'Embarrassing': Expert lays into Trump's prosecutor for filing wrong charging documents

Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks tore into President Donald Trump's former defense lawyer Lindsey Halligan, freshly appointed as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, for making basic errors while advancing the administration's criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey.

Comey, whom Trump fired as FBI director shortly into his first term after he refused to shut down the investigation into the president's ties to Russia, is being prosecuted for perjury and obstruction of justice, based on testimony he gave in a Senate hearing about FBI leaks to the press that doesn't appear to be false and isn't even quoted correctly in the indictment.

Halligan, who has no experience as a prosecutor, was appointed after Trump's previous hand-picked federal prosecutor in charge of the Eastern District was pushed out for concluding there was no credible evidence to pursue charges against Comey and other Trump critics — which already caused outrage among legal experts as the White House is ordering a politically motivated prosecution over the expert opinion of attorneys who are supposed to be independent.

But that's just the beginning of the issue, noted Wine-Banks.

Halligan actually tried to persuade the grand jury to sign off on a second perjury charge, based on his testimony about the investigation into the Clinton Foundation that, again, was not false, and they refused to do so. This is itself something that rarely happens to a competent prosecutor, as they get to essentially control all information the grand jury sees without showing them any potentially exculpatory facts.

But then, according to Lawfare's Roger Parloff, Halligan filed two contradictory documents with the federal court, one of which correctly said two counts were returned and one rejected, and one that incorrectly implied the jury returned a no true bill on all counts — which would mean there was no indictment to bring at all.

When the judge asked Halligan to explain why these two documents disagreed, according to a transcript posted to X by Parloff, Halligan said, "I only reviewed the one with the two counts that our office redrafted when we found out about the two — two counts that were true billed, and I signed that one. I did not see the other one. I don't know where that came from." To which the judge responded, "Okay. It has your signature on it."

This error left Wine-Banks astonished.

"Why is this not front page headline?" wrote Wine-Banks on X. "The inexperience of Trump’s new USAtty is embarrassing. She does not know the rules, acted without sufficient evidence and against career AUSAs’ advice."

"I predict dismissal before trial, directed verdict after govt presents its case if not, and acquittal at worst," Wine-Banks concluded.