Trump ATTACKS his OWN JUDGE over MASSIVE SANCTIONS

What this episode is about

Donald Trump and his Department of Justice are aggressively confronting Judge Novak, a Trump-appointed judge, over significant sanctions related to the misrepresentation of Lindseay Halligan's role as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Judge Novak, addressing Halligan's unlawful claims following her disqualification by another judge, has demanded she provide justification for her actions, which may lead to disciplinary proceedings against her for deceit and misrepresentation.

Key takeaways

• When your title's in question, calling yourself a 'top prosecutor' is like claiming to be president of Mars.
• The DOJ's defense of Halligan: a classic case of 'Ignorance is bliss' — for them, not the defendants.
• Judge Novak question: How do you represent the U.S. when you’re unlawfully self-promoting? Trick question, you can’t.
• In legal circles, 'sua sponte' might be Latin, but asking Halligan to explain her misrepresentation feels more like a sitcom plot.
• The DOJ argues that a 'misrepresented title' isn't inflammatory — but have they tried telling that to the accused?

Who speaks in this episode?

• Ben Meiselas (Host) · 11 min speaking
• Harry Litman (Guest) · 5 min speaking

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 3:00: David J. Novak, Department of Justice, Eastern District of Virginia, Adam Curry
2. 3:00 – 6:00: Adam Curry, Leticia James
3. 6:00 – 9:00: David J. Novak, Harry Litman
4. 9:00 – 12:00: Eastern District of Virginia, Department of Justice
5. 12:00 – 15:00: January 6
6. 15:00 – 15:46: Department of Justice, Harry Litman

Notable quotes from "Trump ATTACKS his OWN JUDGE over MASSIVE SANCTIONS"

• Donald Trump and his Department of Justice are going ballistic on and attacking a Trump appointed judge, Judge Novak. In a prior order we covered here on the Midas Touch…

  about David J. Novak · at 0:00

• I want to bring in Harry Litman from the Talking Feds podcast, Talking Feds Substack, and Talking Feds YouTube.

  about Harry Litman · at 6:59

• Say rodents or these leeches or cockroaches like they just they never stop. Pop. Jan 6 da you know they'll keep on going with the lie until they exhaust. You're like just fine. And you're seeing an example of it here. I mean to a Trump.

  about January 6 · at 13:45

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• David J. Novak — Person · Referenced decision-maker (judge issuing order) · 5 mentions · first at 0:05
  Novak, a Trump-appointed EDVA judge, initiates a sua sponte inquiry demanding Halligan justify her claimed title and warns of potential bar referral, prompting DOJ leadership to attack him as abusing power.
• Harry Litman — Person · Main guest / commentator · 2 mentions · first at 6:59
  Litman is brought on to analyze the DOJ's arguments, explain why Curry's ruling should apply district-wide, and predict broader consequences for EDVA cases and other districts.
• Adam Curry — Person · Referenced decision-maker (prior ruling) · 3 mentions · first at 0:31
  Curry's order is the predicate for Novak's inquiry: Curry disqualified Halligan in another case and is described as finding her appointment unlawful, which DOJ attempts to narrow to case-specific effect.
  But more broadly said that Lindseay Halligan was not lawfully appointed and that she needed to go. And Lindseay Halligan said, Well, I guess that just means from this case, but I'm still.
• Leticia James — Person · Referenced case party (in cited litigation) · 2 mentions · first at 0:34
  Leticia James is named alongside Comey as a party in the referenced dismissal orders used by DOJ to argue Halligan's title can remain in other cases.
  Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Curry, disqualified Lindseay Halligan from another case involving James Comey and Leticia James.

Companies & orgs

• Department of Justice — Company · Core topic (institution under critique) · 4 mentions · first at 0:00
  The DOJ is portrayed as defending Halligan's continued use of the U.S. Attorney title and filing a brief attacking Judge Novak, framed by the speakers as institutional misconduct and politicization under Trump.
  Donald Trump and his Department of Justice are going ballistic on and attacking a Trump appointed judge, Judge Novak. In a prior order we covered here on the Midas Touch Network, Judge Novak,.

