I know the charges were dismissed initially because of evidence issues and then he was re-indicted based on new evidence. Did he sue state officials after charges were dismissed? I haven't followed closely. If he did, that's not technically a Bivens action as that case applies to the feds. An action against a state official for damages is termed a Section 1983 action. It's very similar with slight differences in what one has to show.
The original action was a state case fumbled by a garbage DA after a pretty good investigation which was partly led by the FBI. Later the case was dismissed without prejudice after the Judge sanction the state for expert discovery violations. The defendant then sued the entire world including Law enforcement, DA and the FBI citing Bivens. The FBI part fell over and the rest was struck out in summary judgement phase.
Yeah, it's not uncommon to see a complaint allege Bivens counts and Sec. 1983 counts if it's a mix and match of agencies involved in the prosecution. And they're both hard to win, especially now. I know the gallows joke amongst civil rights litigators is that apparently now Bivens only applies if your name is Bivens.
I didn't understand everything the pretty lady on the right is saying here but it sounds kinda bad. IS it bad? Coz it sounds like it. It also seems, (according to man with the glasses in the middle who is NOT as pretty), that the message telling Pam Bondi, (also pretty), to prosecute Comey should have been a direct message rather a message to the entire world. Is it just me, or is this whole thing being less than well executed?
To be fair…the poor execution was due to the statute of limitations running out. Obviously the deep state tried to run out the clock to cover for Comey. And by deep state…I mean guys like Durham who obviously was a Dem plant who fooled Trump 1 and Bill Barr into appointing him..:then spent 3 years investigating both Biden Jr and Comey to create cover..:then issued a recommendation not to charge Comey.
This is a fun update: From Roger Parloff (Lawfare) on X. Yesterday, at the Comey arraignment, one thing that got a little smushed is that he may make a "Bronston literal truth" motion to dismiss. After learning more about the accusation, he'd argue that his answers, compared to what the govt claims, were true as a matter of law Bronston was a 1973 SCOTUS case charging "perjury," which may be a little more persnickety than the "false statement" or "obstruction" statutes, but, still, that could be a weighty motion. So, if I'm reading this right, Comey is going after Halligan for perjury, which is a whole other level from just misleading or false statements.
Letitia James criminally charged in Trump’s latest effort to punish rivals | Letitia James | The Guardian "The move is Trump’s latest effort to weaponize the Department of Justice to punish political rivals. It comes two weeks after Halligan secured charges against James Comey, the former FBI director. Career prosecutors prepared a memo in that case outlining why charges were not warranted. Comey pleaded not guilty on Wednesday." The legal system is going to stand up here, right? And swat this bullshit aside?
So youre a baby stupid face and not a big boy one? And here I thought all mods were equally stupid face
With 3 easy payments of $99.99, Val can be granted Stupidface Gold Brawndo Status. It's like Standard Stupidface, but it's got electrolytes.
According to ABC, sources say Bondi didn't even know Halligan went to the Grand Jury to indict James. MAGA is going to consume itself before long. Seriously.
I am stunned that Trump's tweet to Bondo telling her to arrest everyone was actually supposed to be a private message lol!
It's an odd one because, yes... it's surprising, but then one has to ask, are you really that stunned? I mean, REALLY? I think it's more surprising to see it written down than the fact itself.