Category: News Feeds

Sinclair
&
Nexstar
Have
Backed
Down
On
Kimmel:
But
they
planned
to
replace
him
with
new
programming.
Clarence
Thomas
Doesn’t
Give
A
Damn
About
American
Tradition:
Just
read
his
take
on
stare
decisis.
Another
Law
School
Makes
Being
AI
Savvy
Mandatory:
Mississippi
College
School
of
Law
is
on
the
cutting
edge!
Take
The
Time
To
Type
It
Out:
We’d
prefer
Times
New
Roman
to
your
John
Hancock.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

A
panel
of
Florida
judges
recently
cautioned
trial
judges
for
straying
away
from
standard
jury
instructions
by
using
attenuated
metaphors.
This
includes
invoking
fiction
to
help
make
points
about
reasonable
doubt
and
the
presumption
of
innocence.
Which
fictional
universes
did
a
trial
court
judge
invoke
to
help
explain
these
concepts?

Hint:
The
universes
range
from
magical
to
highly
technically
advanced.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Medical
debt
is
unfortunately
synonymous
with
healthcare
in
the
United
States.
Approximately

41%
of
Americans
have
debt
for
medical
or
dental
bills
–
meaning
they
are
currently
owing
a
bill,
being
contacted
by
a
collection
agency
or
actively
paying
off
past
balances.
Furthermore,
an
April
2024

report
from
the
Consumer
Federal
Protection
Bureau
(CFPB)
found
that
15
million
Americans
had
medical
bills
on
their
credit
reports,
accounting
for
a
whopping
$49
million
worth
of
outstanding
debt. 

As
2025
brought
in
a
new
administration
at
the
federal
level,
it
also
brought
with
it
new
changes
in
regards
to
various
facets
of
healthcare,
including
you
guessed
it
–
medical
debt
reporting.
In
January
2025,
thanks
to
Biden-era
rulings,
the
CFPB
finalized
a

rule
to
free
Americans
from
the
weight
of
medical
debt
on
existing
credit
reports.
Lenders
no
longer
had
access
to
this
historic
data
in
credit
decisions,
including
“coding”
or
contextual
data
–
unless
exceptions
applied. 

Fast
forward
to
July
2025,
a
federal
judge
in
Texas

overruled
the
decision
nationally,
claiming
that
the
former
administration’s
policy
was
in
violation
of
the
Federal
Credit
Reporting
Act
(FCRA).
As
someone
who
has
spent
the
better
part
of
30
years
promoting
healthcare
financial
wellness,
healthcare
financial
education
and
patient
advocacy,
I
am
passionate
about
breaking
down
what
this
ruling
means
for
the
millions
of
Americans
who
currently
have
or
might
one
day
have
medical
debt.

Takeaway
#1:
There
have
been
no
changes
to
medical
debt
reporting.
First
and
foremost,
consumers
and
providers
alike
should
know
this
–
nothing
has
changed
with
medical
debt
reporting
on
a
Federal
Level.
There
was
not
a
ban
as
the
CFPB
led
us
to
believe
on
1/7/25;
it
was
an
announcement
of
a
final
rule
that
never
took
effect.
The
default
federal
standard
per
the
Credit
Reporting
Agencies
and
FCRA
still
governs.
Medical
debts
over
$500
are
allowed
to
be
reported
on
a
credit
report
if
properly
coded
and
it’s
been
365
days
following
the
first
collection
notice.
This
gives
consumers
grace
and
time
to
work
with
the
collection
agency. 

Fifteen
states
provide
consumer
protections,
including
California,
New
York
and
most
recently
Delaware.
Additionally,
credit
bureaus
such
as
Equifax,
Experian
and
TransUnion
have
their
own
set
of
consumer
provisions,
including:
removal
of
reporting
on
paid
medical
collections,
not
reporting
on
medical
debt
under
$500
and
requirement
of
a
year-long
waiting
period
before
reporting
unpaid
medical
bills.
However
at
the
federal
level
the
rule
set
in
place
by
the
previous
administration
earlier
this
year
is
effectively
dead.

