Just to save a re-reporting click, here is the original Lawfare story.

The embarrassing level of unprofessionalism isn’t surprising, but the only explanation for the reach-out to this reporter is the delusional-level of self-confidence that she could “play” the reporter against the NYT and WSJ to create a public narrative against James. When she couldn’t, she just immediately melts down.

Halligan’s real beef seemed to be with the Times, not me, though she wasn’t saying what was wrong with the Times’s story either. I brought this up in my response, pointing out that my post explicitly credited the Times story, not my own reporting. “Did they get something wrong?” I asked.

“Yes they did but you went with it!” she said. “Without even fact checking anything!!!”

And

“You don’t report fairly!” Halligan replied. Then she added: “I can’t discuss any potential charges with reporters. If evidence arises that warrants further charges, I’ll look into it!”

I was genuinely confused. Only the previous day, she had essentially invited me to fact-check other outlets’ reporting before tweeting about them. Now she was refusing to engage when I did exactly that. “I thought you said I was welcome to reach out to you about what other outlets are reporting,” I said.

She wrote back: “Why do you report on what other outlets are reporting? If I was you, I’d develop sources myself and out compete them all!”

I mean, at a basic level: who uses exclamation points like that in written professional communications? She just sounds like a whining teenager.

Like, we all saw Trump’s post directing political prosecution, she was then appointed, and she did exactly what he directed. Nobody with a triple-digit IQ is going to think this anything but a political prosecution. But they really are going out of their way to prove the Dunning-Kruger effect.