BREAKING: Court Dismisses Indictment Against James Comey and Letitia James in Stunning Loss for Donald Trump
By: Aaron Parnas
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
BREAKING: Court Dismisses Indictment Against James Comey and Letitia James in Stunning Loss for Donald Trump
Aaron ParnasNov 24, 20251,01170212ShareTranscript
In a dramatic legal turn, a federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia has dismissed the indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, holding that his prosecution was tainted by the improper appointment of the interim U.S. Attorney who brought the case. Minutes ago, the court found that the appointment of Acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a former personal attorney to President Donald Trump, violated both the statutory scheme for interim U.S. Attorney appointments and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Because Halligan was the only federal official who signed Comey's indictment, the court held that all acts flowing from her defective appointment were void, including the indictment itself. This decision also means that the separate prosecution of Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, will also be dismissed without prejudice unless it is refiled under a proper appointment. However, the statute of limitations in Comey's case has expired, which prevents any future charging.
The ruling centers on two issues: the statutory limits on interim U.S. Attorney appointments set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 546, and the constitutional requirements of the Appointments Clause.
Under § 546, when a U.S. Attorney position becomes vacant, the Attorney General may appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for up to 120 days. If a Senate confirmed U.S. Attorney has not been appointed when that period ends, the district court may appoint one. In this case, Halligan's appointment followed a previous interim appointment, raising the question of whether the Attorney General had the authority to appoint a second interim U.S. Attorney.
The Appointments Clause analysis draws heavily on Supreme Court precedent. In Ryder v. United States, the Court ordered a new hearing before a properly appointed panel after finding the original panel improperly constituted. In Lucia v. SEC, the Court held that the remedy for an adjudication tainted by an appointments violation is a new hearing before a properly appointed official. In Nguyen v. United States, the Court vacated decisions issued by an improperly composed appellate panel and required fresh consideration. The district court applied these principles and concluded that Halligan's appointment was unlawful and that all actions she performed were invalid.
The court issued the following findings and remedies:
-
The appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. Attorney violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
-
All actions resulting from Halligan's defective appointment, including securing and signing James Comey's indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are set aside.
-
The Department of Justice's attempt to ratify Halligan's appointment was ineffective and is set aside.
-
James Comey's motion to dismiss the indictment is granted.
-
The indictment is dismissed without prejudice.
-
Until a U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia rests with the district court.
Because the statute of limitations has expired, Comey cannot be charged again for the same conduct. For Letitia James, where the statute of limitations remains open, prosecutors may refile the case once a properly appointed U.S. Attorney is in place.
This decision is significant for several reasons:
-
Constitutional structure: It reinforces that the Appointments Clause is a fundamental protection of the separation of powers.
-
Prosecutorial legitimacy: It underscores that criminal prosecutions must be brought by properly appointed officials to maintain public confidence in the justice system.
-
Ripple effects: Other matters initiated during Halligan's tenure may now face challenges, which could expand the impact of this ruling far beyond the Comey and James cases.
Read the full order here.
Tags
Who is online
79 visitors
Justice served.
If you recall, Bondi couldnt find anyone else to prosecute these cases so she turned to Halligan.
How does that go....Helluva job there, Bondi!
This is nothing more than a minor hiccup.
Nothing was mentioned of the guilt or innocence by the defendant's lawyers, but simply an argument that the prosecutor was ineligible to prosecute the case.
The judge granted the dismissal without prejudice, so for those online lawyers, means that the charges can be refiled with a different prosecutor.
This is far from over.....and no biggie.
Then your seed makes no sense.
The judge dismissed without prejudice, which means the charges can be refiled, but then in the next breath, your seed says the SOL have expired, so what is it?
Can charges be refiled or not?
Maybe the DoJ can pull an Alvin Bragg and turn a few charges that are past the SoL and make up some shit never used before and turn them into felonies.
Precedent has been set that leftists don't care about things like that.
didn't read the seed again, eh?
Then maybe YOU can explain why the charges were dismissed without prejudice?
I see. Can't address my actual comment so you pick another fight
Huh?
I responded directly to your post.
Possibly it is you that can't address my comment.
I believe that is the correct answer.
I don;t think so
Ask the judge.
The DOJ has already admitted the statute of limitations has run out to charge Comey.
If what you say is true(doubtful) the DoJ has the ability to appeal the decision and the charges stay if the appeal is granted.
So you can't appropriately respond.
Not surprised.
I responded. You just didn't like my comment. And it's quite easy to see why. You didn't read the seed or you would have had the answers to your questions
Not liking and proving your comment wrong are two different things.
Now, I will try again.