Takeaway
#2:
Hospitals
can
still
notify
consumers
of
accounts
and
collect.
In
my
opinion,
the
media
paints
a
somewhat
dreary
picture
of
the
impact
of
what
medical
debt
reporting
on
credit
checks
really
is.
Headlines
often
hype
up
the
fact
that
medical
debt
reporting
is
unfair
to
consumers,
and
throw
around
words
like
“misleading,”
“harmful,”
and
“outdated.”
I’d
like
to
present
an
alternative
point
of
view. 

I
believe
medical
debt
reporting
offers
hospitals
and
those
in
collection
agencies
a
powerful
tool
–
leverage.
Healthcare
is
the
only
industry
in
the
United
States
where
a
consumer
can
walk
into
a
place
of
service
and
receive
something
of
value
without
having
to
pay
either
before
or
after
the
service
is
done.
These
services
are
critical
in
nature
and
can
be
urgent
or
emergent.
Given
the
never-ending
reductions
in
payments
from
federal
programs
such
as
Medicare
and
Medicaid
and
the
increasing
impact
of
patient
balances
on
the
hospital’s
bottom-line,
hospitals
are
left
to
operate
at
a
deficit,
and
guess
what?
Patient
care
may
suffer
due
to
the
lack
of
patient
payments
and
monetary
resources.

Medical
debt
reporting
isn’t
just
about
lenders
calculating
risk.
It’s
about
hospitals
having
the
opportunity
to
encourage
patient
payment,
reduce
bad
debt
and
ultimately
maintain
financial
independence. 

In
short,
hospitals
need
to:

1. 
   Leverage
   ways
   to
   bring
   cash
   in
   the
   door
   –
   Point
   of
   service
   collections
   help
   to
   capture
   patient
   balances
   early
   in
   the
   revenue
   cycle.
   Reporting
   medical
   debt
   gives
   hospitals
   and
   collections
   companies
   powerful
   leverage
   on
   the
   back
   end
   of
   the
   revenue
   cycle. 
   It
   notifies
   patients
   of
   outstanding
   accounts
   and
   provides
   incentives
   for
   timely
   payment. 
2. 
   Review
   financial
   and
   payment
   policies
   –
   With
   8-12%
   of
   overall
   revenue
   coming
   from
   patient
   balances,
   hospitals
   should
   review,
   update
   and
   promote
   their
   payment
   policies
   to
   ensure
   patients
   are
   aware
   of
   how
   to
   pay
   their
   accounts
   and
   options
   to
   resolve
   outstanding
   balances. 
3. 
   Utilize
   financial
   counseling
   efforts
   –
   Hospitals
   with
   higher
   patient
   balances
   should
   use
   financial
   counseling
   efforts
   to
   help
   patients
   identify
   possible
   eligibility
   for
   financial
   assistance,
   Medicaid
   or
   other
   hospital-based
   assistance/discount
   programs.
   Additionally,
   Financial
   Counselors
   can
   set
   payment
   plans
   with
   patients
   early
   in
   the
   process. 
4. 
   Outsource
   self-pay
   collections.
   This
   might
   sound
   like
   an
   oxymoron,
   but
   hospitals
   still
   benefit
   financially
   from
   any
   recovered
   payments
   (even
   those
   collected
   from
   third-party
   agencies).
   With
   staffing
   costs
   at
   a
   premium
   and
   the
   lack
   of
   technology
   to
   push
   wide-spread
   outreach
   to
   patients,
   utilizing
   a
   first-
   or
   third-party
   agency
   provides
   a
   way
   for
   hospitals
   to
   focus
   on
   the
   care
   they
   provide
   to
   patients
   and
   other
   billing
   matters.
   They
   manage
   the
   agency
   and
   allow
   their
   agency
   partner
   to
   drive
   collections.
   The
   cost
   is
   lower
   the
   earlier
   the
   account
   is
   outsourced
   and
   the
   work
   efforts
   followed
   early
   in
   the
   process
   mirror
   the
   hospital’s
   policies.  

