If we are living in an age of lawfare, this is fast becoming a war of attrition. The dismissal of the indictment of James Comey and Letitia James is the latest twist in the controversial prosecutions of Trump antagonists.
Letitia James immediately posted her own message celebrating the decision, but she may want to focus on the prepositional phrase after the word dismissal: without prejudice. The Administration may still be able to resuscitate these cases.
James’s victory lap on social media is a fitting addition to the opinion, which emphasized the social media postings of President Donald Trump on these cases. U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie noted that President Donald Trump demanded the indictment of these and other individuals shortly before the indictments were handed down.
Law seems to have become entirely improvisational in the age of Trump. James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg adopted highly novel legal theories to pursue Trump in New York, including Bragg’s reviving a dead misdemeanor charge and converting it into a multi-count felony indictment. Both cases were denounced by experts across the political spectrum as the raw weaponization of the legal process.
However, James is entitled to every bit of due process and procedural protections that she denied to Trump. Rushed to complete in the final days of the statute of limitations, these indictments proved a target-rich environment for defense counsel.
When the Comey and James indictments were filed, many of us noted a couple of problems. First, the James indictment seemed disjointed after the denial of a key charge. With time running out on the statute of limitations, Acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan quickly stitched the remaining counts together and filed the indictment. It was ad hoc and hardly ideal.
The main problem that we identified was with Halligan herself. The former private counsel for President Trump was appointed a “special counsel” to function as the acting U.S. Attorney after the removal of her predecessor. Erik Siebert had reportedly resigned after expressing reservations about the legal basis for the indictment.
The problem is that there is a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 546, that governs the appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys when a vacancy arises. A president has 120 days to use such an official to secure a Senate-confirmed replacement. Siebert had already used that 120-day period, and the statute mandates that, after any expiration, the district court appoints the acting U.S. Attorney.
While the Justice Department has good-faith arguments that the law can be more broadly interpreted, other judges have supported this plain meaning, including a New Jersey court that disqualified another former personal counsel for Trump, Alina Habba, as the U.S. attorney.
Judge Currie effectively declared “time’s up.” She also noted that this rush to indict followed the President’s posting expressing anger over the failure to indict these individuals. The President asked “What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.”
He would later take down the posting, but the damage was done.
There are still challenges depending on whether these indictments constitute selective or vindictive prosecutions. The defendants are using the President’s posting as Exhibit 1. If Judge Michael Nachmanoff rules that these indictments are invalid for other reasons or constitute either selective or vindictive prosecution, there would not be a procedural “cure” absent a reversal of those holdings on appeal.
However, Currie’s decision could be addressed by a new indictment bearing the signature of a properly commissioned Assistant U.S. Attorney, as long as the court agrees that the indictment was timely filed.
None of this means that the defendants are innocent of the underlying criminal acts. Rather, these rushed indictments were highly novel and novelty is never good in a criminal indictment.
Notably, some of us have noted that the indictment against former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton in Maryland is the strongest of the three cases. The Administration has indicated that it may in fact be adding charges.
Bolton is also expected to raise the claims of vindictive and selective prosecution.
What is clear is that all three cases are likely to be in the legal system for years. Indeed, these cases could easily extend into a new Administration. If that is a Democratic president, all three defendants may anticipate a pardon from Trump’s successor.
It is equally clear that the Administration is unlikely to shrug off these cases as damaged goods.
First, they need a cure. District courts are unlikely to agree that presidents can daisy-chain appointments indefinitely, with each acting U.S. Attorney serving for 120 days like a prosecutorial timeshare. That is particularly true when the authority to appoint under federal law rests with the district courts. In other words, while the President and many others may view these three as “guilty as hell,” hell knows no fury like a court scorned.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
This column ran on Fox.com
*. Apparently Ms. Halligan has a second title. AG Bondi appointed her as a staff special attorney. There’s 6 months to refile. Everything is copasetic.
Chow
The supposed appointment of Halligan as a “special federal prosecutor” is completely bogus.
After Bondi realized the indictment may not be valid because Halligan’s appointment as US Attorney was problematic, she tried to retroactively change the appointment to that of “special federal prosecutor.”
On October 31, more than a month after the supposed indictment was obtained, Bondi issued an order that purported to change Halligan’s appointment to that of “special prosecutor’ effective from September 22.
Judge Currie disposed of that stupidity in short order in her decision as follows:
“I reject the Attorney General’s attempt to retroactively confer Special Attorney status on Ms. Halligan. Regardless of
what the Attorney General “intended, or “could have” done, the fact remains that Ms. Halligan was not an “attorney authorized by law” to
conduct grand jury proceedings when she secured Mr. Comey’s indictment.
“The Government has identified no authority allowing the Attorney General to reach back in time and rewrite the terms of a past appointment.”
COMPLETELY BOGUS.
All this nonsense is going to get Bondi disbarred as well as Halligan.
^ Gigi fantasizing again ^
Harris – Walz 2024….🤣🤣🤡
No matter what people think of Trump, he’s hands down over any Democrat there is to offer.
America for Americans!
Have another drink moron
“The supposed appointment of Halligan as a “special federal prosecutor” is completely bogus.”
