The #fisk of the #PamBondi statement on the #LindseyHalligan departure concludes:

> The Department of Justice will continue to seek review of decisions like this

As Judge #Novak pointed out, you lazy guys never even sought a stay of the order disqualifying #Halligan. Also you gave up on #ErikSiebert only for stupid reasons.

> that hinder our ability to keep the American people safe.

American safety doesn’t seem to be a concern of those that murdered #ReneeGood and then circled wagons around her killer. And what about the #EpsteinFiles? Isn't this the same #DOJ who tells judges that they need not follow a #law which doesn't have explicit private claims of action and penalties attached?

This completes the fisk of this twitter post by #Bondi https://x.com/AGPamBondi/status/2013785977475465648

The #fisk of the #PamBondi statement on the #LindseyHalligan departure continues:

> and fulfilled her responsibilities with courage and resolve.

#ErikSiebert, #JamesComey, and #LetitiaJames all had the courage to tell Trump "no" and the skills to fulfill their responsibilities. Halligan’s lack of experience was cited by Judge #Novak as a reason he didn’t impose sanctions for her inability to parse and follow the law.

> Her departure is a significant loss for the Department of Justice

Normative opinion; contradicted by judicial action. Judges kicked her out because that was necessary under the #law, not a loss of a bona fide asset of the #DOJ.

> and the communities she served.

You are thinking of Erik #Siebert or career prosecutors, I think.

> While we will feel her absence keenly, we are confident that she will continue to serve her country in other ways.

James #Comey wanted to serve his country and the #Constitution and #Trump tried to imprison him with the illegal appointment of #Halligan.

> The circumstances that led to this outcome are deeply misguided.

I agree, #Trump is a misguided circumstance. But the circumstances that led to Halligan’s ouster are: Article II of the US Constitution, 28 U.S.C. § 546, and established precedent on officer appointments.

> We are living in a time when a democratically elected President's ability to staff key law enforcement positions faces serious obstacles.

I support the #USConstitution, Pam #Bondi, why don’t you? The president was Constitutionally elected, not democratically as then a majority would have voted for him.

The #fisk of the #PamBondi statement on the #LindseyHalligan departure continues:

> Lindsey worked tirelessly to protect the more than six million residents of Eastern Virginia.

Rhetorical filler; legally irrelevant. There is no “worked hard” exception to the Appointments Clause.

> Democratic Senators weaponized the blue slip process,

That’s a curious description of a vote according to agreed-upon rules. #Bondi and #ToddBlanche also "voted" no on #Halligan because she doesn’t have the requisite experience to do the job. Doesn't this framing miss on pointing at #Trump ?

> making it impossible for Lindsey's term as United States Attorney to continue following the expiration of her 120-day appointment.

False framing. The Senators vote had nothing to do with her illegal appointment and did not make anything impossible. If Halligan had the credentials for the job, the judges of EDVA could have been asked to legally appoint her as Interim US Attorney following the law. But she was Trump’s pick so all blame lies with him and his reasons for picking her.

> Despite multiple, unnecessary legal obstacles placed in her path,

Reversal of cause and effect.
The “obstacles” were: the #AppointmentsClause of the US #Constitution 28 U.S.C. § 546, and binding judicial rulings. These were not placed in her path, she just ran into them.

> Lindsey stepped forward at a critical juncture for our Nation

Trump created any problem here by removing Interim US Attorney #ErikSiebert, his own former pick, who was well under way to actually getting confirmed by the Senate just because #Siebert didn’t want to prosecute vindictively cases that he didn’t think could be won.

On Twitter, #PamBondi also has a statement on #LindseyHalligan and her departure. But it has little basis in truth or the #law so let's #fisk it.

> During her 120-day tenure as Interim United States Attorney for the Eastern District of #Virginia

- Judge Currie expressly ruled that Lindsey Halligan was never lawfully appointed as U.S. Attorney at all.
- Her actions were therefore void ab initio — not merely defective, not expired, but never authorized.
- You cannot have a “120-day tenure” in an office you never legally held.

