Buh Bye Lindsey!
Judge Cameron Currie has issued her ruling in Jim Comey and Letitia James’ efforts to disqualify Lindsey Halligan as unlawfully appointed.
In both cases, she dismissed the indictments without prejudice.
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.
Mr. Comey now moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Ms. Halligan, the sole prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, was unlawfully appointed in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. As explained below, 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.
But she also ruled that the judges in EDVA will choose the US Attorney until such time as Trump can get one confirmed by the Senate, which might, in theory, lead Erik Siebert to be reinstated.
The power to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546 during the current vacancy lies with the district court until a U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate under 28 U.S.C. § 541.
This decision will be appealed. And given that Currie stopped short of dismissing the indictment with prejudice, it may not moot Comey’s other challenges to his indictment (or James’, which are not yet fully briefed).
Update: This language seems to prohibit Bondi from trying to reindict Comey again, but does not moot his other legal challenges.
The Government also fails to meet the second requirement for a valid ratification, i.e., that the principal must have been able “to do the act ratified . . . at the time the ratification was made.” FEC v. NRA Pol. Victory Fund, 513 U.S. 88, 98 (1994) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). In NRA Political Victory Fund, the Supreme Court rejected the Solicitor General’s attempt to ratify the filing of an unauthorized petition for certiorari when the attempted ratification occurred after the filing deadline had already passed. Id. at 98. Similarly here, the Attorney General’s attempt to ratify Mr. Comey’s indictment on October 31 “came too late in the day to be effective,” as the statute of limitations for the charged offenses expired 31 days earlier on September 30.21 Id.
21 Generally, “[t]he return of an indictment tolls the statute of limitations on the charges contained in the indictment.” United States v. Ojedokun, 16 F.4th 1091, 1109 (4th Cir. 2021). “An invalid indictment,” however, “cannot serve to block the door of limitations as it swings closed.” United States v. Crysopt Corp., 781 F. Supp. 375, 378 (D. Md. 1991) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Gillespie, 666 F. Supp. 1137, 1141 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (“[A] valid indictment insulates from statute-of-limitations problems any refiling of the same charges during the pendency of that valid indictment (that is, the superseding of a valid indictment). But if the earlier indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which to hang such a judicial limitations-tolling result.” (emphasis in original)).
Update: Comey has posted a video. And James posted this statement:
I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country.
I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day.
Of course they’ll double down on ‘teh stoopid’; it’s what the rapidly decompensating sun king wants.
‘it’s what the rapidly DECOMPENSATING sun king wants’
Was ‘decomposing’ the word you actually meant to use there?
Why not both?
Seriously. One doesn’t negate the other.
I can’t tell if you’re kidding after late night TV cracks about Trump’s physical condition, or not given narcissists’ tendency to decompensate (aka narcissistic collapse).
Nope – not joshing at all.
It’s been apparent for some time that Trump’s FTD ( Not my diagnosis; I’m no more a doctor than I am a lawyer. However, I tend to believe the hundreds of medical professionals who have offered up that diagnosis over the years ) decompensation is outstripping his narcissistic collapse. As both actions run their course, the end should be something to behold. I just hope Vance has the sense to invoke the 25th Amendment before then.
I mean, it’s why Theil pawned his sofa-loving ass off on us, n’est-ce pas?
Thiel may have pawned off a weak-ass couch fucker on us because he’s a weak ass and compromised in a way that ensures Team Trump can use him like toilet tissue.
LOL. I s’pose that works also.
It does put me in mind of one of the X-men flics where a politician’s cellular structure decomposed/deconstructed such that he became nothing but fluid.
Simultaneous to all of this, the Defense (er War) Dept. has launched an investigation into Sen. Mark Kelly now:
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-death-threats-defense-department-mark-kelly-review/
He’s retired, and he served with honor. (Unlike Kegseth.)
Once you accept the president’s commission, it is in effect for life. Kelly can be called back to active service, and I heard a Bloomberg report that that is what is planned.