Why ? It is an entirely different position, with different appointment rules, and Judge Currie did not rule on it.
You can argue that – atleast until the DOJ appeal ssucceeds she is not that EDVA Attorney,
But she is still a special federal prosecutor.
“After Bondi realized the indictment may not be valid because Halligan’s appointment as US Attorney was problematic, she tried to retroactively change the appointment to that of “special federal prosecutor.””
Maybe that is true, Maybe not, but it does not matter, The appointment is still valid.
“On October 31, more than a month after the supposed indictment was obtained, Bondi issued an order that purported to change Halligan’s appointment to that of “special prosecutor’ effective from September 22.”
It does not purport to – it does.
“Judge Currie disposed of that stupidity in short order in her decision as follows:
“I reject the Attorney General’s attempt to retroactively confer Special Attorney status on Ms. Halligan. Regardless of
what the Attorney General “intended, or “could have” done, the fact remains that Ms. Halligan was not an “attorney authorized by law” to
conduct grand jury proceedings when she secured Mr. Comey’s indictment.”
That may or may not be true – Currie said lots of things that were not True such as adding the word ONLY to the law – a word that is not present. Nor is any similar word present, nor is any word or phrase that states that there is anything Binary or exclusive.
So if Currie got that wrong – she may have other things wrong.
Further how is it that You KNOW that Halligan was not appointed prior – often public announcements occur after the fact.
Regardless, Halligan is NOW a Special Federal Prosecutor
Nothing in Curries order changes that status and that was NOT even before Currie as an issue.
Personally I do not think it matters in the slighest – Judge Currie misstated the law and will be overturned on appeal.
“The Government has identified no authority allowing the Attorney General to reach back in time and rewrite the terms of a past appointment.”
The government does not need the authority to rewrite the past – it is Curries conclusion that a public announcement in October meant that the appointment occurred concurrent with the public announcement.
Regardless, Halligan’s status as a Special Federal Prosecutor TODAY was not challenged. Only her status in September.
Overall I am not sure that it matters.
“All this nonsense is going to get Bondi disbarred as well as Halligan.”
Your political distaste for something does not change reality or turn it into grounds for disbarrment.
Bondi and Halligan will not be disbarred – they will not even face discipline – there is no basis for that.
James Comey did not commit Treason – he committed perjury.
Those on the right who keep calling various acts by their political opponents Treason are WRONG.
In some cases – like Comey those being called treasonous did commit crimes.
In others they are merely guilty of legal but bad behavior.
They should be held accountable for what they actually did.
But the same is true only far worse from the left.
No one committed insurecction on J6 2021.
Very few protestors even committed crimes, and most of those were very minor – certainly far less than an ordinary day at the Portland Federal Courthouse.
Bondi Fired Seibert – which she should have done sooner. Which was fully in her power.
She appointed Halligan. This court seems to think that was beyond her power – but this court is likely wrong.
Regardless, there is no malfeasance – regardless of what you think.
Frankly the actual events are your WORST problem here.
Currie has not only ruled that a pair of people who are beyond any doubt criminals were not properly indicted, Some are trying to argue that they no longer can be properly indicted.
But most importantly Currie has ruled that despite evidence that they are criminals beyond a reasonable doubt, that they COULD NOT have been indicted. Judge Currie has ruled that Eric Siebert – not the Department of Justice, gets to decide who can and can not be indicted and that no one – not the AG, not a subsequent prosecutor, not a federal judge can deprive Siebert of the EXCLUSIVE power to indict Comey.
And you left wing nut idiots think that is going to hold up on appeal ?
Halligan – who those of you on the left keep calling incompetent. Successfully went to a Grand Jury in the EDVA a very democrat and inti trump jurisdiction and successfully got that Grand Jury to relatively Quickly Indict Comey and James.
When that occured the idiotic claim that there was not sufficient evidence to indict went out the window.
Obviously the case was strong – a GJ hostile to Trump indicted the Former FBI director and the Attorney General of NY.
They did not due that based on anything less than damning evidence.
Further – despite your insults Halligan is clearly competent – she convened the GJ presented the evidence and got the indictments all in a few days in a hostile district.
Aside from the myriads of other legal flaws in Curries decisions one huge problems you have is that if Curries decisions stands the effect of that decision is that there was no possible lawful way to indict James or Comey in the time that remained before the SOL expired.
Do you really think that the appeals courts are going to rule that as long as Eric Siebert refused to indict that Comey and James could not be indicted ?
Clearly Trump and the AG had the power to FIRE Seibert, and they could FIRE him for failing to seek and indictiment in a case where the evidence was strong. Clearly James and Comey were indictable after Siebert was fired. But Judge Curies ruling is NOT that Halligan could not indict, It was that No one could be legally appointed to effectuate an otherwise perfectly legal indictment.
You can argue that the government made a mistake and that Comey and James get off as a result of that mistake.
But for the actions of AG Bondi to be a mistake, there has to be a non-mistake alternative that could have been done.
Yet Judge Currie just ruled that there was no option available to Bondi to seek the indictment of criminals who were clearly indictable.
