this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2025
226 points (99.6% liked)

News

37375 readers
2170 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The judge ruled that federal prosecutors had handled material seized from law professor Daniel Richman with "callous disregard" for his constitutional rights.

A federal judge on Friday ordered the Justice Department to return data it seized in 2017 from a close friend of former FBI Director James Comey’s, concluding that the agency violated the constitutional rights of law professor Daniel Richman and had improperly used the material to indict Comey.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly heavily criticized Justice Department prosecutors, ruling that the data and material, an image of Richman’s hard drive along with emails from his iCloud and Columbia University email accounts, was handled with “callous disregard” for Richman’s rights.

The order is another blow to the Justice Department and prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia, after U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie ruled last month that former Trump attorney Lindsey Halligan was not lawfully appointed as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia when she single-handedly presented the Comey case to a grand jury.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Toto@lemmy.world 46 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

This case is pure vindictive behaviour BUT I will never forgive Comey for kick starting this whole trump era with his announcement of an investigation into email. Hillary is no saint but the Supreme Court is generationally positioned as a result

Edit: meant to say generally poisoned but will leave the original as it works too.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 5 points 4 months ago

Exactly. I'm cheering Trump's humiliating loss, not Comey's win.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Comey got bounced into making that declaration, he didn't do it for malicious reasons. But yeah, he still should have kept his mouth shut instead.

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

What? How so?

[–] Weirdmusic@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Totally agree

[–] Lucky_Acid@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yes, they should return all of the data that they totally didn't make copies of.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's usually the case that federal judges did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

In this case the actual order says to turn over all copies. It also says to deposit one copy at the federal court, which the feds can access if they apply for and obtain a lawful search warrant.

If the feds are found to be holding onto copies later, they can get in a bunch of trouble. More importantly, they can no longer publish these emails as exhibits in a hypothetical future prosecution, like they did with Comey. Because as soon as they do, it's all "hey where did you get those from?"

[–] DougHolland@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

If the feds are found to be holding onto copies later, they can get in a bunch of trouble.

"Can," but won't.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s not gonna do them any good anyway. They can’t use it.

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago

...and maybe parallel construction (assuming there's anything that could be remotely construed as incriminating).