I am in a way pleased because it is another burr under the saddle of the higher officer corps, and the angrier they get, the less chance they will participate in a coup. At least, I hope so.
Ummm, no as you have described it. See my post below on 28 US 688 categories and intent, and remember the oath we servicemembers take is to the Constitution, not the president. Kelly falls to Category 3 (older than 60) and would only be called up in a general emergency, not for a political witch hunt. That’s even before the topic of Congressional immunity comes into play, since he is a sitting US Senator and he was speaking as that office and his experience as a veteran.
Convict-1 might think a presidential commission is a binding life contract, but it is not. Convict-1 also twice took his oath to uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws, but for him the oath was worth as much as his marital vows.
DoD policy also allows recalling retirees “to perform duties … including standing at court-martial proceedings.”
The plan, if you can call it that, is to call Sen. Kelly back to active service and then Court Martial him.
Since they fired all the JAGs, I don’t know how that’s going to work. But that’s the plan, as stated (on “social media,” of course) by these idiots.
Please don’t feed Trump and Hegseth’s egos by calling it the Dept of War. There is no such thing, and hasn’t been since about 1947.
I can’t imagine this ending well for Hegseth and Trump.
Prosecutor Hegseth: “Your honor, my client, the President, says Mr. Kelly is guilty of sedition, to be punished by death.”
Military judge: “What did the accused do?”
Hegseth : “He told military member to follow the law and obey the Constitution.”
Judge: “I can see how that would be a problem for you and your client, the President. But this is still America. Where we follow the Constitution and laws.”
Bigger news is that this will put the onus on SCOTUS’s Fash-Six (I saw somewhere else, don’t remember) to decide how imperial they wish their king to be in the administration of justice.
A-ppeal is the slippery part of a banana republic.
It’s where the Roberts’ meets the rouges.
Sweet!
Just to throw a little grist in the mill, I mentioned something in the Groceries post that might be relevant to this thread too. In 1982, both John Roberts and Susie Wiles worked in the White House during the Reagan administration. I’m guessing Trump (and/or Jared) may be aware of this. Maybe they see it as some kind of advantage.
I was not familiar with that pun. Thank you for sharing it!
NYT reports that the ruling is larded with citations to writings by Scalia, Thomas, Gorsuch, and others. Even Cannon. That will make the pretzel logic more difficult to sustain.
I love this for them!
I assume US Attorneys are paid a salary and that LH was collecting pay for allegedly doing this job. If she was not lawfully serving, does she have to return whatever pay she received? Because we taxpayers really deserve a refund on this one.
Any bets on what her next gig might be? Office of White House Counsel? Overseeing the stiffing of contractors on the ballroom construction?
IANAL so this is probably not actually a good move, but perhaps Comey’s team should request a stay pending (the government’s) appeal, leaving the district court to handle the other motions in the meantime! Or will he appeal the “without prejudice” aspect of this?
Dr Wheeler – I’m _very_ hesitant to push back on your analysis, but I didn’t read what you referenced in your update like that (actually, I did, then re-read it and saw it differently). This paragraph (and footnote) are talking about why Bondi did not have the power to indict at the time when she ratified Halligan’s actions). The next para talks about the government’s argument about the 6-month grace period as giving Bondi an extension, but the judge said that only applied if the indictment was dismissed, which it had not been when she attempted to ratify Halligan’s work.
However, I don’t see anything in here that would prevent DoJ re-indicting in the next 6 months (or 60 days post appeal, if/when they do that), other than the question of whether they can install a prosecutor with the [lack of] ethics necessary to do it) in time. That 6-month rule seems to be very broad. Of course this assumes that there was an indictment to dismiss in the first place …
I am less of a lawyer than yourself, but part of the reason Lindsey Halligan, Insurance Lawyer and Mary Kay Enthusiast, moved quickly on Comey was she had just 5 days left to file charges.