The courts can punish the government for making an actual mistake.
But it is a requirement that the courts do not read the law to make otherwise legal acts impossible.
The post above literally shows Currie DID rule on it. Are you a bot?
I agree that John Say is most likely a very poorly programmed bot.
His responses are just a hodge podge of random disconnected statements that are only marginally and peripherally connected to the issue at hand.
If he is not a bot, and is actually a human, then he is undoubtedly severely mentally impaired.
“WITHOUT prejudice.” That’s all that matters. James was stupid to “celebrate.” There is NOTHING to celebrate.
You are wrong. Besides the illegally apointed Halligan. In a you can indict a ham sandwich case the jurors rejected one of the charges and only voted 14-9 on the other 2 charges. No shot at conviction. Remember case will be dismissed if brought back. 5th ammendment violation by saying Comey will have to explain himself at trial. No the dependent does not have to testify. Watch a episode of Law and Order to see that. Also 4th ammendment violation as she said to jury indict now and we will give more evidence at trial. No you indict based on evidence presented not on a future promise. This is where judge said it looks like indict first then investigate. This case is a dog with more holes than Swiss cheese
^^^ copacetic.
Here’s an idea. Try to make someone’s life a little better.
Try following you’re own advice.
Unless you are thinking of Thanksgiving dinner, the word for goodbye for now is “ciao.”
Copacetic. No S in that word.
Is our President 5 years old? That can’t be possible, the Constitution says he has to be at least 35 years old. Oh wait, they meant his physical age, not their mental acuity.
“The mayor is incompetent, and the governor is a big, fat slob,” Trump said
“Quiet. Quiet! Piggy”
Is our President 5 years old? That can’t be possible, the Constitution says he has to be at least 35 years old. Oh wait, they meant his physical age, not their mental acuity.
Oh, that’s CLEVER! And you sat there holding that back while you watched the last four years of The Oval Office House Plant that you voted for!
Think you’ve got a shot at a guest appearance on Jimmy Kimmel’s show?
Still better than brain dead biden.
I am addressing the nebulous vindictive and selective prosecution claim separately.
Sorry it is dead.
It is complete and total idiocy to beleive the courts are going to thwart prosecution of anyone where probable cause they committed a crime is present because of animus between the government and that person.
There are very few successful instances of vindictive prosecution claims – and all that I am aware of involve incredibly weak cases.
We have dealt with permutaitons of this in other matters.
Courts inquiry into the motives and intentions of those enacting or enforcing the law are IRRELEVANT.
You do not get to commit crimes because you have made the right enemies.
A law is either constitutional or it is not.
There is either a clear crime and probable cause that the person being prosecuted committed that crime or there is not.
I personally do not thinkt hat broad prosecutorial discretion is constitutional.
But ultimately there are cases that for various reasons can not be prosecuted.
Selective prosecution is the opposite. Prosecutors should ALWAYS be encouraged to prosecute cases they beleive they can prosecute successfully.
Regardless it is not the courts business why prosecutors chose specific cases and not others.
That is akin to expecting the courts to engage in mind reading.
Either there is probable cause that the person being prosecuted comitted the crime or there is not.
The Willis, Smith, Bragg, and James prosecutions are obviously vindictive and selective.
That is irrelevant. The problem with all those cases is regardless of what Judges or biased Juries might have found there was no probable cause that Trump committed a crime.
The BBC may face a multi-billion dollar defamation lawsuit for essentially the same out of context machinations that Jack Smith was claiming in the DC courts.
“The Willis, Smith, Bragg, and James prosecutions are obviously vindictive and selective.”
Oh, so when Democrats pursue vindictive and selective prosecutions it is wrong, and obviously so, but when Trump and Bondi pursue vindictive and selective prosecutions (and cannot even find a lawfully appointed prosecutor so to do), it is right and proper.
Moronic argument, sir.
Prof Turley I am disappointed by your legal analysis.
Nowhere in the Constitution or the appointments clause is the power to appoint delegated to the courts.
While I am not aware of any past laws that created court appointed federal prosecutors actually being declared unconstitutional – whe have had them in the past and it has generally been felt that the laws allowing courts to appoint federal prosecutors are unconstitutional.
That is the FIRST major flaw in the law and in Judge Curries analysis.
While that Flaw does not prevent Judge Curie from reaching much of the conclusion she did, it completely torpedoes her analysis.
The power to appoint constitutionally belongs ONLY to the president – not the courts, not even congress.
Specific appointments and that would include this one require confirmation by the senate. But again nowhere does the constitution involve the courts in the process – beyond requiring that the constitutional limitations are followed.
The entire clause in this law regarding Court appointment is fatally flawed. Further it is easily several.
BUT this gets worse for Curries decision.
The law says MAY not Shall, May does not mandate an appointment. If only the courts can appojnt after the initial 120 days then we have created a situation where – courts which have no constitutional power to appoint not only can appoint a prosecutor, but can also keep a position VACANT.
The idiocy and unconstitutionality of that is self evident in the Comey case.
If as Curies claims only the courts can appoint and the courts are not compelled to appoint, the law would have created a situation where the courts could by not acting block the indictment and prosecution(s) if they so chose.
