Posted on 11/24/2025 12:45:03 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
An unelected, inferior-court activist judge tossed the grand jury indictment against disgraced former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday, arguing that federal prosecutor Lindsay Halligan was unlawfully appointed.
Judge Cameron Currie, a Clinton appointee, ruled Monday that Halligan was unlawfully appointed and that the indictments against both Comey and James are invalid.
“On September 25, 2025, Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, appeared before a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. Having been appointed Interim U.S. Attorney by the Attorney General just days before, Ms. Halligan secured a two-count indictment charging former FBI Director James B. Comey, Jr. with
making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding,” Currie wrote.
Currie then stated, “I agree with Mr. Comey that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid. And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.”
Halligan was appointed to the role in September after Erik Siebert stepped down, reportedly after refusing to seek indictments against Comey and James. Attorney General Pam Bondi then authorized Halligan as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Upon assuming her role, Halligan secured a two-count grand jury indictment against Comey for charges of making false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.
Comey challenged, amongst other things, Halligan’s appointment as unlawful.
The government argued, however, that unless the Senate explicitly refused to confirm Halligan, then Bondi was within her authority to appoint Halligan as lawful interim attorney.
Comey’s team, however, argued that Section 546 “limits the total tenure of the...
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
I wonder if she can prosecute Joe blow for theft. Probably. Otherwise the judge is saying it’s free reign to commit crime when the intention is to only allow the deep state to commit crimes freely during this administration.
Not all appointments are special investigators. I was given to understand special investigators are the ones who have to have congressional approval
This FU is all on Bondi.
This is the same argument that the district court said about Alina Habba. The court must realize that Trump will simply follow the same actions it took with Habba.
Once the DC District Court appoints the replacement, Bondi will fire that replacement, creating a new vacancy. At that point, Trump will appoint a replacement who will be an Acting Prosecutor, not an Interim Prosecutor.
Eyes will now be in the District Court to see how long they stall the replacement appointment. They will try to delay it long enough for the alleged crime to expire from statute of limitations.
-PJ
Yet the illegal Jack Smith prosecution of Trump was allowed to go forward.
Bkmk
great, then get another AG to indict them, more attorneys fees for them!
LMAO
NOT The Bee!
The reason Trump appointed her was because Blondi was about to allow the statute of limitations to expire.
Jethro Gaetz would have already gotten them acquitted
All of this Attorney Detouring could have been avoided, had Bondi found some way to advance the case, vs continue to postpone definite action, a situation the President had run out of patience for. Halligan did the best she could do under the circumstances. Maybe now, both Attorneys, Bondi and Halligan can work together, making it less a friction of egos.
“This FU is all on Bondi“
And Trump. They are so bad. They suck. They do everything wrong
It has nothing to do with the judges being in charge of everything
We could get a fair ruling if only we had DeSantis in there. No Gaetz. No anyone but a blonde woman
Where does the constitution give the courts or Congress the power to dictate who the president can appoint as an interim AUSA?
That was my question.
Baby Boomer Clinton Judge makin’ up the rules as she goes
Gotta keep Jimmy and Fatty outta trouble
Dismissed “without prejudice” because the judge knows it will be reversed on appeal. Just trying to run out the clock. The reason Halligan was appointed in the first place was because Blondi was going to allow the statute of limitations to expire.
The 120 day rule is clear. The law is legit. Lindsey Halligan was interim, never confirmed within 120 days. Comey was indicted afterwards. Trump, Bondi and Thume are IDIOTS. The new prosecutor WILL be appointed by the Eastern District of Virginia Court. Biden stacked the court with Republican help right before Trump was elected. James and Comey will walk by statue of limitations. You don’t have to go to law school to understand it.
Yep. If Trump repeatedly states everything should be by law, then checking on applicability of all involved to make sure there’s no wiggle room for democrats to squeeze out should be gospel. If the Trump people are not dotting their I’s or crossing their T’s, shame on them. Big time.
This is classic. It's the process, not the eventual conviction
The democRATS/DemoKKKrats use this process method to threaten and destroy hundreds of their enemies. One of the many reasons they are so frustrated with the likes of President Trump and Elon Musk is that they both can spend millions defending themselves, and receive millions countersuing. How much have the leftist creepozoids already forked over? (ABC- Step-On-All-Of-Us $15 million, etc)
The RATS went after many of the lawyers and others who tried to fight against the stolen election.
The Hussein/Biden Regime (Andrew Weissman) was not able to get General Flynn until Weissman threatened to go after Flynn's son.
The RATS spent 10 years prosecuting Tom Delay.
Today, the Republicans are NOT dreaming up charges out of nowhere. Real crimes deserve real prosecution.
The provision of law purporting to give the District Court judges the power to appoint a prosecutor to appear before them deserves to be ruled unconstitutional.
Our constitutional architecture separates the legislative, judicial and executive functions into three different branches.
Giving Article III judges the power to appoint an Article II prosecutor, even on an interim basis, violates that architecture.
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.