Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Emi And The Desert Crow

@emdissents.bsky.social

9.5K followers 14K following 3.6K posts

Girl with the Alexander Hamilton tattoo. 💙⚖️Relentlessly watching the docket, posting about the law (and live posting important hearings!) I have ADHD, there will also be chaos. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent." @emiandthedesertcrow on Threads.

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Pinned

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · Feb 13

Goodbye, independent DOJ. It was nice knowing you and daydreaming about working there someday.

a man in a suit is sitting in a grave with the words r.i.p to what we had written on the ground .

ALT: a man in a suit is sitting in a grave with the words r.i.p to what we had written on the ground .

media.tenor.com

7 18 120

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 42m

He also agreed with Comey (and not the prosecution) on which date prompts the government’s discovery production.

ORDERED that the first pretrial motions deadline in this matter is
October 20, 2025. This is the pretrial motions deadline to which the discovery order refers and the date that prompts the government's Rule 16(a) discovery production. Signed by District Judge Michael S.
Nachmanoff on 10/10/2025. (dzir)
(Entered: 10/10/2025)

1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 42m

The judge has signed the standard discovery order. Because the government didn’t return a signed copy, it’s blank where the two attorneys would have added signatures:

1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

I think they’ll file right up against the deadline. Only because Trump was boasting about it, like he was going to win 😆

1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 4h

🤣

Ooh, that's another one I could have included in my thread about the admin accusing people of the things Trump did! They're investigating Jack Smith for (imaginary) Hatch Act violations

1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 5h

Reminder that Trump has 28 days to amend the *insane* complaint against the New York Times.

By my count, he’s got one week left…

Order: This complaint stands unmistakably and inexcusably athwart the requirements
of Rule 8. This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner. The complaint is STRUCK with leave to amend within twenty-eight days. The amended complaint must not exceed forty pages, excluding only the caption, the signature, and any attachment.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on September 19, 2025.

1 1 4

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 5h

Right?! That was my thought as well!

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 5h

😆

I bet NARA discovers huge gaps in presidential records when they’re eventually turned over, they seem to conduct half their correspondence over Signal and, apparently, Truth Social DMs??!

1 1

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 5h

(Apologies for the formatting, it does that when you copy and paste from these documents and it’s not always apparent until you post).

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 5h

Also of note: “the gov’t sent the defense the standard discovery order attached and the defense signed it with no changes to
the government's proposal and returned it for government signatures on Thursday afternoon, October 9, 2025. To-date, however, the government has not returned a
signed copy.”

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 5h

Comey’s motion for a standard discovery order, where we learn that “[a]s of the date of this filing, the defense has received one page of discovery.”

JAMES COMEYS MOTION FOR STANDARD DISCOVERY ORDER
On October 8, 2025, the Court ordered the parties to "immediately confer
regarding the entry of a joint discovery order" and, if able to reach agreement, "file a joint discovery order by Friday, October 10, 2025, at 5:00 p.m." BCF No. 24 at 1. The parties have met and conferred and agree that the terms of the standard discovery order should govern this case. As described below, the parties have a disagreement as to the interpretation of one of those terms. James Comey, by counsel, therefore asks this Honorable Court to enter the standard discovery order for this district attached as Exhibit 1, and the proposed order interpreting certain terms.
In the course of the parties' meet and confer, the government sent the defense
the standard discovery order attached and the defense signed it with no changes to the government's proposal and returned it for government signatures on Thursday afternoon, October 9, 2025. To-date, however, the government has not returned a signed copy. While the parties agree to the terms of the standard discovery order, the parties disagree as to an interpretation of one term of the order-specifically, which of the two pretrial motions deadlines prompts the government's Rule 16(a) production described in paragraph 1, requiring the government to produce certain discovery "no later than 5 business days before the deadline for pretrial motions." See Exhibit 1 at

described in paragraph 1, requiring the government to produce certain discovery "no
later than 5 business days before the deadline for pretrial motions." See Exhibit 1 at
1 (emphasis added).
Mr. Comey asserts that the first set of pretrial motions due on October 20, 2025, which the Court ordered at the arraignment hearing, demands that discovery be produced on Monday, October 13, 2025. Naturally, at least some of this discovery will inform the bases for the vindictive and selective prosecution motion that is to be filed on October 20, 2025, jas of the date of this filing, the defense has received one page of discovery. The government contends that the term "deadline for pretrial motions" refers to the deadline for the second tranche of pretrial motions, October 30,
2025.|| To be able to fully articulate all bases for the first tranche of pretrial motions including the vindictive and selective nature of this case; to be able to effectively defend Mr. Comey; and because it is the plain language of the standard discovery order, Mr. Comey respectfully requests that the Court enter the additional proposed order making clear that "the deadline for pretrial motions" referenced in the standard discovery order is the first pretrial motions deadline of October 20, 2025.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES COMEY
By Counsel

