Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
"Anna, Lindsey Halligan Here." -- Anna Bower
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/anna--lindsey-halligan-hereMy Signal exchange with the interim U.S. attorney about the Letitia James grand jury.
A very strange series of communications and demonstrations of incompetency and turmoil in the US DOJ.
It was 1:20 p.m. on the afternoon of Saturday, Oct. 11. I was lounging in my pajamas, idly scrolling through Netflix, having spent the morning reading news stories, occasionally tweeting, and watching TV. It was a rare day off.
Then my phone lit up with a notification. I glanced down at the message.
“Anna, Lindsey Halligan here,” it began.
Lindsey Halligan—the top prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia—was texting me. As it turned out, she was texting me about a criminal case she is pursuing against one of the president’s perceived political enemies: New York Attorney General Letitia James.
So began my two-day text correspondence with the woman President Donald Trump had installed, in no small part, to bring the very prosecution she was now discussing with me by text message.
Over the next 33 hours, Halligan texted me again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
Through the whole of our correspondence, however, there is something Halligan never said: She never said a word suggesting that she was not “on the record.”
It is not uncommon for federal prosecutors to communicate with the press, both through formal channels and sometimes informally. My exchange with Halligan, however, was highly unusual in a number of respects. She initiated a conversation with me, a reporter she barely knew, to discuss an ongoing prosecution that she is personally handling. She mostly criticized my reporting—or, more precisely, my summary of someone else’s reporting. But several of her messages contained language that touch on grand jury matters, even as she insisted that she could not reveal such information, which is protected from disclosure by prosecutors under federal law.
As a legal journalist covering the Justice Department, I had never encountered anything quite like my exchange with Halligan. Neither had my editor. Over the last several days, he and I spoke with multiple former federal officials and journalists who cover the justice system. None could recall a similar instance in which a sitting U.S. attorney reached out to chastise a reporter about matters concerning grand jury testimony in an active case.
. . .
Then my phone lit up with a notification. I glanced down at the message.
“Anna, Lindsey Halligan here,” it began.
Lindsey Halligan—the top prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia—was texting me. As it turned out, she was texting me about a criminal case she is pursuing against one of the president’s perceived political enemies: New York Attorney General Letitia James.
So began my two-day text correspondence with the woman President Donald Trump had installed, in no small part, to bring the very prosecution she was now discussing with me by text message.
Over the next 33 hours, Halligan texted me again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
Through the whole of our correspondence, however, there is something Halligan never said: She never said a word suggesting that she was not “on the record.”
It is not uncommon for federal prosecutors to communicate with the press, both through formal channels and sometimes informally. My exchange with Halligan, however, was highly unusual in a number of respects. She initiated a conversation with me, a reporter she barely knew, to discuss an ongoing prosecution that she is personally handling. She mostly criticized my reporting—or, more precisely, my summary of someone else’s reporting. But several of her messages contained language that touch on grand jury matters, even as she insisted that she could not reveal such information, which is protected from disclosure by prosecutors under federal law.
As a legal journalist covering the Justice Department, I had never encountered anything quite like my exchange with Halligan. Neither had my editor. Over the last several days, he and I spoke with multiple former federal officials and journalists who cover the justice system. None could recall a similar instance in which a sitting U.S. attorney reached out to chastise a reporter about matters concerning grand jury testimony in an active case.
. . .
Followed with some more strangeness from DOJ.
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