Places & events

• Eastern District of Virginia — Place · Primary jurisdiction / setting · 4 mentions · first at 0:15
  The dispute is framed as an EDVA-wide problem: a judge in the same district found Halligan unlawfully appointed, raising implications for indictments and prosecutions across the district.
  Referring to herself as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, even though another federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Curry…
• January 6 — Event · Referenced political touchstone · 1 mention · first at 13:51
  January 6 is invoked rhetorically as an example of repeated propaganda/pressure tactics ('Jan 6 Jan 6...') in the speaker's broader critique of Trump-aligned behavior.

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 Donald Trump and his Department of Justice are going ballistic on and attacking a Trump appointed judge, Judge Novak. In a prior order we covered here on the Midas Touch Network, Judge Novak, who presides in the Eastern District of Virginia, responded to an indictment where Lindseay Halligan is still referring to herself as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, even though another federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Curry, disqualified Lindseay Halligan from another case involving James Comey and Leticia James.

0:39 but more broadly said that Lindseay Halligan was not lawfully appointed and that she needed to go. And Lindseay Halligan said, "Well, I guess that just means from this case, but I'm still going to call myself the United States attorney, the top federal prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia in every other case, which you're not allowed to do." So, Judge Novak, a Trump appointed judge, a right-wing judge, says, "Who the hell do you think you are?" I'm paraphrasing it, but you were disqualified. If you are unlawfully representing yourself as the Eastern District of Virginia's top attorney, the top federal prosecutor in one case, that means you're doing it in all cases and you're going to be tainting all cases.

1:25 So on his own, which is called suisponty, on his own initiative, sua space s p o n t e is Latin term suisponty, the federal judge says to Lindseay Halligan, "Please submit a filing explaining why what you're doing is not deceit or misrepresentation under the state bar rules and explain why I shouldn't refer you to the state bar authorities of Virginia for disciplinary ary action because you are falsely representing you are a title that you are not. What are you doing here? And so in a normal world, first off, Lindseay Halligan would never be appointed any position. She's never been a federal prosecutor, yet alone the top position. Also, if you were unlawfully representing yourself to be something that you're not, and a judge ruled that way in another case, you would withdraw and you would be immediately fired and disciplined by the Department of Justice, but not this rogue Trump criminal department of justice. So, they

2:32 responded and it was Halagan, Todd Blanch, and Pam Bondi. Bondi is the attorney general. Todd Blanch is the number two at the DOJ, the deputy attorney general and Halagan. They all respond and they attack Judge Novak and they say that Novak, you are engaged in a gross abuse of power. And so here's the brief that they filed in response to Novak saying, explain why you're misrepresenting who you are. They accuse Novak of violating the law. Here's what they write. In violation of the rules of criminal procedure and the principle of party presentation, the court has initiated a suisponty inquisition into whether it should strike Miss Halligan's title from the government's signature block. The order launching the quest reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Judge Curry's order dismissing the indictment in the United States v. Comey and United States v. James and flouts no fewer than three separate lines of

3:41 Supreme Court precedent on elementary principles like the role of federal courts, the effect of district court rulings and the nature of the adversarial system. The bottom line they write is Miss Halligan has not misrepresented anything and the court is flat wrong to suggest that any change to the government's signature block is warranted in this or any other case. So section one on page two, Halligan and Blanch and Bondi write, "The dismissal orders in Comey and James do not prohibit or render factually false the United States continued representation of its legal position. That Halligan is the United States attorney." It goes on to say that Judge Curry didn't say you're disqualified from everything, just you're disqualified from the case that I'm reviewing.