Do you honeslty beleive that was the intent of congress in passing this law ? Do you honestly beleive that can be sold to appeals courts and SCOTUS ?
Next – contra claims otherwise there is nothing in the law that bars successive apointments of federal prosecutors.
In fact the MAY language in the law either creates the scenarion I described above where a court through negligence, malice or partisanship could block not only indictments but pretty much anything that DOJ sought to do in that district until the court decided to act or until congress confirmed an appointment.
Sorry – but Judge Curries decision is wrong and the appellate courts or SCOTUS will likely dismiss her order quickly.
All that you need to do to see that is ignore the fact that the current issue is about Comey and James to see that.
Appointments with respect to the law and constitution are constitutionally intricate and messy, and much of the constitution was written under the assumption that congress would not be in session most of the time. Our constitution presumes a full time president, but not a full time congress or political class.
Given the changes in the Fillibuster in the past decade+ I am not sure if a US attorney for EDVA can be confirmed without assurances to democrats that James and Comey will not be indicted.
But I would guess that Thune and Johnson can recess congress long enough for Trump to make a recess apointment.
But that is not happening. Thus far the administration has made clear -= They are appealing. They beleive Halligan was constitutionally and legally appointed. And challenging Curries decision is the most successful way forward.
And they are right on the law and the constitution.
These are good arguments. In addition, the statute does not expressly terminate the AG’s power to appoint after 120 days. We’ll see what happens on appeal. In the meantime, I believe they have six months to refile an indictment, notwithstanding the SoL. Some disagree with that, and in the end the courts may have to resolve that question as well.
Daniel – the argument that they can not refile the indictment is bogus.
The claim is the error in Halligans appointment nullifies the indictment,
But ANY error that requires reflining nullifies the indictment. If it did not there would be no need to refile.
An indictment that has a defect sufficient to be thrown out is null and void.
The law allowing refiling within 6 months ONLY applies to cases were the indictment was nullified by a defect.
So yes DOJ has 6 months to refile.
But that is NOT what is going to happen.
DOJ has already committed to appealing.
And Curries decision will be overturned.
The courts are ultimately NOT going to rule that once Seibert refused to seek and indictment on a case that Clearly was rock solid, that no indictment was possible. But that is what Currie ruled.
The law does not make things that are perfectly legal also impossible.
Bondi has said the DOJ will appeal the Comey dismissal, but she has a YUUUUGE problem.
Who is going to argue the appeal ???
ALL of the career professional prosecutors have refused to be involved.
They know that getting involved in Bondi’s nonsense would be career ending.
If Halligan tries to argue the appeal, then she has already lost.
Bondi has said the DOJ will appeal the Comey dismissal, but she has a YUUUUGE problem.
Who is going to argue the appeal ??? ALL of the career professional prosecutors have refused to be involved.
Here’s your YUUUUGGGGE problem (aside from infection with terminal TDS): There are more “career professional prosecutors” in the USA other than those who had a personal or family relationship with disgraced James Comey. You/X/George have a strong class action lawsuit to recover whatever you paid to the Internet Law School that granted you your JD.
From the Department Of Justice:
There presently are about 5,000 federal prosecutors. On a day-to-day basis they are responsible for enforcing the law, under both criminal and civil statutes, and for defending the United States when it is the subject of a civil suit. There is one federal prosecutor assigned to each judicial court district throughout the US and its territories. The federal prosecutor in each district manages an office staffed with hundreds of assistant US attorneys. Federal prosecutors are responsible for carrying out the mandates of the U.S. Attorney General.
how can they lose? They have a 5 year old running the whole show.
“Quiet. Quiet! Piggy”
ATS – the same lawyers that have been arguing all the Trump cases so far – and Winning.
You know – the people you have claimed repeatedly are incompetent boobs.
Boobs that are WINNING.
Trump has 24 straight SCOTUS wins so far.
He has a rate of about 85% wins at SCOTUS since taking office.
He has about a 50% win rate with the appeals courts – including the DC courts which are heavily biased against him.
I would separately note that appealate lawyers and trial lawyers are typically different. It is rare that trial lawyers do appeals or visa versa.
John Sauer is the solicitor General of the United States – if this case goes to SCOTUS he will be arguing it,
He is also the lawyer that got James money verdict in the enmoron case tossed.
He is a stellar apellate lawyer.
Sepately no one cares what the so called “carreer lawyers” think. They do not argue cases in the supreme court.
They do NOT make decisions as to what to prosecute and what not to prosecute.
In many instances they do not even appear in court.
When they do – they do what they are told to do or they get fired.
If they fail – either to do as they were told or to succeed – they get fired.
Why would getting involved in this case be carreer ending ?
Comey and James undeniably committed these crimes.
They have TWO hopes of avoiding jail.
A bad technical dismissal such as this.
Jury nullifaction.
If they miss on those – they are going to jail.
There is no doubt Comey leaked – which is a crime.
There is no doubt Comey leaked classified information – which is a more serious crime.
There is no doubt Comey authorized others to leak.
There is no doubt that he lied under oath about leaking and authroizing leaks MORE THAN ONCE.