In a just Thor-ruled universe that should mean Comey can’t be charged again.
We’ll see.
Doesn’t this artfully crafted statement say it all:
“An invalid indictment,” however, “cannot serve to block the door of limitations as it swings closed.”
Sadly not, I fear (however artfully crafted!). That case appears to have been one of a superseding indictment issued after the statute of limitations had run, but where the original had been invalid (but not dismissed). Indeed, the lack of a dismissal was why the 6-month rule was found not to apply in that case.
But I’m way out of my depth here … so going back to the gallery to watch and learn!
“Thor-ruled universe”? His father Odin/Wotan would like a word.
I wonder if this was the point of getting an inexperienced (incompetent) attorney to bring charges against Comey with the inevitable screw up. It appears this resets the clock on the prosecution of Comey giving the DOJ more time to find a competent and willing attorney to bring charges that will result in a trial.
Waaaaay too crafty for this bunch.
[FYI – this comment contained another typo in your email address. The algorithm is never going to recognize you at this rate. /~Rayne #te]
From the Factual Background section of Currie’s opinion (footnotes omitted here):
She follows this by citing Trump’s now-famous Truth Social post, ordering Bondi to get Comey et al. indicted, in which he also opines about Siebert: “A Woke RINO, who was never going to do his job. That’s why two of the worst Dem Senators PUSHED him so hard. He even lied to the media and said he quit, and that we had no case. No, I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so.”
And now, per Currie’s order, Siebert is back at EDVA. You know Trump is chewing the walls right now over that.
But this raises a big question: Assuming that the DOJ appeals Currie’s ruling, does Siebert or Halligan run EDVA while the appeal proceeds?
(If it is Siebert, the fireworks coming from 1600 PA Ave will be epic.)
I thought Siebert resigned, so the district judges will appoint a new interim USA, right?
The EDVA judges can appoint any suitably qualified lawyer as interim USA, until such time as they revoke the appointment or the Senate confirms a presidential appointee. That means they could put Siebert back in as USA.
Whether he would accept the assignment is another question. He would still be under Bondi*, after all.
* being a derivative of the term ,”under bondage.”
BRUCE F COLE @3:54 PM
Well, I hope if nominated and he accepts that he remembers his safe word.
And please let that safe word be Truck Fump.
Those walls probably still have remnants of ketchup and Mickey D fragments that couldn’t be scraped off. Much to chew on, evidently.
Siebert is not back. But I would be unsurprised if EDVA judges offered to appoint him to it.
I’m probably wrong, but have been wondering if losing might have been the plan all along.
I think all these revenge prosecutions risk exposure for Trump and his gang.
So they appoint Halligan to be seen to be fulfilling campaign promises – red meat, cause outrage, flood the zone and partially satisfy Trump’s boner for violent power.
When it comes unstuck (which it seemed designed to do) they can whine about judicial bias and move on without the risk of airing more dirty laundry.
Halligan will either be cast as a victim of TDS or thrown to the wolves. Meanwhile Trump’s base continues to be whipped up against the judges and deep state which is where he needs them to be.
Am I crazy?
Re James Comey prosecution. There is a long standing cop saw regarding dodgy arrests/prosecutions is that you can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride. I think a big hassle is the point of all this.
To a point, you’re correct but observe most of those types of local yokel prosecutions take care not to show documented animus. Convict-1 blows that claim up every time he posted stuff on ‘Truth’ Social or DM’s Bondi demanding prosecutions. Comey, James, Schiff, Kelly, etc. all can connect the dots back to Convict-1 and Government / DoJ abuse.
This ruling has had the effect of riling up the MAGAts at Faux “News” comments. They don’t understand the 120-day rule. All they know is an “activist” Clinton-appointed judge ruled against the Trump Admin.