4:38 Interesting logic there by the DOJ or illogic. Then on page six, they write, "In any event, this court has no authority to strike Miss Halligan's title from the government signature block." What do you mean in any event? What do you mean just in any event? Even if we were engaged in crimes, judge, you must countenance them. You can't tell us that she should not be engaged in unlawful or unethical behavior. You're just a federal judge. What the hell is going on here? Because this is what they write. Regardless of Halligan's proper title, just think about those words right there. Regardless of Miss Halligan's proper title, like regardless of if we're committing a crime, this court su sponty objection to the government's signature block on the indictment violates the federal rules of criminal procedure and the principle of party presentation at the core of our adver adversarial system. The rules of

5:36 criminal procedure authorize courts to strike surplusage from indictments only upon a defendant's motion. You can't call it out on your own. You have no discretion, judge. At any rate, there would be no basis to strike Miss Halligan's title, even if the defendant had moved for such relief. Rule 70 operates to protect the defendant against prejuditial allegations essential to the charge or unnecessary or inflammatory words in nature. And her misrepresenting her title is not inflammatory to the defendant. First off, just so you know, offering to strike the name of Halligan is the nice thing that the judge was doing. What the judge should be doing is recommending that you lose your legal license, but the judge offered that as a solution.

6:31 But also, you don't think it's prejuditial or inflammatory to a criminal defendant for a criminal prosecutor. I'm saying the prosecutor being involved in behavior that is unlawful exists. That's an interesting argument to make because I believe the criminal defendants like, "So, wait a minute. I'm being prosecuted by someone who's not a real prosecutor." And you think that's not inflammatory? I want to bring in Harry Litman from the Talking Feds podcast, Talking Feds Substack, and Talking Feds YouTube. Harry, you and I covered this when Judge Novak made the order, and we've been following judges across the country, whether it was in the Haba case, whether it was with that Northern District attorney in New York, um whether it's with Hallagan, judges saying, "Trump, you're appointing fake prosecutors.

7:25 They're not being appointed and confirmed by the Senate, and they don't have the authorization to be interim. They must go." And here you have the Trump regime saying against the Trumpapp appointed judge. You're out of order, judge. You're out of order. That was their response to Judge Novak. What say you? Man, what a tangled web they weave. So, um, they say, as you put it, um, Ben, well, all they did was dismiss the case. Now, of course, the whole principle of the law of like cases being treated alike would mean that you know the any other person who's indicted in that district is subject to the same relief. So, you're right that no really do doing them a solid in a sense because any defendant can and many defendants will bring this exact um claim. But that is not all that the judge said. The judge said the appointment is unlawful.

8:28 So they tie themselves in knots saying well okay so it's unlawful but that doesn't mean we can't say it. Well, you know it does mean that when you if it's unlawful to be the United States attorney then to write United States attorney there's a there's a problem. And now in terms of their um really radical position here's what they say. Just cuz one judge says it, we don't have to follow any in any other case. You know, you sometimes hear an aggressive Department of Justice or defendant even saying, "Well, that's for that district, not for this district.

9:09 This is the same district. This is the Eastern District of Virginia." And so, you can't th This is a case that's been decided by the Eastern District of Virginia. They're now they're they're on course for a head-on collision of course because uh any anybody who's been indicted out of that district is preparing the same uh papers now and of course could get the same medicine and as you say that medicine would uh be served against or it would who would hurt would be the public who has you know important cases from the eastern district of Virginia which does some really big cases otherwise wise undone.

9:52 But the whole tangled up in knots. Well, okay. He just said that and then they would, you know, sort of put it in that that she it's unlawful to be US attorney. What that doesn't mean we can't say she's US. I mean, really, it's hard to once you once you begin to parse it, it's hard to be even to begin to say it with a straight face. So, you know, Lindseay Hagan's um I think uh date with um justice and the law like that of three other uh people in similar positions as you just pointed out. We just most recently had in the Northern District of New York the same ruling.