Likely he also lied to the IG and to Durham – which would also be crimes.
There are myriads of other crimes Comey has committed – but these pecific ones are dead bang losers for him.
The same it True of James – more is being added all the time.
Lies on the mortagage applications are far MORE serious than what she accussed Trump of.
It is a federal crime to misrepresent certain information on a mortgage application.
Separately it is also Bank fraud. More recently we have discovered that James also lied in her insurance applications – that is insurance fraud.
There are many more frauds and lies in her dealings with her apartment building in NYC – but it is unlikely she gets prosecuted in NYC.
“Comey and James undeniably committed these crimes.”
They said they didn’t. And you know they committed these crimes because…? How about all the crimes trump has committed? How many boxes of classified documents were hidden in Mary a logo? How many times has the trump family been involved in fraud? trump (DJT) was found liable for sexual abuse.
But you “know” Comey committed a crime.
Why don’t you just be “Quiet. Quiet! Piggy”
“They said they didn’t.”
Of course they said they did not. Criminals always say they did not.
“And you know they committed these crimes because…?”
Indisputed and indisputable evidence.
“How about all the crimes trump has committed?”
If you have compelling evidence of a crime – please provide it.
“How many boxes of classified documents were hidden in Mary a logo?”
What about them ? Ex Presidents own the documents from their presidency if they so choose – Classified or not.
Please actually read JW Vs. NARA where JW sued to get the court to order NARA to recover Classified documents from Bill Clinton
The court found that Clinton was entitled to take whatever he wanted. classified or not.
“How many times has the trump family been involved in fraud?”
Zero.
” trump (DJT) was found liable for sexual abuse.”
A civil not criminal case that will be overturned.
“But you “know” Comey committed a crime.”
Several actually – it is even likely he committed far more than he was indicted for.
But the crimes he was indicted for are beyond ANY doubt.
Comey lied to congress – multiple times.
Comey leaked illegally
Comey leaked classified documents.
This is all proven by Comey’s OWN records,
You are truly unfamiliar with the facts ?
Halligan was able to convince a Trump hostile GJ to indict Comey in just a few days.
That did not happen because the case was weak.
If as YOU claim Halligan is a poor lawyer – then the evidence had to be all the more damning.
“Why don’t you just be “Quiet. Quiet! Piggy””
Ad Hominem is not argument
And what are you four ? Grow up.
Learn how to think critically.
Learn how to make valid arguments rather than snort Truffles with your snout.
Mr Say, A brilliant legal mind like yours surely knows that people are innocent until proven guilty. Comey and James are not criminals, they have not thus far been found guilty.
Your inability to respect that renders all your other “learned” blathering as null and void as a false indictment presented by a false prosecutor.
Unfortunately John Say is a quintessential example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which predicts that those individuals who know the least about a matter are the ones who are most certain that their views are correct.
In other words, stupid people are too stupid to understand how stupid they are.
John Say knows less than nothing about legal matters, which confers upon him the certainty that he is always, and inevitably correct in his views.
His stupidity is so extreme that it exceeds any of that measured by Dunning and Kruger in their now classic study.
What crimes has Trump committed? Every single American can watch and read where Comey has lied to Congress as well as lying by omission to the FISA court. Please, provide us some evidence that supports Trump committing a crime. So far there hasn’t been any evidence that supports your claims.
*. Comey reiterated his original lies to Senator Grassley recently. Go with that timeline. Apparently there are few federal prosecutors in Virginia. Halligan won’t do.
Anonymous/George/X says:The Comey case cannot be “resuscitated.” The statute of limitations expired on Sept. 30. And Currie agreed that the deadline had passed without a valid indictment.
You found that in the decision from this basement level federal judge – while Professor Turley missed it all and says instead that he expects this to be in the courts going back and forth for several years?
Where in that judgement do you see that terminal expiration of the SOL written by Curry, when we can’t find it?
And when Curry made his decision using the words “without prejudice”, how do you read that as either meaning a final deadline has been passed OR instead, Curry saying there was not a valid indictment?
You’re here gloating in your belief that your lying police state fascist, Comey, has been spared because this judge has a special immunity from being overturned by higher appellate judges?
If lies were wings, you Democrat apparatchiks here would have a million frequent flier miles.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf
Anonynous, I didn’t post that. Sorry to dissapoint.
Neither did I. Who is that aninny mouse fool? I bet she’s really, really grotesque!
As grotesque as the person that said…
“Quiet. Quiet! Piggy”?
X/Anonymous/George says: I didn’t post that. Sorry to dissapoint.
Ooohhh…. you didn’t disappoint anyone expecting your daily Democrat blizzard of police state fascist commie lies. Among the signs and symptoms of psychiatric patients dealing with an undeveloped central cortex is both a complete lack of morals and guilt and a very poor memory. A complete loss of memory over just five hours is a reminder of that. Here’s your reminder X/Anonymous/George:
X says:November 25, 2025 at 10:53 AM
The grand jury never saw the second set of charges Halligan drew up after the first set was returned with one no-billed charge. She was supposed to re-file the second set to the grand jury to indict on those two counts, but she never did. She just had the clerk sign it without the grand jury reviewing it.
