Posted on 11/25/2025 6:16:44 AM PST by MtnClimber
A pair of hasty, snarky opinions by Judge Cameron Currie once again illustrate an out-of-control judiciary increasingly seizing executive authority to sabotage the will of the people.
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie in what is probably an old photo
Describing acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan as “a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience,” Judge Cameron McGowan Currie today dropped the criminal cases against New York Attorney General Leticia James and former FBI Director James Comey pending in the Eastern District of Virginia. “I agree with Ms. James that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid,” Currie wrote. “And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Ms. James’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.” Currie wrote the same passage in her order dismissing the charges against Comey.
Currie, 77, was appointed to the federal bench by Bill Clinton in 1994. Last month, the chief judge of the Fourth Circuit tasked Currie, who is based in South Carolina, with handling Comey’s disqualification motion. Chief Judge Albert Diaz said in an October 21 order that the transfer was necessary for the “limited purposes in the interest of maintaining public confidence in the impartial administration of justice.” A similar motion by Leticia James also landed on Currie’s docket.
Both orders are here and here. In stark contrast to Judge Aileen Cannon’s five-month deliberations as to the lawfulness of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment—Donald Trump’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the documents case based on Smith’s unconstitutional appointment in February 2024 and Cannon agreed with Trump in the matter and dismissed the documents indictment in July 2024—Currie took less than a month to kick Halligan off both cases. (She held a hearing on November 13 when, among other things, Currie accused Halligan of intentionally withholding part of a grand jury transcript from the day of the indictment.)
Currie claims Halligan’s appointment violates federal law and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution while making the stunning argument that judges, not the president or attorney general, bear the primary responsibility of appointing interim U.S. Attorneys. Consider the ramifications of this: “Subsection (d) then provides a single option for how subsequent interim appointments may be made: ‘If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district’ — and only the district court — ‘may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.’ The text and structure of subsection (d) in particular make clear the appointment power (1) shifts to the district court after the 120-day period and (2) does not revert to the Attorney General if a court-appointed U.S. Attorney leaves office before a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney is installed.” Crazy talk.
Both James and Comey, Currie announced, can “[return] to the status [they] occupied before being indicted.”
The Department of Justice plans to appeal. Further, both indictments were dropped “without prejudice,” which means the government could seek new indictments although the Comey case might be trickier given the expired statute of limitations.
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt reacted to the judge’s decisions this afternoon on Fox News: [video at link]
Comey already is taking a victory lap, claiming the decision vindicates him from any criminality. (It of course does no such thing.) He thanked his defense attorneys and DOJ prosecutors who had refused to bring any charges against him, resulting in a purge of the office. Comey forgot to mention that the father of Erik Siebert, the ex-interim U.S. Attorney removed for refusing to indict the former FBI director for making false statements and obstructing Congress, is godfather to one of Comey’s children.
Hopefully his preening won’t last long. Even if he skates on these charges, Comey appears to be a target of the DOJ’s “grand conspiracy” investigation into the perpetrators of Russiagate and decade-long lawfare against the president.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
The Judicial Lawfare battalion of the color revolution conspiracy against President Trump.
Yet another AWFL.
Let’s see HER bank records!
Typical liberal pos human debris.
Who’s the fascists,anyway????
Time to suspend Habeas corpus.
Oh good grief
Why? Because DOJ botched Halligan’s appointment?
The two tiered justice system persists. The federal judiciary is compromised beyond repair. We should put up a sign outside federal courts: “Republicans! Abandon all hope, ye who enter here”
Yet another political judge. Pathetic. She and her ilk are destroying what little trust Citizens have in the judiciary.
Won’t take many for the rest to get it. Party’s over.
Just another Fake democrat judge
Judge Cameron Currie
C.U.N.T. can’t understand normal thinking.
Wake me when something — anything — is done about this never-ending $h!t.
It was payback from judge Aileen Cannon for doing the same thing. That’s the theory from some anyway.
Dershowitz says it’s not dead yet...but it’s complicated.
It was an application of Federal statute. 28 U.S.C. § 546 lays it all out in black and white. Bondi and Trump effed up.
So your reading of 546 is that if the Article II authority doesn’t appoint a replacement within 120 days then they lose the ability to appoint and that authority transfers exclusively to the Article III authority? How is that in any way Constitutional?
In your opinion, is there any way, any possibility whatsoever, that this judge got her interpretation of the statute wrong?
It’s spelled out in black and white. If they want to challenge the Constitutionality of it let them pursue that through the courts. But that will take quite some time, longer than they would have on the Comey case.
OK. So you’re fine with judicial activism and [likely] intentional misinterpretation of a given statute because the process is enough to warrant blowing the case. So be it. There are a LOT of people in this country that prefer no justice rather than see a Trump win on anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.