Takeaway
#3:
Consumers
can
still
dispute
balances.
Mistakes
happen.
Reports
show
that

80%
of
medical
bills
contain
errors,
costing
the
health
industry
$125
billion
or
more
annually
and
causing
significant
delays
with
reimbursements.
While
this
number
is
startling,
the
errors
range
from
coding
errors
causing
delays
in
billing
and
reimbursement
to
demographic
errors
of
the
patient’s
address
or
other
information.
Despite
hospitals’
best
efforts
with
quality
checks
and
auditing,
errors
continue,
and
hospitals
are
working
diligently
to
improve
this
fact.
Regardless,
whether
you
are
living
in
a
state
that
bans
medical
debt
reporting
or
not
you
as
a
consumer
have
a
right
to
dispute
your
debt
and
request
a
review
and
audit
of
inaccurate
balances. 

The
“weight”
or
value
of
medical
debt
on
a
credit
report
is
not
as
impactful
as
you
might
think.
Other
types
of
debt–credit
cards
and
installment
loans
–
are
scrutinized
far
more
closely
than
medical
debt
when
lenders
are
looking
at
the
whole
pie.

In
conclusion

Medical
debt
reporting
sits
at
the
intersection
of
healthcare,
finance,
and
policy
—
and
as
this
year
has
proven,
that
landscape
is
constantly
evolving.
While
federal
protections
have
stalled,
state
laws
and
credit
bureau
policies
still
offer
relief
for
consumers.
Hospitals
continue
to
rely
on
credit
reporting
as
a
source
of
financial
leverage,
but
it
is
up
to
patients
to
stay
informed,
proactive,
and
empowered
to
dispute
errors
and
understand
their
rights.

Photo
Credit:
freedigitalphotos
user
Naypon

This
post
appears
through
the MedCity
Influencers
program.
Anyone
can
publish
their
perspective
on
business
and
innovation
in
healthcare
on
MedCity
News
through
MedCity
Influencers. Click
here
to
find
out
how.

In
this
episode
of
the
“Be
That
Lawyer”
podcast,
host
Steve
Fretzin
and
Ral
West,
an
author
and
entrepreneur,
discuss
the
keys
to
sustainable
business
growth.

Ral
shares
practical
strategies
for
entrepreneurs
to
reclaim
their
time,
increase
profitability,
and
align
their
business
with
long-term
vision. 

Profitability:
Measure
What
Matters 

Ral
and
Steve
open
with
the
classic
Peter
Drucker
quote:
“If
you
can’t
measure
it,
you
can’t
manage
it.”

Ral
explains
how
tracking
the
right
business
metrics
—
especially
the
bottom
line,
not
just
revenue
—
transformed
her
approach
to
entrepreneurship.

She
shares
a
personal
story
about
learning
the
difference
between
making
money
and
making
a
profit,
and
how
focusing
on
profitability
is
essential
for
real
business
success. 

Quality
Over
Quantity:
Building
a
Pipeline
of
Ideal
Clients 

The
conversation
shifts
to
the
importance
of
qualifying
leads
and
building
a
pipeline
filled
with
quality
prospects,
not
just
volume.

Steve
and
Ral
discuss
how
attorneys
and
entrepreneurs
can
save
time
by
identifying
and
focusing
on
their
ideal
clients,
and
by
learning
to
say
no
to
work
that
doesn’t
fit
their
long-term
goals. 

Leverage
Through
Delegation
and
Automation 

Ral
emphasizes
that
true
growth
comes
from
effective
delegation
and
smart
use
of
automation.
She
shares
how
leveraging
technology
from
bookkeeping
software
to
AI
tools
that
organize
email
has
saved
her
hours
each
week,
allowing
her
to
focus
on
higher-value
activities. 