You got… what? THREE lies in succession with three sentences! That just might be a personal best for you to smile about!
But the opposite to all of those lies is true:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf
The official transcript of the September 25,
2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively refutes that claim and establishes
that the grand jury voted on – and true-billed – the two-count indictment.
This confirms the Court’s recognition that the two-count true bill is the valid, operative
indictment.
III. The Transcript Leaves No Room for Ambiguity
The complete record eliminates any doubt:
• The foreperson confirmed the vote.
• The Court acknowledged the vote.
• The Court docketed the two-count true bill as the operative indictment.
• Only Count One lacked concurrence;
• Counts Two and Three were true-billed by at least twelve jurors.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, any assertion that the grand jury “never voted on the two-count indictment”
is contradicted by the official transcript.
When it comes to blatant, serial pathological lying X/Anonymous/George… you NEVER fail to Lie And Deny Like Joe Biden.
Currie is a she. Cameron is a female name as is Lindsay. Idk but currie is female.
Apparently Bondi appointed Halligan as a special fed prosecutor fir these 2 cases and was not an interim at all.
Who knew
Actually, the supposed appointment of Halligan as a “special federal prosecutor” is completely bogus.
After Bondi realized the indictment may not be valid because Halligan’s appointment as US Attorney was problematic, she tried to retroactively change the appointment to that of “special federal prosecutor.” On October 31, more than a month after the supposed indictment was obtained, Bondi issued an order that purported to change Halligan’s appointment to that of “special prosecutor’ effective from September 22.
Judge Currie disposed of that stupidity in short order with the statement, “the Government has identified no authority allowing the Attorney General to reach back in time and rewrite the terms of a past appointment.”
COMPLETELY BOGUS.
All this nonsense is going to get Bondi disbarred as well as Halligan.
Has MErit Garland been disbarred ? Has Jack Smith been disbarred ?
Has John Eastman been Disbarred ? He won the lawfare against him by you left wing nuts in none other than deep blue left wing nut Califrornia.
There will be no consequence for Bondi and Halligan even if the SCOUTS tosses this.
But that is not going to happen.
The most likely decision by an appelate court or SCOTUS is:
Clause D in the law is a grant of appointment power to the Judiciary (possibly an unconstitutional one).
Nothing in the law makes it an exclusive grant.
Nothing in the law bars successive 120 day appointments – and in fact the law as written is more naturally read to favor successive 120 day appointments than to bar them.
That is the likely decision – it does not involve invalidating any laws or declaring anything unconstitutional.
And it ends the debate over whether this indictment is valid.
The next most likely decision is that Clause D is unconstitutional – which it absolutely is.
But it is not likely the courts even SCOTUS will go that far unless they have to – and they don’t.
SCOTUS is not in the business of deciding issues it is not forced to.
The least likely outcome favorable to DOJ is that Curries decision stands but that DOJ has 6 months to reindict.
I highly doubt that will be the court outcome,
The least likely outcome is Curries decision stands and James and Comey can not be reindicted.
Just not going to happen.
I highly doubt Comey will be ultimately convicted. Atleast some of the jury will be government employees who may even look up to him.
Regardless, it was hard enough to indict him with clear evidence of patently obvious crimes. Convicting him is going to be much harder.
The james case is more difficult to guage – even left wing nut government employees are going to think of James as an outsider.
She is NOT “deep state” and everybody has mortgages and most everyone knows you do not lie on mortgage applications.
I do not think she garners nearly the sympathy or self identification that Comey does.
Further there will be more of a sense that James brought this on herself – people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I suspect James will eventually get off via Jury nullification too, but that case is a closer call.
The least likely outcome will be that John Say will be right on a single thing, despite being more brilliant than any number of federal judges.
how many trump lawyers lost their law license? Perhaps Bondi and Halligan are next?
Ultimately NONE.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/11/24/us/james-comey-ruling.html
Footnote 21 of the Opinion and Order
“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)).”
This indictment was not dismissed, it was VOID.
Did you even read the Opinion and Order before attacking me? My guess is, no.
Please read the cases you cite.
Crystof does NOT address problems with the original indictment. Except that ONE charge in the superceding indictment was not present in the original. So THAT charge was not indicted until after the SOL expired.
It is also a D MD case which means it is not dispositive.
United States v. Ojedokun – Ojedokun’s conviction and indictment were upheld – the test you quote is NOT part of the holding, it is barely even dicta.
From the HOLDING in Gillespie:
“Edward Gillespie (“Gillespie”) moves to dismiss, on statute-of-limitations grounds, Counts Three and Four of the “superseding indictment” returned in this case on March 20, 1987 by the January 1987 Grand Jury. For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, Gillespie’s motion is granted, though he has likely won only a Pyrrhic victory for the United States is now free to reindict Gillespie without running afoul of the same limitations bar. This Court also dismisses the original indictment in this case (returned September 4, 1986 by the Special January 1985 Grand Jury[1]) for lack of jurisdiction and that dismissal is what frees up the United States for further action.”
Pretty much the opposite of what you are claiming.