IANAL. Trump has used the courts throughout his career to punish his adversaries: the cost of litigation, the mental load of court cases, the besmirching of reputations, the sanctions delivered by the court, etc. However, it’s almost always been civil litigation (thus Lindsey H.’s role) so it’s possible that Trump is motivated by litigious thinking, but the downside risks of mishandling a criminal case were not taken into serious consideration and those in his orbit were unwilling and unable to push back.
One of the actions that was laundered during Halligan’s stint at EDVA, is the Alptekin case was dismissed with prejudice on 10/20/25. Very little mention, overshadowed by the other cases.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14488578/united-states-v-rafiekian/
Alptekin is a name that comes up (along side Flynn and an Iranian political group in the US) when digging into Qanon origins. In addition, Alptekin is a name that pops up (also alongside Flynn) in the Zarrab sanctions evasion scheme using a pay-in-gold loophole (also related to Iran).
“Rayne, I believe my Name is correct.”
Quick Question. I looked up as best I could and it looks like if a case is Dismissed without Prejudice, the Statute of Limitations is not reset and is still active from the original time limit and the case becomes time barred if it is exceeded.
How does this work with Comey’s case? Is it now time-barred?
Bill B
[Moderator’s note: FOURTH NOTICE — You attempted to publish this comment as “BillB (Not Barr).” You’ve previously published (21) comments as “Bill B(Not Barr)” with a space between Bill and B; spaces and letter case matter. I’ve corrected this comment; please make of note of your correct username and clear your browser cache and autofill. Future mismatches will not publish. /~Rayne]
#ByeFelicia
#te
In addition to the fully expected emergency appeal, Convict-1 continues to go after his perceived enemies. Today Whiskey Pete threatened to court-martial Mark Kelly CAPT, USN (Retired) because of the video he and five other veterans made about following illegal orders. Not only does this flout what the oath we take, the Constitution and the UCMJ, but there is precedent (US v. 1LT Calley, Japanese war crimes trials, Nuremberg trials) that makes it clear that ‘just following orders’ is not a valid defense for any officer or enlisted person.
Recalling retirees is subject to 10 USC 688 which is intended to ensure access to knowledgable servicemembers. Two categories are present: Category 1 is for recent retirees (less than 5 years out) and under 60. Mark Kelly retired in 2011 and is 61 (failing both Cat 1 conditions), so if he’s recalled it is under Category 2 which is more of a general mobilization. This is even before considering Congressional immunity inder the Speech and Debate Clause as a reason to reject CM proceedings. Mark made his remarks as a Senator, not as a Navy Captain.
Three categories not 2:
Category 1: less than 60 years old, less than 5 years out.
Category 2: less than 60 years old, more than 5 years out.
Category 3: more than 60 years old, or disabled. Mark Kelly falls in here at age 61, and would I think have a case to show a political prosecution. It will be interesting to see what Whiskey Pete and Convict-1 considers ‘misconduct’.
Note that LTGEN Mark Flynn was able to sidle out of responsibility for admitting to be a foreign agent while briefly DNI while drawing retirement pay. Kelly can point to Convict-1’s pargdon after AG Barr spiked the sentencing.
Military retirees are subject to recall for court-martial, regardless of their age. 10 USC 802.
Interesting how many of the military personnel in the Fat Leonard case went to trial in federal courts. I personally know one retiree who went that route.
Would that Kelly would do as Hunter Biden did with Melania: “Bring it on, asshole.”
I glean from what your saying (not having served myself) that in order to court-martial a retiree they need to be recalled back into service first. That would make sense, but would the cause for trial have to be tied to actions while on duty, as well?
And isn’t there a proscription against recalling sitting members of the US Congress?
Yes, it does, which is why I mentioned Flynn. His FARA violation occurred after retirement which meant that his retirement bennies were safe. Whiskey Pete would have to show misconduct while on active duty because otherwise Flynn could be hauled back in himself if retirees are subject to these actions.
