video screenshot

 

In a significant legal turn, a federal judge has thrown out indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The decision came after the court found that US President Donald Trump's appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim US Attorney was unlawful, rendering her actions null.

 

Trump's desire to prosecute his political opponents drove controversy surrounding Halligan's appointment from the outset. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie determined that Halligan's tenure was invalid due to exceeding the legal interim period of 120 days without Senate confirmation or approval by district judges.

 

In her ruling, Currie stated that any actions stemming from Halligan's appointment, including the prosecution of Comey and James, were illegitimate. The dismissal was made without prejudice, leaving room for potential re-indictments. The statute of limitations, however, might make it more difficult to prosecute Comey.

 

The atmosphere following the dismissal reflected relief and vindication from those involved. Letitia James celebrated the decision, highlighting her determination to continue her work for New Yorkers. James Comey addressed his supporters in a video, criticising the case as a misuse of executive power. He emphasised his belief in an independent judiciary and warned of the dangers of politicising the Department of Justice.

 

The dismissed cases initially arose from allegations that Comey leaked information and made false statements to Congress. In separate charges, James faced accusations of financial misconduct. Both had entered a not guilty plea, contending that Trump's administration had politically motivated the cases.

 

Amidst the legal developments, the White House has opted to refer the case's future to the Justice Department, asserting that the fundamental facts have not changed. This decision comes in the wake of other similar legal challenges faced by Trump’s appointments, including issues found in his classified documents case, reported CNN.

 

 

Key Takeaways

 

• Indictments dismissed as appointments of Lindsey Halligan deemed unlawful.
• Relief and vindication for Comey and James amidst political tension.
• Future legal actions await decisions from the Justice Department.

Related Stories:

Ex-FBI Chief Comey Indicted in Probe Tied to Trump-Russia Case
NY Attorney General Letitia James Indicted on Federal Charges

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from [source] 2025-11-25

 

 

 

This was a procedural matter only.

It was — “dismissed without prejudice” literally means the government is legally free to re-file the exact same charges as soon as they fix the technical problem (i.e., put a properly appointed U.S. Attorney in place).

24 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

This was a procedural matter only.

It was — “dismissed without prejudice” literally means the government is legally free to re-file the exact same charges as soon as they fix the technical problem (i.e., put a properly appointed U.S. Attorney in place).

Translation nope to vindictive prosecution and nonsense charges they are free to try again…..the real question in my mind is the unessary stress and financial hardship fostered on these people…..all done under color of authority there should be a remedy for that.

42 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

This was a procedural matter only.

It was — “dismissed without prejudice” literally means the government is legally free to re-file the exact same charges as soon as they fix the technical problem (i.e., put a properly appointed U.S. Attorney in place).

They tried but all proper prosecutors denied.

Can they refile the comey indictment, since the statute of limitations expired already?

56 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

This was a procedural matter only.

Yeah, doesn't even qualify as a schoolboy error.

57 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

This was a procedural matter only.

It was — “dismissed without prejudice” literally means the government is legally free to re-file the exact same charges as soon as they fix the technical problem (i.e., put a properly appointed U.S. Attorney in place).

If the case is dismissed on procedural matter, it signal the judge displeasure with the case as weak or unmeritorious. If Bondi persist with appealing, the judge can impose penalties for DOJ inefficiency. Balls at Bondi's feet is she will pursue the case further, Big legal decision for her, Will she risk the judge wrath to please Trump. 

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

If the case is dismissed on procedural matter, it signal the judge displeasure with the case as weak or unmeritorious. If Bondi persist with appealing, the judge can impose penalties for DOJ inefficiency. Balls at Bondi's feet is she will pursue the case further, Big legal decision for her, Will she risk the judge wrath to please Trump. 

 

Your take that the judge is secretly signaling this case is garbage by dismissing on procedure is pure fiction.

Federal judges don’t send coded messages through technical rulings; they apply the statute.

The FVRA clock had expired, the appointment was unlawful, end of story.

Currie ruled narrowly, left the vindictive-prosecution motions untouched, and gave exactly zero hints about the strength of the evidence.

Penalties for appealing? That doesn’t happen. DOJ appeals rulings like this all the time; judges don’t fine the government for using the appellate process.“Without prejudice” means the door stays open. James’s 10-year statute is still running wide open, and Comey’s only safe if the grace-period argument holds (which is still disputed).

Bondi has already announced an immediate appeal and made it clear she intends to keep the pressure on both cases with a properly appointed prosecutor.She’s not trembling about “judge wrath” or groveling to Trump; she’s doing her job. The ball is indeed in her court!

Why wait for bondi to announce what she is going to do? Her next course of action will be on truth social via Donald all independent doj announce there decisions on there

16 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

Your take that the judge is secretly signaling this case is garbage by dismissing on procedure is pure fiction.

Federal judges don’t send coded messages through technical rulings; they apply the statute.

The FVRA clock had expired, the appointment was unlawful, end of story.

Currie ruled narrowly, left the vindictive-prosecution motions untouched, and gave exactly zero hints about the strength of the evidence.

