A.J. Perez
@byajperez.com
Documentary producer, investigative reporter and personal trainer. Proud dyslexic w ADHD. He/Him/His.
Signal: 571-418-1964
Signal: 571-418-1964
That’s my approach to playing goalie, but I’m a beer leaguer.
December 15, 2025 at 2:55 AM
That’s my approach to playing goalie, but I’m a beer leaguer.
Reposted by A.J. Perez
As for Comey, DOJ will be arguing that it can re-indict, despite the statute of limitations having since run, under 18 USC 3288.
From DOJ's opposition: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
From DOJ's opposition: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
![Zeroing in on the actual claim here—that the Attorney General could not lawfully invoke
Section 546(a) to appoint Ms. Halligan—Comey comes nowhere close to showing “flagrant misbehavior,” “substantial prejudice,” or the unavailability of a “lesser sanction.” The Attorney General’s invocation of Section 546(a) rather than her many other appointment authorities is not “flagrant misconduct” akin to repeated Brady violations. Cf. United States v. Bundy, 968 F.3d 1019,
1029, 1037 (9th Cir. 2020). As explained above, Comey suffered no prejudice, much less substantial prejudice, from Ms. Halligan’s title when she entered the grand-jury room. And contrary to
his assertion (at 25), the counterfactual where the Attorney General did not, in his words, “unlawfully appoint[] Ms. Halligan” is not a world where the government would have let the limitations
period run. Instead, the Attorney General would have cited a different authority that would have
unquestionably authorized Ms. Halligan to obtain the exact same indictment at the exact same
time. If the Court deems the indictment invalid, any dismissal should be without prejudice to
permit the government to swiftly seek reindictment under 18 U.S.C. § 3288.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreibd5ketujgkvh7vfzzilg4babuvwj2dwaoczj2a7kbv44qj6shbx4@jpeg)
November 24, 2025 at 6:14 PM
As for Comey, DOJ will be arguing that it can re-indict, despite the statute of limitations having since run, under 18 USC 3288.
From DOJ's opposition: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
From DOJ's opposition: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
My personal trainer just told me, “Sir, Arnold and Coleman could walk through that door and you’d squat more than both of them—combined.”
November 20, 2025 at 3:15 AM
My personal trainer just told me, “Sir, Arnold and Coleman could walk through that door and you’d squat more than both of them—combined.”
None of my childhood heroes have been implicated in a welfare scheme, fortunately.
November 12, 2025 at 9:30 PM
None of my childhood heroes have been implicated in a welfare scheme, fortunately.
Statute of limitations is only active on one potential charge, but given who is president, I doubt we will see any.
November 12, 2025 at 9:27 PM
Statute of limitations is only active on one potential charge, but given who is president, I doubt we will see any.
Favre? I still keep an eye on things.
November 12, 2025 at 9:25 PM
Favre? I still keep an eye on things.
Smith and Carlos (like me) are real Spartans. (San Jose State) The IOC has such a long way to go to make up for what they did to them in Mexico City.
November 12, 2025 at 9:21 PM
Smith and Carlos (like me) are real Spartans. (San Jose State) The IOC has such a long way to go to make up for what they did to them in Mexico City.