Another problem is the use of ‘Department of War’ as the convening authority. Another post above notes correctly that the DoW was fused with the Department of the Navy and newly created Air Force (formerly Army Air Corps) into the Department of Defense in 1947. So, if Hegseth wants to use Department of War as the convening authority he needs Congress to rename the Cabinet agency. Not even the Army uses Department of War as an identifier, and Kelly would be able to ask ‘who dat?’ and get a dismissal on grounds of standing.
I am less confident than I used to be given the purges perpetrated by Convict-1 and Whiskey Pete, but it should be noted all of these long-serving veterans will have friends and colleagues who will toss sand in the gears at every opportunity. No one can slow-walk stupidity like a motivated military member.
I don’t think Kegseth has ever bothered with UCMJ. He certainly doesn’t think it applies to *him*.
By definition, the SecDef is a civilian. So, no, the UCMJ does not apply to him.
earlofhuntingdon says: November 24, 2025 at 10:00 pm
He didn’t pay any attention to it when he was in the military.
( Rugger, who is your pick to replace Wilcox ?)
Well, it’s Ron’s decision but Tosh Lupoi would be a good choice or if Niumatalolo is tired of SJSU (though I doubt he is) he’d do well at Cal. Rolovich and Troy Taylor have coaching baggage which would not be appreciated in Berkeley.
FWIW, Wilcox created teams good enough to be disappointing and it really didn’t seem that there was a direction even accounting for all of the NIL issues. He also had a problem with getting an effective offense or an effective OC. My watching of the Big Game was of a team that figured they only had to show up but not go get the win by staying focused. Every good bit of luck (shanked punt, blocked FG) was immediately followed by a fumble return for a TD (happened twice) and you just can’t give up 21 points to an archrival on turnovers (there was another fumble recovered by Stanford on the 20, scored shortly after that) and expect to win the game. Stanford had been pulling rabbits out of the hat at home all year and its team knew only the Axe was left to play for, so they played hard. FWIW, Cal had two games on natural grass this year and ended up 0-2 with a 10-65 aggregate score.
It depends upon Ron who will have a pretty full rolodex including good NFL types. Tosh Lupoi, perhaps, or Niumatololo at SJS if he’s interested at the college level. In his time at Washington, he’d have been evaluating coaching talent as well as players and I suspect Wilcox’s termination was intended to send the message that focusing on performance is more important than press clippings about how good the team is talent-wise. Remember Wilcox’s conference record was well below 0.500 and while there were glorious days there were several eggs laid along the way. That wouldn’t sit well with Ron.
Rolovich (the interim) and Troy Taylor (former Cal QB) both have baggage from their coaching stints elsewhere and I can’t see Berkeley being OK with it for either one. Coordinators, sure but not as the head coach.
I don’t want Troy Taylor anywhere near the team. If we get Tosh Lupoi, we might have a chance of keeping Sagapolutele, because they will know each other from when JKS was going to go to Oregon.
I’m a little unclear on some consequences.
Dismissal w.out prejudice, thus, 60 days or 6 months to re-indict. On the other hand, dismissal, and now the SOL has run out. So is the SOL tolled because of the dismissal w.out prejudice? Or has it already run out?
If the latter, then DOJ will have to come up with another “false or misleading” statement, yes?
Forgot to add that the opinion seems pretty much bullet-proof, i.e., DOJ can appeal, but are not likely to succeed.
It depends upon what lawyer is asked and it will be the main point of appeal in the Comey case. However, I suspect the SOL tolling will not happen for two reasons: I don’t think there is a provision for tolling the time in the actual law or precedents, and also IS Halligan having been ruled as ineligible means no valid indictment was returned in the SOL period. Comey could make the point that Bondi could have parachuted in as AG and done the deed herself but chose this irregular route for ‘reasons’ like plausible deniability when it blew up.
It may not survive a SCOTUS appeal, but a couple of the Fascist Six are also particular about following established legal procedures so they’ll have to decide what they value most.
Tks a bunch. A perfect “try,” clear and to the point. Maybe in another life I will be a lawyer.
