A stunning misstep in the legal process has put two of President Donald Trump’s appointed attorneys under fierce scrutiny. The question now is whether this error will cost them their careers.
Former White House attorney Ty Cobb has unleashed sharp criticism against U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan for failing to present indictments against ex-FBI Director James Comey to a full grand jury, a basic procedural requirement, as reported by AlterNet.
Cobb didn’t hold back, stating, “You couldn't find a high school stockboy at Home Depot who could have handled this more ineptly than Lindsey Halligan did.” This isn’t just a minor oversight; it’s a foundational blunder that could unravel the entire case. Such a scathing remark cuts to the core of what many see as a disturbing trend of incompetence in high-stakes roles under progressive oversight, though the fault here lies squarely with the individuals involved.
The specifics of Halligan’s error are jaw-dropping for anyone familiar with legal standards. Cobb pointed out that only the foreman and one other juror saw the indictment, far short of the required quorum of 12.
“There is no indictment if only the foreman and some grand juror who was hanging out in the courtroom saw it — that’s two,” Cobb explained. When the very document driving a case lacks legitimacy, it’s hard to argue this isn’t a fatal wound to any pursuit of justice.
This isn’t a technicality to brush aside. If the process itself is corrupted from the start, no amount of legal maneuvering can salvage the wreckage.
Cobb’s critique didn’t stop with Halligan; he turned his attention to Trump-appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi. He accused her of either gross incompetence or outright deception in affirming the propriety of Halligan’s actions.
“Bondi has twice submitted affirmations to this court about the propriety of Lindsey Halligan’s grand jury presentation,” Cobb asserted. If she knew the truth and still signed off, that’s not just a mistake; it’s a betrayal of the public trust she swore to uphold.
The implications here are chilling for those who value accountability in government. When leaders at this level stumble so badly, it fuels distrust in a system already battered by partisan games and bureaucratic bloat.
Cobb went further, arguing that both Halligan and Bondi should face disbarment for their roles in this fiasco. “I do think that both Halligan and Bondi should be disbarred,” he declared, leaving no room for ambiguity on the severity of the misconduct.
While some might cry overreach, the reality is that trust in legal proceedings hinges on professionals adhering to the most basic rules.
The case against Comey, already fraught with allegations of misconduct and vindictiveness, now seems doomed. Cobb himself noted that with due process denied and justice miscarried, “this case is dead.”
For those of us who believe in law and order, this debacle is a bitter pill to swallow. It’s not about taking sides in the Comey saga but about ensuring the system doesn’t crumble under the weight of preventable errors.
The public deserves better than prosecutors who can’t execute the fundamentals or leaders who might cover for them. If disbarment isn’t on the table, what message does that send to the next attorney tempted to cut corners?
Ultimately, this episode serves as a stark reminder that competence and integrity aren’t optional, even in politically charged cases. Let’s hope the fallout from this disaster prompts a long-overdue reckoning in how our legal guardians operate.
