Trump’s Favorite Attorney Freaks Out Over Very Reasonable Question

Top Justice Department officials Tuesday tore into a Trump-appointed federal judge who dared to ask why Lindsey Halligan is still calling herself a U.S. attorney.

In an 11-page filing, Halligan—fully backed by Attorney General Pam Bondi and deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche—slammed U.S. District Judge David Novak of Richmond for ordering Halligan to explain on what basis she has identified herself as U.S. attorney despite another ruling that she was improperly appointed.

Novak had pressed her on why that should not constitute a false or misleading statement, and why he should not strike her title from her cases—even suggesting that she might face disciplinary consequences for blatantly ignoring the law.

“The Court’s thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and an affront to the separation of powers,” the government wrote in the filing.

After Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled in November that Halligan had been unlawfully appointed as interim U.S. attorney—and her indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were dismissed—Justice Department officials continued to sign Halligan’s name on criminal indictments. When Novak questioned the legal basis for this, the DOJ suggested that Novak had somehow made a “fundamental error” in asserting that they were bound by Currie’s ruling.

The government claimed that Halligan could continue to identify as a U.S. attorney because Currie’s ruling “did not and could not require the United States to acquiesce to her contrary (and erroneous) legal reasoning outside of those cases,” pretending as if Currie had simply expressed a “disagreement” with the government’s view. The government claimed that it was within its rights to maintain its own “contested legal position.”

The government also claimed that Novak had a “fixation on a signature block title,” and claimed that “no authority exists for a court to strike an attorney title out of a signature block.”