All you are doing is destroying Judge Currie with decisions that are on dissimilar facts AND at odds with her decision.
None of these cases apply – and if they did they would harm rather than help.
Separately the law giving the DOJ 6 months to reindict is AFTER all of these cases except Ojedokun which is inapplicable.
So you have cases that do not say what you claim. that you are citing what is at best dicta. and that have no bearing on a law passed decades later.
You do not seem to grasp that when you cite a case, it has to HOLD what you claim it holds – not have some random text in the analysis that appears to support you – if it is not in the holding it is DICTA, and is NOT presumed to be stated with the precision to be precidential and the analysis is presumed to be based on the specific context of the case.
Dicta does not have no weight, but it has very little weight.
NEXT these cases are all outside the EDVA – unless they went to the Supreme court – in which case you would have cited the supreme court decision, they are GUIDANCE for EDVA not precident.
Federal circuits reach conclusions on issues that appear to be at odds with each other all the time.
SOMETIMES those contradictions reach the supreme court for resolution.
But often they do not – because the contradiction is ephemeral – not real – the assumption of a contradiction means the assumption of identical facts and law.
None of these cases have the same facts.
None of these cases have the same law.
The indictment was unlawful. Under 18 USC 3288 there is a six month period to refile. If it is refiled, a court will have to consider if 3288 applies. It seems to me that it does.
The indictment was not unlawful, Currie will be overturned.
This is not even a close call.
My point relates to the circumstances where the appeal fails.
There is a reason that DOJ is appealing – it is by far their best shot to win.
Well, luckily Mr Say, a proper judge or judges, like Cameron, will be the one who decides whether or not she is right in her interpretation of the law and the status of Little Barbie Halligan’s impersonation of a prosecutor, wearing the outfit lent to her by Big Barbie Bondi. It will not be John Say, verbose, pseudo intellectual blowhard of t’internet. 🙂
Daniel one aspect of Curries opinion that is now being brought up is that she misquoted the law. She inserted the word ONLY into a statute where it is not present.
The indictment was not unlawful. It was null an void. Therefore, that statute does not apply.
That is the only reasonable interpretation. Otherwise, AGs could improperly hire random people to continuously toll the SoL. If you read the footnote above, that is what Currie has shown the case law supports, John Say’s random diatribes notwithstanding.
I want to follow a leader that talks like this…
“We could make Chicago a safe city in a period of four weeks,” Trump said, beginning his rant in the White House’s Rose Garden. “In a period of eight weeks, nine weeks, 10 weeks, it would be totally safe.”
“The mayor is incompetent, and the governor is a big, fat slob,” he added.
The president then boasted about having a “very cute” joke he could tell about Pritzker and then applauded himself for not telling it because it’s about his weight.
“I don’t talk about people being fat,” he continued, repeatedly doing the thing he claimed to not be doing.
He kept talking: “I refuse to talk about the fact that he’s a fat slob.”
Then he mentioned: “I don’t mention it.”
Without so much of an ounce of self-reflection, Trump then earnestly called on Americans to “renew our faith in God’s providence” as they “enjoy the fellowship of family and friends” this holiday.
Does such a leader exist? Calling person a fat slob while he says he isn’t talking about a person being a fat slob?
I want to follow a leader that talks like this…
You voted for, defended, and pimped for eight years of VP Bribery Biden, followed by four years of doing the same for the recently overthrown by party insurrection, The Oval Office House Plant. The one who said in a staged 1984-style speech with red floodlights, that one half of Americans were “semi-fascist”. Not one person – half the country.
If you possess an ounce of self reflection after that, upon reflection would you think any raging denizen of the Democrat Borg with any remnant of sanity and rationality would want to follow ANYBODY who wasn’t like the Oval Office House Plant and his racist DEI Hire Border Czar VP?
So you do not like the way Trump talks about Pritzker ?
The rest of us do not like the way Democrats talk about Trump or US.
Calling Pritker a “fat slob:” – which he pretty much is, is certainly less damning that calling Trump a Nazi or fascist or worse than Hitler,
or worse still calling all those who voted for him Nazi’s fascists, racists etc.
Every 4 years we get a handful of choices for president – from which we pretty much always pick the least bad of two.
Some of us regularly pick the better of the 4-5 other candidates – most of whom are better than the D or R.
Regardless none of the choices are perfect.
GET OVER IT.
I would love a president that did not call political oponents Fat Slobs – even ones that are fat slobs.
But I would not trade a president who insults people who deserve it, for one who was polite and incompetent.
*. There’s no need for a special counsel. Refile using staff for mortgage fraud. Piggy back something on to Comey like perjury and refill using staff. I’m certain a lie can be found. If not find one .
It’s an interim appointment, 120 days while seeking a permanent attorney. After Seiberts 120 days judges voted to extend his tenure without a set number of days. He resigned.
Any staff can refile. The judges will appoint a new temporary attorney. I presume Bondi could appoint a new interim? She did that with Halligan. Just give it to a another attorney. Judges can appoint the interim. Ms. Bondi can sign it perhaps.
Bondi can’t. Federal prosecutor Virginia district so Seibert just didn’t act and no one was watching him.