“You
cannot
grow
your
business
if
you
don’t
learn
to
delegate,
and
if
you
don’t
learn
to
get
some
of
these
pieces
off
your
shoulders,”
Ral
says.

Her
approach
offers
a
roadmap
for
entrepreneurs
to
build
a
business
that’s
profitable,
efficient,
and
aligned
with
their
true
goals.

Want
more
from
Ral
West? 

Get
to
know
her
work
and
insights
here.

Catch
the
full
podcast
episode
here. 

And
if
you’re
serious
about
growing
your
practice,
don’t
miss
my
new
book,
now
on
Amazon. Check
it
out
here.

---

Steve
Fretzin
is
a
bestselling
author,
host
of
the
“Be
That
Lawyer”
podcast,
and
business
development
coach
exclusively
for
attorneys.
Steve
has
committed
his
career
to
helping
lawyers
learn
key
growth
skills
not
currently
taught
in
law
school.
His
clients
soon
become
top
rainmakers
and
credit
Steve’s
program
and
coaching
for
their
success.
He
can
be
reached
directly
by
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
easily
find
him
on
his
website
at www.fretzin.com or
LinkedIn
at https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevefretzin.

Litigation:
the
last
stronghold
of
hourly
billing.

On
this
episode
of
the
UpLevel
View
podcast,
hosts
Steph
Corey
and
Ken
Callander
talk
with
Grubhub’s
Katie
Armistead
about
how
legal
teams
are
bringing
order
to
the
chaos
with
phase-based
fees,
risk-sharing,
and
value-driven
pricing.

Changing
Models

It
can
often
be
difficult
to
convince
members
of
a
corporate
law
department
to
switch
pricing
models.
Here,
Steph
and
Katie
share
some
factors
that
can
convince
a
team
to
make
this
change.

Early
Conversations

Value-based
billing
changes
the
timing
of
conversations
about
budgets
and
invoices.
Here,
Katie
shares
how
that
can
change
the
dynamic
in
matters
that
use
this
approach.

Partnering
With
Procurement

Procurement
teams
have
evolved,
just
as
legal
teams
have,
Steph
notes.
Here,
she
explains
why
partnering
with
procurement
can
work
out
very
well
for
in-house
teams.

Hear
the
Full
Conversation

Curious
to
learn
more?
Check
out
this
episode
below.

Last
week, a
legal
tech company

Lawhive reportedly purchased
a
UK
law
firm
lock,
stock,
and
barrel. According
to a story about
the
acquisition, the
law
firm,
Woodstock, specializes in
property
law.
(Unlike
in
the
US,
UK
regulations
permit
non-lawyer
entities
to
own
law
firms.)
This
appears
to
be the
first
or
at
least
one
of
the
first
examples of
a
legal
tech
company
buying
a
law
firm.

The Lawhive Acquisition

The
story
describes Lawhive as
an
AI-powered
law
firm. It
further notes that
its
AI
assistant,
Lawrence, is
designed to
handle
various
tasks including drafting
documents,
conducting research, and
managing
cases. Lawhive operates
in
various
practice
areas including property. Google
is a significant
investor
in Lawhive according
to
the
story. Lawhive also
operates
in
the
US.

Among
other
things, Lawhive promises
to
get
quotes
for
legal service for
its clients at up
to
half
the
cost of standard law
firms.
And often
for
a
flat
fee. 

The
Significance
and
Concerns

The fact
that
an AI-based
legal
tech
vendor
owns
and
controls
a
law
firm
could
have
a
significant
impact. Such
a
vendor would
have
clear incentive to reduce
costs and
increase
profits by
utilizing its
AI
tools
to
do
most
of
the
work
historically done
by
lawyers.
It
could
thereby
reduce
staff to
recoup
its
investment.The
services
traditionally performed
by
the
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
in
such
a
law
firm would
now be done
by
AI,
replacing
humans
as
the
primary
provider
of
the
legal
service
offered.

