GETCHER RED HOT TRANSCRIPT HERE! I HAVE THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE COMEY AND JAMES HEARING! (AND YOU DO TOO IF YOU’RE A NOTES FROM THE FRONT MEMBER)
To quote Kojak, who loves ya, baby? I do! And that’s why I paid out of my own pocket to get the actual transcript of the Comey and James hearing for you – the hearing in which the Judge excoriated Lindsey Halligan’s *and* Pam Bondi’s handling of the Comey indictment and then dismissed the case.
And it is DELIGHTFUL!
And that is why I’m making sure to get it to you in time for some holiday reading. :~)
As you read through, keep in mind that both the Comey case and the James case were combined for this hearing, and being heard at the same time. Mr. McDowell is the attorney for James Comey, and Mr. Lowell is the attorney for Letitia James. Mr. Whitaker has the unenviable task of representing the DOJ. And of course the hearing was conducted by Judge Cameron Currie.
Here’s a tasty sampling:
“THE COURT: Let me ask you this. I was involved in receiving in camera provisions of the grand jury transcripts and tapes, and it became obvious to me that the attorney general could not have reviewed those portions of the transcript of the Comey presentation by Ms. Halligan which preceded and came after her presentation of the witness testimony in the case. There also is a missing section of what occurred between 4:28 and the return of the grand jury indictment, and it appears to me that there was no court reporter present, or if he or she was present, did not take down what happened during that time period. So how does the attorney general ratify and say that she has reviewed the grand jury transcripts when they did not exist in the records of the Justice Department at that time?
MR. WHITAKER: Well, it’s true that — it is true, Your Honor, you’re right, that we didn’t have the intro and back end of the grand jury transcripts when we presented that.
THE COURT: What the sole prosecutor and the grand jury said.
MR. WHITAKER: But I think all that’s necessary — but that is not what ratification doctrine requires for a principal to ratify.
THE COURT: It may not require it, but she’s done it. She said that she reviewed it and that on the basis of her review, she ratifies it.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, she said she reviewed the proceedings.
THE COURT: She could not have.”
And then there’s this bit of argument from Letitia James’ lawyer, Mr. Lowell; this is the argument that the media have taken to referring to as the Starbucks argument, saying that if the DOJ had its way they could just pull a Starbucks barista off the street and appoint them as interim U.S. Attorney:
“MR. LOWELL: And, secondly — oh, and by the way, at the point at which she walked into the grand jury, Ms. Halligan was a private person. She was no longer in the White House. She was pretending or purporting to be interim. She wasn’t actually interim, which means she was no, for purposes of the ratification process, other than a private person.”
And in a great courtroom gotcha:
“THE COURT: Mr. Whitaker, let me ask you one last question. Do you believe that U.S. v. Trump, decided by Judge Cannon in, I believe, 2021, was wrongly decided?”
😂
Remember that Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against Trump by finding that Jack Smith had not been properly appointed because he, *like Halligan*, had not been confirmed by the Senate.
I hope you enjoy reading this transcript as much as did I. And, either way, happy Thanksgiving!
Notes from the Front members: the full transcript (53 pages) is in your inbox.
To protect myself from legal claims of impermissible public republication, and attacks by trolls, among other things, I don’t share documents I find publicly, I make them available privately to Notes from the Front members, along with explanations and insights. You can join below for immediate access – it’s $5 a month and it’s fine to join and then cancel if you only want certain documents.
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/look-what-i-have-i-have-the-actual
Source