SOL= Statute of Limitations. And now I finally find out from where “shit outa luck” derives from. Why have I not seen this before?
Since the charges are being dismissed over Halligan’s appointment status without prejudice let the DOJ try again- and run up against even more solid legal objections. Then again, the Trump gang has very rarely overlooked an opportunity to be legally embarrassed.
After all, they are still plugging the election claims from 2020 even though they went 0-60 in court cases because they had zero proof. It’s a feature with MAGA, not a bug.
I thought they won one ruling, allowing observers to be 6, not 10, feet away from the election workers/ballot counters.
to Marc in Denver.
IIRC, there was another case in Pennsylvania where about 600 votes were disqualified because they were post-marked past Election Day, even though they were in the mail before then.
You might want to reread EW’s piece, especially the update. In a nutshell, the court ruled that Halligan’s purported appointment was invalid. Anything she did as the purported interim USA is void.
Halligan was the only prosecutor presenting in the Comey and James cases. That means that any indictment she obtained is void, and treated as if it had never been obtained.
In Comey’s case, since no indictment was obtained before the SOL ran out, there was no indictment whose dismissal would give the DoJ six months to refile. The SOL was not tolled, the time has run, and it’s too late to refile.
Practically, it’s moot whether the dismissal against Comey was with or without prejudice. The govt cannot refile against him on these charges.
“The govt cannot refile against him on these charges.”
That’s okay. They can just pull some new ones out of their butts–the same place they got these.
Perhaps the wrong place to say this, but I think it is not great that when a decision is handed, even experts cannot agree on what it really means. It makes judgements look like some sort of abstract thing the arcane meaning of which has been lost long ago. As a result when someone is handed a guilty verdict on 34 counts, many can say “meh”.
This is what jumped out at me in that Currie dismissal:
Does not that statement prejudice Comey’s case (if it does indeed get picked back up), in that it takes the gov’t side in the still very un-ruled-upon Defense charge that the indictment was not, in fact, secured…or that it was secured under false pretenses?
This ruling demonstrates that the fact of a secured indictment alone does not assure its validity, no matter what tune Lindsey and the Loaners may sing.
I think the statement that Halligan “secured a two-count indictment” is an assumption for purposes of this decision on the validity of her appointment, not a decision or judgment on the merits of the indictment.
What she decided is that no indictment Halligan, as opposed to another prosecutor validly working in the EDVA, obtained against Comey, James or anyone else could be valid because her appointment was not valid. Everything Halligan did because of that purported appointment is void ab initio.
What’s to prevent Bondi from employing her Habba maneuver, I.e. firing whoever the judges pick and re-installing Halligan or picking someone else?
I believe the same law that renders Halligan’s appointment invalid; the President can only appoint a temporary USA for up to 120 days. After that, there must be a Senate confirmed appointee, or the judges in the district appoint one to fill the role. No rolling 120 day appointments; only one 120 day period, total, until a confirmed USA is seated.
Well I think we can rule out embarrassment as a motivating factor in that (or any) regard.
IANAL, but as I read 28 USC § 546(d), the AG only gets one crack at appointing a replacement US Attorney. After the first one (Erik Siebert in this case) times out the district court makes all appointments until the senate confirms a president’s appointee.
Judges DID appoint someone else in NJ. But Bondi then fired her and reinstated Habba. My WAG is Bondi will do something similar in EDVA.
…and Habba was promptly found to have been improperly appointed, under a similar interpretation of the 120-day language. Nor is she the only one – Halligan is the *fourth* interim USA this year to be found to be inappropriately appointed under this statute, and there are pending cases against two others.
reply to Savage Librarian:
That would be a typically arrogant Bondi move. But as just demonstrated in the EDVA Halligan case, it can blow up in her face if she (Trump) gets over-ambitious or bloodthirsty. As long as they don’t try these big showy plays they seem to get away with it. But indicting Comey? Bridge too far.
Of course, SCOTUS hangs over all of this like a nightmare waiting to happen.