I
wondered in
such
a
case whether
and
how
the
work
being
done
by
such
an
acquired
law
firm
in
the
future
would
be
transparent to its
clients. Would
clients
know
that
AI,
not
human
legal
professionals,
was
handling
the
majority
of
their
work?
Should
clients
be
informed
about
the
vendor’s
ownership
of
their
law
firm?

In
addition,
as
the vendor’s
AI
tools
become
more sophisticatedand
do more,
would
proper
precautions
be
taken
to
guard
against
hallucinations
and inaccuracies
that bedevil
all
GenAI
tools?
Vendors
typically stretch
the
capabilities
of
their
tools
and
downplay
the
hallucination
and inaccuracy issues.
If
they
“drink
their
own Kool-Aid,”
would
they
be
tempted
to
not
require
the
necessary
human
checks
and
sufficiently
staff
the
law firm to
do
that? Would
that
hasten
the
demise
of
the
proverbial
lawyer
in
the
loop?
Is
the
future
law
firms that produce a
lot
of
work
but
have very
few if
any lawyers?
Does
this
vendor
acquisition
predict
the
future?

Enter
Jordan
Furlong

I
was
reminded
of
all
this
earlier
this
week
when
I
read
Jordan
Furlong’s excellent piece entitled The
Divergence
of Law
Firms
From
Lawyers. Furlong is
one
of
the
most astute observers of
the
legal
and
legal
tech
scene.
He’s
also
a damn
good futurist. Furlong
believes
that
the
relationship
between
lawyers
and
law
firms
is
going
to
be substantially
weakened by
AI.

Furlong
observes
that
with
AI, “Law
firms
will
become
capable
of
generating
output
that
can
be
sold
to
clients
with
no
lawyer
involvement
at
all.”
In
other
words,
many
of
the
services
done
by
law
firms
will
be
done
by
AI,
not
legal
professionals
and personnel. He
notes
that
much
of
that
for
which
ordinary
people
use
law
firms
—
legal
analysis,
legal
document preparation, and
the legal
service delivery
—
can
already
be
done
by
AI.
For
better
and
mostly
worse,
at
least
right
now. 

Furlong
also
correctly
notes
that
an
LLM
can already perform
legal
tasks that
can
be directly sold
to
a
client.
Furlong
says
this
places the
LLM
as
the
primary
performer
of
the
legal
task
which
is
something entirely new.
By
using
LLMs,
law
firms
could
in
the
future sell
legal
services
to
clients
without
any
involvement
of
lawyers
at
all.
Furlong
goes
on
to
note
that
law
firms may be
forced
to
do
this
by
client
and
cost pressures.

Importantly,
Furlong
notes
that
having
AI
undertaking
legal
tasks
today requires a
lawyer
in
the
loop
to
ensure
accuracy
and satisfy ethical requirements.
“But
as
Generative
AI
gets
better
at
performing
legal
tasks,
that
oversight
will
become
more perfunctory, and
past
a
certain
point,
it
will
taper
off
altogether.”

Of
course,
this
will fundamentally reshape
how
legal
services
are
provided
and
through
what vehicle.
Furlong
muses
that
law
firms
may
even
become
extinct,
replaced
by
an
online
hub.
Furlong
thinks
that
what
could
happen
is
that
future
lawyers
would
still
be
valuable to
only provide
services
like advising, advocating, strategizing,
and
the
like.
They
just
won’t
need
law
firms
to
provide
them.

The Lawhive Acquisition:
An Augur for
the
Future

Furlong’s
predictions
aren’t
just
theoretical
now. Given
that
legal
tech
vendors
are
the
primary provider
of
AI
services
to
law
firms, it’s not
unreasonable
to
think
that
there
could
very
well
be
more
acquisitions
like
the Lawhive one.
The
vendors might
certainly
realize
that
instead
of selling the
AI
to
the
law
firms,
who
in
turn
use
it
to
sell
its
services
to
clients,
the
vendor
could just buy
the
law
firm, use
it
as
a vehicle to
sell
the
service, and take for
themselves
the
profits
from
the
services.

