Judges had questioned appointment of Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s former personal lawyer, to lead the eastern Virginia U.S. attorney’s office
Judges had questioned appointment of Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s former personal lawyer, to lead the eastern Virginia U.S. attorney’s office
The article is paywalled but even in the short summary the WSJ is misreporting in favor of the Trump administration.
Halligan was not serving and did not step down because her 120-day appointment expired, and she ceased to be a US Attorney but kept impersonating one anyway. Then Bondi tried to create a “special counsel” role that did the US Attorney’s job but skirted the time limit. The court rejected this and ordered Halligan to stop acting like a US Attorney, so she stopped instead of being held in contempt.
Halligan couldn’t step down. She was already down. The court didn’t “question her appointment.” They judged she was not properly appointed. This performative action didn’t “cap a fraught tenure” because her appointment was already nullified by the court.
Not surprising with a Murdoch rag, but I hate subtle propaganda like this.
MSN has a copy of the article.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/prosecutor-who-brought-james-comey-and-letitia-james-cases-steps-down/ar-AA1UCE7O
Which is what the article says. Maybe don’t start your critique of the article and the “rag” with an admission that you didn’t even read it.
My commentary wasn’t meant to be an insult to you, but it sounds like you’re taking it personally? My statement wasn’t an “admission” it was a disclaimer.
The comments I made continue to apply, because that is the characterization in those paragraphs. The fact that the article gives more context doesn’t obviate the propaganda effect of the framing characterizations.
That said, the same issue appears in the full article:
The federal judges of eastern Virginia didn’t “question” the legitimacy of her role (4th ¶), they ruled it was illegitimate.
Alina Habba didn’t “resign” ((8th ¶) as both characterized here and in the WSJ’s linked prior reporting), she was likewise an invalid appointment.
The story also ends with a takeaway quote from Bondi making her look reasonable and sad about the departure, rather than leaving with the truth as found by the courts. That end quote has no value except to both-sides/normalize Bondi and the DOJ’s contemptuous and unconstitutional conduct.
“First let me insult you, but then I’d like to say yeah I didn’t read it but I was right anyway”
Vomiting your opinion without even reading the source is the reason some of us left other platforms, please stop.
Buddy, I mean you no injury as I said, but what exactly are you trying to do here?
I stated that the article was behind a paywall to disclaim, and it was to be honest. If you look at my comment history, you’ll see I’m not like a Reddit karma farmer, just posting superficial headline hot takes. I tried to access the article, saw enough to comment, you responded rudely, so I did what you didn’t - I reflected and thought, sure, better to see all of it, and tracked down the archive link (it’s easy to include that in your post, but sure, I can look it up).
But no, after reading the article, I stand by my comments for the reasons I already gave.
I don’t know who hurt you or why you’re so aggressive, but you’re being very belligerent, and you’re digging in deeper making even more personal attacks. I mean this genuinely: what’s your problem? Really don’t get it.
Dude, I posted an article. You said it was trash but also that you didn’t read it. I said I hate it when people already have an opinion before they read the article. Everything else is in your head