Thanks to EW and to everyone for great comments here. Very instructive to this non-attorney. I have a question prompted by my Twitter friends’ focus on the “without prejudice” part.
It appears that the next US Attorney for EDVa will have to be either approved by the Senate or appointed by the judges of the EDVa. Doesn’t this mean that it will be much more difficult to find a person who will bring these cheesy indictments and get them in the job?
A beat down. A complete and total beat down as it should be. And I still have not stopped smiling about the dismissal without prejudice when J. Currie finds in the decision that the statute of limitations has already run. Thanks for playing, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
I wonder if dismissing Comey’s indictment without prejudice, and basically declaring the purported indictment a nullity, in light of the statute of limitations issue, was sanctions bait.
Whether Comey’s other grounds for dismissal can survive is a really interesting question. Normally, they would be deferred until after an appeal.
If Currie’s decision is upheld on appeal, then the case is gone, period. There would be no need to address any of those other issues, and they would not recur in a “do over” scenario anyway. Also, I think the SOL precludes refiling charges – or at least, refiling charges which won’t be immediately dismissed.
Therefore, the only way Comey’s more substantial arguments about the way the indictment was obtained are ever going to be addressed is if Currie gets reversed on the unlawful appointment question. That is unlikely, because it would invite all sorts of bad behavior by the executive branch. Not even our current Supreme Court would want to take a chance on handing that sort of power to some future administration.
Part of me is disappointed, because I would love to see how the heftier issues get decided. In the final analysis, though, Comey should not have to suffer for my armchair interest in this. I am no fan of his, but no one should have to pay fees and get dragged through the mud based on bullshit charges.
While it’s true that no one should be put through a bogus prosecution like this, Comey is among those who are personally responsible for the President wiggling his way into office in the first place. Comey owes something to the rest of us and to the country. I assume that this dismissal means the public will never receive a complete explanation about how a grand jury can return a no true bill that gets altered on a magistrate’s order after all but two of the grand jurors have gone home and after the magistrate has been misled (innocently or otherwise) into believing the grand jury had voted second time before leaving. An evidentiary hearing to explain this mess was probably always a long shot but no way (I think) it’s gonna happen now. If DOJ succeeds with a tolling argument and gets a new indictment, that will come from a future grand jury and whatever fuckery has already happened will be buried.
Do any of the attorneys hanging around in the lounge think that Ms. Halligan and/or Ms. Bondi could face sanctions for their actions? If so, from where would complaints come? Who would take up the cases?
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please be sure use the same username and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. /~Rayne]
IANAL. But Bondi is barred in Florida, extremely friendly territory for her. Word is that it would be hard to make any such sanctions stick in that context.
Halligan was barred in Colorado. She may be in Florida also. She could be a different story, especially in Colorado. But I wouldn’t expect anything soon.
Does Bondi’s belated, retroactive Oct. 31 appointment of Halligan as a “special prosecutor” give her any authority to pursue a new indictment? Or is she in the same boat as Jack Smith?
That was addressed in the judgement. Oct. 31st is one month past the Statute of Limitation, so no.
Sadly, this takes Lindsay the Insurance Lawyer out of the running for Most Incompetent USA in History. She coulda been a contenda.
I think law school profs across the country are disappointed. Halligan is a cautionary model for new attorneys. I can see profs saying to their students, “Don’t be a Halligan.” And then highlighting her errors.
I would have thought the reverse, for the very reason you give. And for for good measure, they can add Habba and Bondi.
(Maybe even Cannon. Plus the Kingmaker 5, since this is a Supreme Court that will surely go down in the annals of US legal infamy right alongside the Taney one.)
I’m trying to imagine what the saving face move will be for Halligan. Will they put her someplace in DOJ? Or maybe in the office of the White House Counsel? Or back in the WH as a special assistant? Or maybe as an assistant to a cabinet member…Burgum seemed to have a special place in his heart for her.