Indeed,
many
of
the
things
Furlong
suggests in his article could
come
to
pass
as
a
result
of the Lawhive and
similar acquisitions
of
law
firms. With
these
kinds
of
acquisitions,
you would have
a
vendor
with
sophisticated
tools having the
capability
of
controlling
how
and
what
work
is
done
by
AI
and
what
is
done
by
humans.
The
acquiring
company would
have the capability to
offer the
same
kinds
of legal
services now
done
by
humans through
its
AI.
It
would
have
the capability
through the
law
firm,
to
offer and
sell legal
services
done
by
AI. 

Indeed,
it
offers
the
possibility
that
the services of
the
law
firm
would
be primarily done
by
AI,
just
as
Furlong
predicts.
And
as the
AI
become
more sophisticated,
the
lawyer
in
the
loop would
not
long
be
needed, reducing
the
need
for virtually any
lawyer
in
that
law
firm.
Such acquisitions offer
the
possibility
that
the
law
firm
would
become that online
hub
that
Furlong
envisions. It’s
even
foreseeable
that
the
vendors
could
offer
the
AI
supplied
services
themselves.

We
Shall
See

We
have
no
way
of
knowing
how
the Lawhive acquisition
will
unfold,
but
it
may
be
the
first
domino
to
fall
in
a
much
larger
transformation.
This
kind
of
acquisition
could
create
exactly
the
scenario
Furlong
envisions which
is
why Lawhive buying
Woodstock
feels
so
significant
and
potentially
predictive
of
the
future.

---

Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Well
if
I
find
it
doesn’t
make
any
sense
…
I
think
we
should
demand
that,
no
matter
what
the
case
is,
that
it
has
more
than
just
a
simple
theoretical
basis.

[I]f
[it’s]
totally
stupid,
and
that’s
what
they’ve
decided,
you
don’t
go
along
with
it
just
because
it’s
decided.

—
Justice

Clarence
Thomas,
in
remarks
given
during
an
appearance
at
The
Catholic
University
of
America
Columbus
School
of
Law,
where
he
was
asked

how
he
balances
stare
decisis
with
originalist
viewpoints.


He
went
on
to
liken
the
Supreme
Court’s
reliance
on
precedent
to
adding
more
cars
to
the
back
of
a
long
train,
saying,
“We
never
go
to
the
front
to
see
where
it’s
going.
You
could
go
up
to
the
engine
room
and
find
that
it’s
an
orangutan
driving.
And
you’re
going
to
follow
that?
I
think
we
owe
our
fellow
citizens
more
than
that.”

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

In
2017,
Deputy
Attorney
General
Rod
Rosenstein
produced
a

letter
purporting
to
fire
FBI
Director
James
Comey
for
being
too
mean
to
Hillary
Clinton.

“The
Director
laid
out
his
version
of
the
facts
for
the
news
media
as
if
it
were
a
closing
argument,
but
without
a
trial,”
he
tut-tutted
over
Comey’s
press
conference
explaining
his
decision
not
to
prosecute
the
presidential
candidate.
“It
is
a
textbook
example
of
what
federal
prosecutors
and
agents
are
taught
not
to
do.”

Eight
years
later,
Trump’s
personal
lawyer

indicted
James
Comey

for
being
mean
to
Hillary
Clinton.

Because
history
may
not
rhyme,
but
it
does
echo
…
in
the
stupidest
way
possible.

Then
as
now,
absolutely
no
one
was
fooled.
In
2017,
Trump
raced
to
confirm
on
television
that
he’d
fired
Comey
to
end
the
investigation
into
his
campaign’s
ties
to
Russia.
In
2025,
Trump
brayed
for
and
then
celebrated
the
charges
against
his
enemies
without
bothering
himself
too
much
about
the
nature
of
the
supposed
crime.

