Saturday rewind: The All Rise News playlist

This week on Legal AF: Judge Boasberg vindicated; Pam Bondi exposed; and Comey's indictment negated?

Make sure to catch the next newsletter or video dispatch.

What a week it was.

In Alexandria, Va., a federal judge forced James Comey’s prosecutors to admit that the full grand jury panel did not see the document that became the former FBI director’s operative indictment.

In Greenbelt, Md., another federal judge seemed to indicate that there is no final order of removal, likely foiling the government’s plans to whisk Kilmar Abrego Garcia once again to a faraway country — this time, Liberia.

A day later, John Bolton learned his trial over his alleged retention and disclosure of highly classified “diary entries” is at least a year away and likely longer.

Meanwhile, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg received permission to restart contempt proceedings over the alleged violation of his March order to return Donald Trump’s deportation flights to the United States. Boasberg, a judge with a bipartisan pedigree, quickly walked through that open door.

Recap those stories with the videos below.

Boasberg gets the last laugh?

Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, D.C., has been villainized by the MAGA movement. Trump and his loyalists like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have agitated for his impeachment, but the majority of the D.C. Circuit gave Boasberg a vote of confidence in a key case. Earlier this year, Boasberg initiated contempt proceedings to determine who in the Trump administration violated his orders to turn around El Salvador-bound flights filled with immigrants who had been denied due process. The D.C. Circuit didn’t revive Boasberg’s probable cause findings, but they allowed him to explore whether contempt is still necessary under present circumstances.

Shortly after this episode aired, Judge Boasberg announced that “justice requires” him to restart contempt proceedings. Stay tuned.

Is Lindsey Halligan a “puppet”?

Rookie prosecutor Lindsey Halligan and her assistant admitted on the record that the grand jury never saw the document that became James Comey’s indictment. Halligan’s assistant Tyler Lemons refused to answer direct questions about the existence of a memo stating why career prosecutors passed on the case. I joined Legal AF’s Michael Popok to discuss my live reporting from the courthouse.

Note: As I noted in the video, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff asked whether the defense’s vindictive prosecution theory was that Halligan was Trump’s “stalking horse” or “puppet.” Though Halligan accused Nachmanoff of name-calling after the hearing, she misrepresented what the judge said — and may have inadvertently recalled an immortal line from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

“What, frighted by false fire?”

What are the consequences?

A federal judge’s scathing ruling finding 11 potential defects in Halligan’s handling of the James Comey grand jury could have ramifications beyond the possible dismissal of the case. In an interview, former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah describes the ethical dimensions of the ruling for Halligan and Attorney General Pam Bondi, who ratified Halligan’s actions multiple times.

Mind the gap

The bombshell revelation that Comey’s grand jury records ended with a more than two-hour gap raised a three-word question from the legal community: “What the f***?” That was former federal prosecutor Mitchell Epner’s reaction to U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie’s revelation that no court reporter appeared to be present in the grand jury room from 4:28 p.m. Eastern Time through Comey’s indictment more than two hours later.

The second part of my conversation is slated for publication this weekend, along with a recap of two days of high profile court hearings in Greenbelt, Md. Access the full All Rise News playlist here, and catch the next video by subscribing to Legal AF.