10:33 You can't uh this person was not legally appointed. They've tried to do the same in all of those. her date with justice I think came and went but she uh the followup is is surely uh happening soon and now uh another judge we know in a case that was pending but this case is pending as well but judge Brinkma said what's going on here and the whole um district is really you know going to be I think not very sympathetic to the the claim once once a defendant brings in a pending case. You know, this is yet again an unlawful uh a pretend prosecutor has signed this thing and you can't you've got to dismiss the case that and and by the way, I mean, the judges are thinking about their own time and the justice system through this kind of vanity or obstructionist uh silliness from the department. you're um potentially wasting a lot of judicial resources and time to have these things go through with the US attorney

11:44 signature that you know is bogus and the the hammer's going to going to come down and again throughout the country as well. So, it's really um uh the the final point to make is just when the department tries to say, "Well, it's just one district." You know, that's sort of uh pre pretending they haven't heard or seen the rulings from every other court that's uh that's done it. You know, it's it's just sheer contrariness and and uh at the cost of course of uh doing justice as they're supposed to do. But the the uh the hammer I think is going to come down harder on Lindseay Hall in the pretty near future.

12:26 You know, I suppose the calculus here was either judge, you're right, there was a misunderstanding. She'll resign and she may have been able to save herself, you know, if she took an she, but it's possible there was a path there. She frankly lucked out in my view that uh she was disqualified in the first place because there were other major misconduct that she engaged in with the grand jury that the judges couldn't rule on that in my opinion were offenses that she could lose her law license for. But because she was disqualified, she actually got a break. Um, yet these these demented humans, I don't know how else to describe them, they keep pushing until you assert yourself to them aggressively. And and this is the thing.

13:22 Lots of people at a human level are not equipped to handle a sociopath who just da da da da da da da and just keeps on going and going. It's exhausting. So there is a human reaction sometime to just say enough. Okay, what do you want? Well, I'll let you have it. But that's how you let these um uh these I would say rodents or these uh leeches or um cockroaches like like they just they never stop. Pop pop pop. Jan 6 Jan 6 Jan 6 da da you know they'll keep on going with the lie until they exhaust. You're like ah just fine. And you're seeing an example of it here. I mean to a Trump appointed judge, she should take the L and move on and do something else. But she's attacking the a federal judge who just said, you know, you were disqualified by this other judge. No, I'm not. So she it's it's crazy behavior and we need to, you know, we we we have to assert our own authority against this crap. Anyway, Harry, make sure you

14:27 subscribe to Harry's YouTube channel, his Substack. You don't have to respond to my rant there. His YouTube I look I want to because they only have one operating speed, right? They can only go into that one and they do it. Obviously, if you were trying to do something like this, you would delicately try to explain in respect why we're but all they can do is insult and disparage, you know, the the judge who uh who's there and, you know, come out of the box with just trashing everyone. This is the sort of thing that you see from the sort of lowest level uh you know attorneys in a in a judicial system and never see until January 2025 from the Department of Justice that is just you know embarrassing itself more and more every week. Make sure you all subscribe to Talking Feds YouTube, Talking Feds Substack and Talking Feds podcast.

15:22 Subscribe to Harry's channels right now. Go on YouTube, search Talking Feds, and subscribe to our YouTube as well. Thanks Harry.

15:29 Thanks, Ben. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Phipcowski, ad free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Trump ATTACKS his OWN JUDGE over MASSIVE SANCTIONS"?

Ben Meiselas (Host), Harry Litman (Guest).

What is "Trump ATTACKS his OWN JUDGE over MASSIVE SANCTIONS" about?

Donald Trump and his Department of Justice are aggressively confronting Judge Novak, a Trump-appointed judge, over significant sanctions related to the misrepresentation of Lindseay Halligan's role as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Judge Novak, addressing Halligan's unlawful claims following her disqualification by another judge, has demanded she provide…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

7 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including David J. Novak, Department of Justice, Eastern District of Virginia, Harry Litman, Adam Curry, Leticia James. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Trump ATTACKS his OWN JUDGE over MASSIVE SANCTIONS"?

The episode runs 16 min; the transcript is about 2,376 words in 19 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

• All analyzed episodes
• Books mentioned on MeidasTouch
• People mentioned on MeidasTouch
• Sponsors mentioned on MeidasTouch
• Topics mentioned on MeidasTouch