1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 5h

I still haven’t made it all the way through. If I recall, Thomas filed a concurring opinion. I haven’t read that, I just can’t. I remember being on the SCOTUSblog site and the first thing they said in the live chat was “it’s 6-3”. My Fitbit thought I was exercising, my heart rate went wild.

1 1

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 5h

Oh this is going to be so much fun 😆

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 5h

Comey’s motion for a standard discovery order, where we learn that “[a]s of the date of this filing, the defense has received one page of discovery.”

1 3 6

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 10h

I was so depressed for days after that. The point was right in front of them wrapped in tinsel with flashing Christmas lights. And they chose to ignore it. I thought I was going insane. (And I cried in frustration 🙄)

1 1

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 10h

Except T had hidden 100s of other documents that would have been responsive from his lawyers, so it wasn’t true. He’s responsible for the false representation. A materially false statement was made (§ 1001(a)(2)) and he’s responsible for it, even though it was his attorney’s sworn statement (§ 2).

1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 10h

The charge applies to a sworn statement given by one of his attorneys (Christina Bobb) affirming that a “diligent search” was conducted at Mar-a-Lago and that any documents responsive to a subpoena were turned over to the government.

1 1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 10h

Here it means Trump personally made false statements to the federal government or caused false statements to be made (that’s § 1001(a)(2)) and/or he directed or caused somebody else to make false statements (that’s § 2).

1 1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 10h

A note on Trump’s false statement charge: you’ll see in the below images that Comey’s indictment simply lists 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), whereas Trump’s reads 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2), 2. That’s because the charge in Trump’s indictment wraps in 18 U.S.C. § 2 — aiding and abetting.

Comey indictment:

INDICTMENT
COUNT ONE
False statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the United States Government |
[18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)]|
1. On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES
B. COMEY JR., did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, and
fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the
Government of the United States, by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., had not "authorized
someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports" regarding an FBI
investigation concerning PERSON 1.
2. That statement was false, because, as JAMES B. COMEY JR. then and there knew, he in
fact had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding
an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.
3. All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).|

Trump superseding indictment:

False Statements and Representations
18 U.S.C. 38 1001(a)2).2)

1 1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 10h

…and some combination of withholding a document or record/corruptly concealing a document or record/concealing a document in a federal investigation/scheme to conceal.

2 1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 10h

If this pattern holds, I expect we’ll see DOJ targeting Trump’s “enemies” for conspiracy to defraud the United States, willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice…

1 1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 10h

I just thought the language was very deliberately chosen by Miller. He says “insurrection” all the time. While that isn’t something Trump was criminally charged with, he was impeached for incitement of insurrection and two Colorado courts found that he engaged in insurrection.

1 1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 10h

I first started paying attention to this when Stephen Miller said “conspiracy against rights” in a TV appearance about cracking down on the left. My ears pricked up because Trump was charged with conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C § 241.

Trump’s election interference indictment listing violations:

Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371
(Conspiracy to Defraud the United
States)
Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k)
(Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official
Proceeding)
Count 3: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2 (Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)
Count 4: 18 U.S.C. § 241
(Conspiracy Against Rights)

1 1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 10h

Comey is charged with one count of obstruction of a Congressional proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1505. Trump was charged with obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) — not the same charge, but you can see what I’m getting at.

1 1 2

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 10h

I thought this about the Comey case, too. Comey is charged with one count of false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Trump was charged with false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).

www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/n...

James Indictment Mirrors Her Civil Case Against Trump in Miniature

www.nytimes.com

1 1 4

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 14h

It reminds me of the disconnect between the majority in the immunity opinion and what was written in the dissents.

1 1

Emi And The Desert Crow @emdissents.bsky.social · 14h

The Peruvian Congress just impeached and removed their president, which their constitution allows for on grounds of “permanent moral incapacity.”

The same thing happened to her predecessor, who was impeached and removed for attempting to seize control of Congress and the judiciary.

a man in a suit and tie says just saying in front of a map

ALT: a man in a suit and tie says just saying in front of a map

media.tenor.com

9 120 340