Penalties for appealing? That doesn’t happen. DOJ appeals rulings like this all the time; judges don’t fine the government for using the appellate process.“Without prejudice” means the door stays open. James’s 10-year statute is still running wide open, and Comey’s only safe if the grace-period argument holds (which is still disputed).

Bondi has already announced an immediate appeal and made it clear she intends to keep the pressure on both cases with a properly appointed prosecutor.She’s not trembling about “judge wrath” or groveling to Trump; she’s doing her job. The ball is indeed in her court!

 

I do think that the judge see the case as improperly vindictive as most of us. The procedural matters has to be addressed as protocols required to ensure that the case is prepared for trial. 

 

Penalities that I refer are for another shoddy filing and professional misconduct. Not talking about a generic appeal. 

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Translation nope to vindictive prosecution and nonsense charges they are free to try again…..the real question in my mind is the unessary stress and financial hardship fostered on these people…..all done under color of authority there should be a remedy for that.

Sadly, the result of electing a being whose documented character was/is wholly unfit to "serve".

19 minutes ago, Dave0206 said:

Why wait for bondi to announce what she is going to do? Her next course of action will be on truth social via Donald all independent doj announce there decisions on there

Its a bit like thailands royal gazette 

These two slimebags should be locked up just on general principals.

7 minutes ago, TooPoopedToPop said:

These two slimebags should be locked up just on general principals.

Trump and Bondi, agreed.

Playing for time. 

 

They will refile and Letitia (certainly) and Comey (likely) gonna get it. 

 

They can run, but they can't hide. 

A post with excessive spacing has been removed as there was no content in the post. 

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Playing for time. 

 

They will refile and Letitia (certainly) and Comey (likely) gonna get it. 

 

They can run, but they can't hide. 

Increase legal fees. 

2 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

(i.e., put a properly appointed U.S. Attorney in place).

From Judge Currie's ruling

 

6. 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. 

4 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Increase legal fees. 

And this is a significant point you have raised because it is almost unprecedented that attorneys would charge for their services when decisions are appealed?

Does this mean Halligan's actions are null and void? E.g. her hirings and firings?

Judge Currie should be commended for doing the right thing and throwing out an absolutely frivolous and vengeful lawsuit on the part of the circus clown. There's no place for these kind of actions in politics, nobody benefits except Trump and his huge and fragile ego, and dismissing this case was a triumph for democracy. 

 

Trump handpicked a very incompetent, and very inexperienced, but very loyal Halligan for the role amid increasing pressure to bring criminal cases against his political enemies. 

 

Comey stated "I’m grateful that the court ended the case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence and a reflection of what the Department of Justice has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking,” he said. “But I was also inspired by the example of the career people who refuse to be part of this travesty. It cost some of them their jobs, which is painful, but it preserved their integrity, which is beyond price.”

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

Currie ruled narrowly, left the vindictive-prosecution motions untouched, and gave exactly zero hints about the strength of the evidence

Judge Currie ruled SOLELY on the Halligan appointment. Everything else remains in the purview of Judge Nachmanoff.

48 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Trump and Bondi, agreed.

And anytime Trump and Bondi agree on something you know it's wrong, you know it's morally incorrect and you know it's a faulty decision. 

This whole thing precipitated because then interim  U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert said there was in his judgment not sufficient case to go against Comey. And he was fired/quit at the 120-day limit. And the rule as generally interpreted is you get one crack at the 120 day interim appointment and then it reverts to district Judges.

 

Then enter Rube Goldberg.

29 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

And this is a significant point you have raised because it is almost unprecedented that attorneys would charge for their services when decisions are appealed?

Thats when you charge the most lol.

3 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Thats when you charge the most lol.

So when it comes to appeals, attorneys change their hourly rate?

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

So when it comes to appeals, attorneys change their hourly rate?

Depends on the client and the attorney. For example, if you are an appellate specialist in a Court you have argued in 8 times before and one of your best referral sources says take Mr. X, its a simple search and seizure case, and it is, and Mr. X comes in and hands you a bag with 20K in 100s, well then you turn in half to your secretary and keep the other 10.

 

 

1 hour ago, TooPoopedToPop said:

These two slimebags should be locked up just on general principals.

Not on general principles. Trump for treason and Bondi for abuse of power.

48 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Playing for time. 

 

They will refile and Letitia (certainly) and Comey (likely) gonna get it. 

 

They can run, but they can't hide. 

The cases will be dismissed again as they are based on the hurt feelings of a 5 y/o in an old man's failing body.

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Depends on the client and the attorney. For example, if you are an appellate specialist in a Court you have argued in 8 times before and one of your best referral sources says take Mr. X, its a simple search and seizure case, and it is, and Mr. X comes in and hands you a bag with 20K in 100s, well then you turn in half to your secretary and keep the other 10.

What has how payment is made got to do with this issue?

5 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Depends on the client and the attorney. For example, if you are an appellate specialist in a Court you have argued in 8 times before and one of your best referral sources says take Mr. X, its a simple search and seizure case, and it is, and Mr. X comes in and hands you a bag with 20K in 100s, well then you turn in half to your secretary and keep the other 10.

 

 

And when an undercover FBI agent hands you 50k in a paper bag, what then?