Trump-Appointed Prosecutor’s Texts Spark Controversy Over Off-Record Claims

A series of text messages sent by Lindsey Halligan, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to journalist Anna Bower have raised questions about the nature of off-the-record communications in the context of a politically charged prosecution. Halligan, appointed by former President Donald Trump in September 2023, attempted to assert that her messages were off the record after Bower reported on the ongoing case against New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The controversy began when Halligan reached out to Bower earlier this month, criticizing her coverage of the prosecution, particularly Bower’s posts on the social media platform X about a story published by The New York Times. James faces allegations of misrepresenting the purpose of a second property in Virginia, claiming it was a “second home” while using it as a “rental investment property.” James has strongly denied these charges, labeling them “baseless” and part of a broader political attack against her.

On October 11, 2023, Halligan’s communication with Bower took a turn when the journalist initiated an inquiry to the Justice Department regarding Halligan’s remarks. Bower indicated that Halligan had not prefaced her comments as off the record during their exchange. It was only after Bower’s inquiry that Halligan asserted via Signal, a messaging app known for its disappearing messages, that “everything I ever sent you is off record.”

Bower, responding to Halligan’s assertion, emphasized that it was inappropriate to retroactively declare the conversation off the record. “You don’t get to say that in retrospect,” she replied, maintaining that Halligan had not requested an off-the-record discussion at any point.

Halligan continued to insist on her stance, stating, “Yes, I do. Off record.” Bower countered, explaining that she would have been willing to engage in an off-the-record conversation had Halligan requested it in advance. The exchange concluded with Halligan expressing disbelief, suggesting that the nature of their conversation was “obvious” due to the use of disappearing messages.

The Justice Department later issued a statement to Bower, suggesting that Halligan had been attempting to provide factual information rather than gossip. The statement criticized Bower’s approach, implying that she was seeking information without thoroughly investigating the facts of the case. This response further complicated the already tense situation.

In addition to the exchange with Bower, Halligan’s unsolicited messages have been described as “uncharacteristically risky” for someone in her position. Prior to her appointment, Halligan, who previously competed in beauty pageants, had not tried a case in court. Legal experts familiar with the case have suggested that there may not be sufficient merit to support the charges against James or former FBI Director James Comey, which Halligan is also involved in.

Bower discussed the unusual nature of Halligan’s outreach during an appearance on CNN, noting the unexpectedness of Halligan’s claims about the off-the-record designation. “I would have been happy to speak with her off the record—had she suggested it,” Bower stated, reiterating her surprise at Halligan’s late attempt to modify the terms of their conversation.

As the situation unfolds, the legal and ethical implications of Halligan’s communications are likely to be scrutinized, particularly in the context of an administration that has frequently intersected with media narratives. The New York Times has defended its reporting, expressing confidence in its accuracy, while the Justice Department has not issued any further comments regarding the matter.

This incident highlights the complexities involved in media relations and the challenges of maintaining clear boundaries in communication, particularly within politically sensitive contexts. The outcome of the ongoing prosecution against Letitia James remains to be seen, but the discourse surrounding it has certainly captured significant public interest.