Also, it's a bit weird that NOW you say "interim" which Halligan was not using the filings.

> Lindsey Halligan served with the utmost distinction and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law.

Directly contradicted by multiple federal judges.
- Judge #Currie: held that #Halligan ignored statutory limits, bypassed Congress, and acted without constitutional authority.
- Judge #Novak: described her filing as “containing a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show” and emphasized that she ignored every lawful avenue to resolve the issue.

Serving “with distinction” does not include:
- Acting without legal authority
- Continuing to sign filings with a title a federal judge ruled invalid
- Filing briefs that do not answer the court’s question
- Treating binding judicial rulings as optional

> By prosecuting the most serious offenders including violent criminal illegal aliens, murderers, and child abusers,

Misleading at best; likely false as a justification.

This is credit-laundering: attributing the ordinary work of career prosecutors to an unlawfully appointed political figure with no prosecutorial experience.

#LindseyHalligan has some thoughts about finally stopping signing documents as US Attorney.

> In her own statement, #Halligan acknowledged that her 120-day tenure had come to an end on Tuesday. She also lamented the legal limbo she said she had been left in by Currie's opinion, noting that judges in the district over the last two months had “repeatedly treated my appointment as disqualifying” without actually removing her from the role.

(Wow! Judge Currie gave two orders here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135.213.0.pdf and https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.583341/gov.uscourts.vaed.583341.140.0_1.pdf so the only limbo is listening to those who told you to sign US Attorney and not "illegally appointed interim US Attorney" so Judge )

> “The court's remedy did not match its rhetoric. It treated me as though I had been removed from office — declaring my appointment unlawful and striking my name from filings — while never taking the single step Judge Currie identified as the consequence of that conclusion: appointing a replacement U.S. attorney,” she said.

(Yeah, the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Virginia didn't immediately replace you because you appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which makes it problematic to upset the status quo. Do you even law??? Oh, wait. Judge Novak says you don't really understand judges and law. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.23.0.pdf )

https://www.wvtf.org/news/2026-01-21/trump-appointed-prosecutor-who-pursued-indictments-against-the-presidents-foes-is-leaving-post

Problem noted, problem solved, Chief Judge Lauck has posted a job opening: https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/news/vacancy-announcement-interim-court-appointed-united-states-attorney-pursuant-28-usc-§-546d

And it gets better (worse for #Halligan and the lawless #DOJ).

The Fourth Circuit has posted a job opening for the seat #LindseyHalligan illegally occupies. (The same statute that says the president gets only one interim appointment of 120 days without congressional approval gives that power to judges if that term expires.)

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/federal-judges-strip-lindsey-halligan-us-attorney-title/

Finally, after a long holiday weekend, the Federal District Judge who asked Lindsey #Halligan to explain why she and the #DOJ lawyers were still signing court documents which give her title as "U.S. Attorney", which Judge Currie had previous ruled was an illegal appointment at the request of the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit (the appeals court above the 9 District Courts in #Virginia and 4 nearby states). (The main issue was that under the #Constitution, officers of the United States are appointed by the President subject to the approval of Congress, in this case provisionally granted by statute once per term for interim appointments of 120 days as the new administration requests that approval — neither of which applies to the illegal appointment of Halligan.)

Instead of explaining why she was still using the title after the ruling, Halligan fairly directly insulted the Judge's understanding of the law. (See above.)

Today, Judge #Novak issued a decision and order explaining what he thinks of such a filing.

• "contains a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show
and falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court" p. 2
• "even if Ms. Halligan was validly appointed [for 120 days] that appointment would expire today" p. 5
• Halligan ignores that Judge Currie speaks for all District Judges pp. 7-8
• explains law of how judicial reasoning (ratio decidendi) controls application of rulings pp. 8-9
• points out that she ignored all legal avenues to retain use of title pp. 10-11
• pointed out judges have a duty to protect integrity pp. 11-16
• Halligan is too inexperienced to know how to parse law, but watch out next time p. 18

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.23.0.pdf