Comey expired so Seibert killed it. Was Halligan doing both? She screwed up.
Just junk like James’ cubic feet v. Square feet bunk. Cost a lot of money.
Comey is dreaming of Taylor…in LA LA land.
Bondi can’t. Federal prosecutor Virginia district so Seibert just didn’t act and no one was watching him.
Give us your best Democrat Internet Licensed Lawyer opinion on why this judge carefully dismissed this case while using the words “without prejudice”.
What did you find in that decision that Turley did not when he wrote he expects these indictments to go back and forth in courts for years?
Hey anon, I’m just making up shit.
Curries opinion is a mess.
First she misquotes the law, Next her decision rests on Dicta from other districts that does not mean what she claims.
I do not think the “Without predjudice” means anything at all. Except that it suggests that Currie is trying to put a bandage on a bad decision. The “Without predjuce” language in her decision strongly implies that DOJ can just reindict.
But those on the left here are correct – if there is no indictment than the SOL has expired.
DOJ can reindict if there is a “defective” indictment.
I challenge anyone to come up with a defect in an indictment that requires DOJ to reindict that does not also make the indictment itselfsinvalid – i.e. a nullity as the left says.
It is these kinds of messes that we get into when we ignore the constitution.
US Attorney’s are principle officers – they MUST be appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
There are ways that THE PRESIDENT can appoint acting principle officers.
But no one other than the president can appoint a principle officer.
This issue was addressed in the Jack Smith case. SC’s are absolutely principle officers and must be appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
US Attorney’s are principle officers and must be appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
But if you wish to argue that Halligan was an inferior officer – then there was no need for a temporary appointment – inferior officers can be appointed by whoever Congress dictates and they are permanent not temporary – though they can be fired by the president.
The law here is a mess because it ignores the constitution.
But SCOTUS is not going to find the law unconstitutional.
They are going to correctly find that Currie incorrectly read/applied the law.
Anonymous – if Bondi can apoint a new interim appointment then she could also appoint Halligan.
This is one of the man reasons that Currie will be overturned.
She inserted ONLY into a clause in the law where it is not present.
Her reading of the law is that the AG gets to appoint an Acting US attorney ONLY ONCE and ONLY for 120 days.
after that ONLY the courts can appoint acting US attorney’s.
But the word ONLY does not appear ANYWHERE in this law.
Further the law itself is problematic.
Halligan is in a position that requires confirmation by congress – i.e. NOT an inferior officer.
If she was an inferiour officer – Congress could make laws regarding acting appointments.
But it could not prevent the president or Bondi from making a PERMANENT appointment.
Because Halligan is an the position of a Principle officer of the United States, ONLY the president can make appointments and ONLY congress can confirm them. There are provisions in the constitution regarding acting appointments and recess appointments of principle officers.
But nothing in the constitution allows Congress to delegate the power to appoint a principle officer in any form anywhere but the president.
This law is a mess and SCOTUS should find it unconstitutional.
But I highly doubt they will do that.
Regardless, you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to get to Judge Curries decision even if you assume the law is constitutional.
As noted – the word ONLY does not appear in the statute. Nor does any word with the same meaning.
The law itself limits Bondi’s bower to appoint in ONE and ONLY ONE specific case that is completely inapplicable – Bondi can not appoint to a position temporarily someone congress has failed to confirm for that position permanently. That is the ONLY limit the law places on the AG’s power to appoint to this position.
Prof. Turley doesn’t address the question whether the statute he cites is inherently unconstitutional since it violates separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches. I am very concerned that there are so many Acting U.S. Attorneys. Congress is failing in its duty to confirm or deny appointments quickly; the blue slip process is allowing Democrats to destroy the system by preventing votes on appointments. We cannot have a system that operates this way, or rather doesn’t operate. It is as if the Democrats want chaos in everything.
My thoughts as well. How can that statute be Constitutional, with Congress giving the power to a District Court to fill an executive branch position, even if only temporarily? If the Senate cannot get around to confirming the President’s nominee within 120 days, then that person should continue in the acting role until the Senate gets up off its behind.
Out of Chaos, Communist Order…
as “fundamental transformation.”
How long are patriotic actual Americans going to allow this insurrection?
Don’t worry, once they make their move true Americans will counter.
Better Dead than Red
If a position requires confirmation by the Senate, then the power to appoint that person – whether permanently or otherwise belongs exclusively to the priesident but requires confirmation by congress. Further if that position is a principle officer of the united states – Congress can not legislatively change the process of appontments – not even for an acting position. The appointments clause does not delegate any power to congress over principle officers of the united states. Except the power to confirm them.
Congress can only make laws regarding the appointment of inferior officers and inferior officers do not have to be confirmed – there is no such thing as an ACTING appointment of an inferior officer.
Again we can solve alot of problems by following the constitution.
And if we do not like it – changing it.
“James is entitled to every bit of due process and procedural protections that she denied to Trump.”
Which process and protections were denied?
I don’t understand how Trump’s crack legal team could have let this happen without making a major public relations statement detailing it.
I think Trump keeps going to the bottom of the barrel so he can claim he had poor representation when comes the inevitable loss.