“JUSTICE
IN
AMERICA!”
he
screeched
on
social
media,
celebrating
the
indictment
of
“one
of
the
worst
human
beings
this
Country
has
ever
been
exposed
to”
for
“various
illegal
and
unlawful
acts.”

The
nature
of
those
“various
illegal
and
unlawful
acts”
was
entirely
beside
the
point.
By
this
morning,
the
president
seems
to
have
figured
out
that
“HE
LIED!”
about

something,
although
what
he
did
not
specify.

“James
‘Dirty
Cop’
Comey
was
a
destroyer
of
lives,”
he
ranted.
“He
knew
exactly
what
he
was
saying,
and
that
it
was
a
very
serious
and
far
reaching
lie
for
which
a
very
big
price
must
be
paid!”

As
of
this
writing,
no
bill
of
particulars
has
been
docketed,
and
the
public
still
does
not
know
“exactly
what
he
was
saying.”
The
general
consensus
is
that
the
“materially
false,
fictitious,
and
fraudulent
statement”
undergirding
the
18
U.S.C.
§
1001
charge
is
Comey’s
denial
that
he’d
authorized
his
deputy
Andy
McCabe
to
speak
to
journalists
about
the
ongoing
investigation
of
Hillary
Clinton.

McCabe
spoke
off
the
record
to
the
Wall
Street
Journal
about
the
ongoing
FBI
inquiry
into
Hillary
Clinton’s
emails
for
an
October
13,
2016

article
by
Devlin
Barrett.
He
testified
that
he’d
gotten
the
greenlight
from
his
boss,
although
it’s
possible
to
read
what
McCabe
said
as
implying
that
Comey
had
blessed
the
disclosure
after
the
fact.
Comey
said
he
didn’t
recall
that,
and
a
2018

inspector
general’s
report
suggested
that
Comey’s
account
was
probably
closer
to
the
truth.
When
the
DOJ
tried
to
indict
McCabe
for
the
lie
in
2019,
it
got
no-billed.

In
short,
there
will

never
be
a
way
to
prove
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
Comey
was
lying
to
Congress
in
2020
when
he
said,
“I
can
only
speak
to
my
testimony.
I
stand
by
the
testimony.”
That
is
almost
certainly
why
Erik
Siebert,
the
highly
competent
career
prosecutor
Trump
installed
as
US
Attorney
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia,
refused
to
seek
an
indictment.
But
with
the
clock
ticking
on
the
five-year
statute
of
limitations,
Trump
pushed
out
Siebert
last
Friday.
By
Monday,
Trump’s
personal
attorney
Lindsey
Halligan,
an
insurance
lawyer
from
Florida,
had
been
sworn
in
as
his
replacement.

Lacking
any
prosecutorial
experience
or
ethical
scruple,
Halligan
raced
to
indict
the
president’s
enemy,
bootstrapping
on
an
obstruction
of
Congress
charge
for
good
measure.
The
grand
jury

rejected
a
third
charge
involving
another
purported
false
statement,
although
Halligan
reportedly
signed
both
the
rejected
and
accepted
indictments
and
handed
them
to
the
duty
judge.

The
case
was
assigned
to
Judge
Michael
Nachmanoff,
a
Biden
appointee
who
spent
13
years
as
a
federal
public
defender
in
EDVA.
The
case
is
set
for
arraignment
on
October
9,
where
Halligan
will
face
off
against
Patrick
Fitzgerald,
one
of
the
most
storied
prosecutors
in
modern
history.
Hilarity
will
no
doubt
ensue.

The
defendant
remains
defiant.

The
greatest
trick
the
devil
ever
pulled
was
making
liberals
root
for
James
Comey

again.
And
all
it
took
was
breaking
the
DOJ.

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.