DOJ Prosecutor Lindsey Halligan Berates Journalist Via Signal, Tries To Claim Whole Thing Is ‘Off The Record’

from the sending-their-best dept

The Trump administration is absolutely stuffed full of people who — if they had any self-awareness at all — would be suffering crippling bouts of impostor syndrome. But they don’t because they actually think they’re the best thing that has happened to the nation they’re continue to destroy with their bigotry and incompetence.

Pete Hegseth was elevated from c-list Fox News commentator to the head of the Defense Department. Kash Patel went from cruising the alt-right podcast circuit to mismanaging the FBI. Kristi Noem, at least, has plenty of previous government experience, but is best known for killing pets or sending her state’s National Guard to the Texas/Mexico border, rather than to areas of her own state that were under several feet of flood water.

Lindsey Halligan is just more of the same. Her specialty is insurance law. But she represented Trump in cases during his four-year break as a citizen between his two non-consecutive Oval Office stints. Halligan’s elevation was perhaps inevitable. The DOJ is bleeding prosecutors. Those who haven’t been fired because they won’t do what Trump wants them to do have quit because they won’t do what Trump wants them to do.

And what Trump wants is vindictive prosecutions of anyone who has spoken out against him during his political career. Former FBI director James Comey is currently under federal indictment — not because he did anything particularly unusual (misleading testimony during congressional hearings is the rule, not the exception) but because he refused to pledge loyalty to Trump alone.

New York attorney general Letitia James isn’t exactly a resistance hero. She’s a career prosecutor, after all. But her open opposition to Trump and his ICE-enabled deportation programs have seen her hit with mortgage fraud charges (as Trump overlooks his own questionable loan activity, as well as that of the members of his political party).

It’s a vindictive prosecution that serves no higher purpose than soothing the president’s ego. These prosecutions have been rightfully (and correctly) criticized by journalists, analysts, prosecutors, and other legal professionals.

Anna Bower of Lawfare was one of those criticizing this clearly vengeful prosecution of Letitia James. Pointing out the obvious flaws in the case on X, Bower went back to her own life. This was soon interrupted by none other than Lindsey Halligan, who apparently thought the best way to handle criticism of the case was to send a series of text messages via Signal to the critic.

To confirm, I sent Halligan a link to the post in which I summarized Thompson’s grand jury testimony as reported by the Times. “Are you saying that something I said in this post is inaccurate?” I asked. “And if so, what?”

Halligan replied: “You’re assuming exculpatory evidence without knowing what you’re talking about. It’s just bizarre to me. If you have any questions, before you report, feel free to reach out to me. But jumping to conclusions does your credibility no good.” 

Halligan’s real beef seemed to be with the Times, not me, though she wasn’t saying what was wrong with the Times’s story either. I brought this up in my response, pointing out that my post explicitly credited the Times story, not my own reporting. “Did they get something wrong?” I asked.

“Yes they did but you went with it!” she said. “Without even fact checking anything!!!!” 

Then she added this: “And they are disclosing grand jury info – which is also not a full representation of what happened. I guess I expect them to do that but I was surprised by you running with it.”

After some more back and forth mainly discussing the New York Times article’s conclusions, Bower asked Halligan to point out where she had gone wrong. Of course, she didn’t get a straight answer from Halligan.

You’re biased. Your reporting isn’t accurate. I’m the one handling the case and I’m telling you that. If you want to twist and torture the facts to fit your narrative, there’s nothing I can do. Waste to even give you a heads up.

A lot more of that sort of thing followed. Bower would ask Halligan for specifics, only to get responses that said things like she was being “unfair” and demanding Bower correct the allegedly incorrect statements that Halligan refused to identify with any specificity.

A few days after this incredibly embarrassing exchange (embarrassing for Halligan only), the insurance lawyer-turned-federal prosecutor apparently had second thoughts about initiating this interaction. So, Halligan sent this message via Signal to Bower:

It must be seen to be greeted with dumbfounded disbelief. I’ll transcribe it in case you can’t see the embed:

Halligan: By the way – everything I ever sent you is off record. You’re not a journalist so it’s weird saying that but just letting you know.

Bower [Lawfare]: I’m sorry, but that’s not how this works. You don’t get to say that in retrospect.

Halligan: Yes I do. Off record.

L O L

There’s more:

Bower: I am really sorry. I would have been happy to speak with you on an off the record basis had you asked. But you didn’t ask, and I haven’t agreed to speak on that basis. Do you have any further comment for the story?

Halligan: It’s obvious the whole convo is off record. There’s disappearing messages [this is setting that Halligan set, btw] and it’s on signal. What is your story? You never even told me about a story.

Hey, Lindsey… you are the story. You created the story by deciding the best way to approach a critic/journalist was to initiate an interaction and then spend the entire time claiming they’re wrong and offering up more “but you’re wrong” protests when asked to specify exactly what was inaccurate about the NYT’s reporting and/or Bower’s commentary on it.

And that’s not how Signal works. You can always set expiration dates for messages but that isn’t going to stop anyone on the receiving end from ensuring there’s still a permanent record of what you assumed would be some form of “your wrong tho” hit-and-run.

The whole thing can be read below in the embed. It’s just how this government works. It’s a bunch of incompetent bullies who think any problem can be solved by yelling at it. And they’re so sure their bullying will work that their entire asses are exposed on a regular basis by people who have little to fear from a regime that has deliberately done everything it can to ensure it will never earn anyone’s respect.

Halligan still has her day job for the moment. And she’ll presumably keep it until her inexperience results in the sort of bumblefuckery that will result in Trump looking elsewhere for the next useful idiot to further his authoritarian fantasies. Given what we’ve seen from this administration, it’s clear no one in power will learn anything from this experience. But since there appears to be no shortage of similarly obeisant/incompetent people willing to step up and, at least momentarily, run their careers into the ground for their king, this vicious cycle of stupidity and cruelty will roll on.

Filed Under: anna bower, doj, leticia james, lindsey halligan, trump administration, vindictive prosecution, x.com law degree

Companies: lawfare