (prohibiting conductinvolving dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation, or conduct prejudicial to the administration ofjustice)."
Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 3.8 looks particularly interesting - since it prohibits the prosecution of a charge the prosecutor knows is not supported by probably cause. The thing is, Erik Siebert already investigated the allegations and concluded that there was no charge to Answer. Erik Siebert is a *much* more experienced and capable prosecutor than Lindsay Halligan - who as we know has *zero* prosecutorial experience.
So we have a potential scenario in which someone is going to face off against DA Halligan with a copy of the written basis that Erik Siebert provided when he declined to prosecute - and then say, "Now... in order for you to conclude that former DA Siebert made materially incorrect conclusions underpinning each of the reasons he gave to *not* prosecute, you would have had to investigate each of his points - as outlined in this document - and establish a predicate for concluding he reached the wrong conclusion. Let's now take each of his conclusions in turn, and I would like you to explain, with any evidence you can bring, to show : 1) What steps you took to investigate the finding; 2) the complete and full results of your investigation as facts; 3) the subsequent legal analysis you took to determine the illegality or otherwise of each data point found by Siebert; and finally 4) please walk us through any exculpatory data or evidence. Please augment your responses with complete details concerning all any individuals or colleagues with whom you consulted when drawing your conclusions."
Now Siebert, as a practised and experienced DA, is almost certainly going to have conducted his investigation "by the book" - because he wuld have know that his findings would be unpopular with the White House and AG Bondi and as a result of that he would have wanted to have an absolutely bulletproof justification for not bringing charges. Does anyone - anyone - think that DA Halligan would have been so diligent and produced such work product?
It seems unlikely. Of course, given how deep in the "doo-doo" these folk have already sunk, what's to say they won't be furiously generating supporting justification and materials now, after-the-fact?
Does anyone know if a DA's computer has to be "tamper proof" and to generate a legally admissable chain-of-evidence for produced documents?
I have a hunch DA Halligan could be in even hotter water here if it comes out that she brough the charges "Because the President wanted it..." [which is what it looks like] as opposed to actually bothering to create the full paper trail.
Interesting.