The career people knew better. I think Halligan was happy to do it.

And yet, they did.

The way they charged the case, that's correct, at least to some charges. The statute of limitations will not have run for her. It could be re-indicted once there is a validly appointed U.S. Attorney in that office.

It's important to know that the deliberations and vote by the grand jury are not transcribed - they are 100% secret, with no court reporter. So there's no way to verify what the first vote was, other than the foreperson's recollection. That's why we insist the GJ vote on the actual indictment.

Somehow I think "Halliganizing" is going to end up meaning something else . . . .

Not really incredible - this is a well-known case among prosecutors. In fact the process of re-drafting an indictment to eliminate excess counts or language and then bringing it back to the grand jury for a vote is called "Gaitherizing."

This case is well-known to D.C. prosecutors. In fact, the process of taking an indictment where a portion has been rejected, re-drafting it, and presenting the amended version to the grand jury for a vote is called "Gaitherizing."

Reminds me of the old joke: What do they call someone who graduates at the bottom of their medical school class? "Doctor."