In JRs seed, it is stated that the judge dismissed without prejudice, which means the charges can be refiled, but in the same article, it states that the SoL have been expired.
My question was how can it be both? You do realize that the dismissal will probably be appealed, and like most appeals from the Trump DoJ, they will win.
Your answer?.....
I said APPROPRIATELY, not some stupid "nu uh" response.
My comment wasn't wrong. Read the seed
It was wrong.....and a non answer.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Read the seed and figure it out for yourself
I did and I did.
What I also figured out was how wrong you are but you fail to see it.
LOL!!!!
The cases were dismissed because of a legal flaw (the invalid appointment of Halligan). 'With prejudice' is typically used when the case has been adjudicated, not when a procedural error renders the case invalid.
In the case of Comey, the statute of limitations means that the case cannot be refiled. In the case of James, it can.
Nothing is confusing about this.
Especially after you've explained it
It's just legal procedure. When the judge dismissed the case she had to do so either with or without prejudice. It's not a gotcha moment, it's just procedure.
Without prejudice means that the case can be refiled provided that the now absolute standard of procedure is satisfied. The problem is that procedure was played loose and fast when prosecutors went after Trump. These defenders of procedure were absent for the last 4 years. The substance of the case, which may never come to trial needed to be heard. Historians will one day focus on the politics that derailed justice in this case.
We got to this point because blue state Senators refused to confirm Trump's US Attorneys. The holdovers from the Biden administration are left in place.
The law has become flexible for certain people and rigid for others.
Do you believe that the Comey case can be refiled?
None had to be because no evidence needed to be presented because the law wasn't followed by the Trump administration to even bring this to trial. We have something called presumption of innocence in this country, though it might be difficult to believe that right now with an out-of-control executive prosecuting his enemies regardless of the evidence. When multiple other prosecutors refuse to indict based on the evidence the government has, and then they are forced to retire because they won't indict the Presidents enemies, they are replaced by a prosecutor who will indict regardless of the evidence. That isn't justice, that isn't the way our nation and constitution work and the courts just showed it for the sham indictments they were.
Justice will prevail and it will not end those who dared try to hold the dirt bags King accountable for his crimes, it will end the King and his criminal administration. Truth will out.
Nothing more than a useless rant......
to wit....
"it will end the King "
A king would never had let this judge preside over the case, much less deem his prosecutor ineligible.
I guess the last two leftist "no kings" meltdown worked...good for them.
Dumb shit Donald is a wannabe King. He's trying but the last few constitutional defenses are keeping him from claiming complete power. He has a congress who has completely acquiesced their power and a conservative majority of the SCOTUS that seems to be validating this unchecked executive. If the judicial fell completely as the Trump boot lickers seem to want it to it would be no different than living under a King. A fat fucking useless lying scum bag sexual predator and convicted felon King.
Ah, so now he is a wannabe.
Let's play a game the "Seditious Six" are stumbling through right now, ie, not able to name any illegal orders Trump has given.
Question.....What has Trump done to make him a "wannabe" king. If you come up with something of substance, you may want to tell the members of the "Seditious Six", because they have no idea.
ChatGPT compiled:
When EO's are blocked by activist judges, Trump has complied and appealed the rulings. He has carefully followed the law, unlike what his predecessor did when the SCOTUS ruled that student debt forgiveness was unconstitutional or refusing to protect US sovereignty.
Two other points: Some of what you have listed above is still being considered by the SCOTUS. For example, "birthright Citizenship" is now being looked at by the Court. I know you probably think that it is a slam dunk case, but it will be a lot closer than you think since the case involves the conflict of legal precedent vs original intent. Whatever they decide, it was good that the issue finally gets decided.
I find it interesting that you want to provide the answer that the seditious six could not. The EOs aren't quite military orders. Undermining the chain of command because six hacks hate Trump needs to be addressed.
Point is that Trump has issued numerous illegal EOs. It is truly sickening to see people defend illegal (and often stupid) acts by Trump while condemning anything done by anyone who opposed Trump.
Trump wins almost all his appeals. Don't let partisan trial judges serving their party with batshit crazy opinions fool you.
Not to mention his detractors try to make you believe he is the only one that has done it.
When you point this out, you normally get the response that the conservatives on the SC are working to protect Trump, but would never, ever say that the rogue federal judges that have tried to block every EO that they are doing it for their party and hatred for Trump, even though it has been shown that several of these judges have had vendettas against Trump with past cases.
How exactly do you count this? Your belief is at odds with reality.
Yeah, of course, rule against Trump and you are immediately deemed wrong because Trump is always innocent per his supporters.
What utter horseshit.
You don't?? You think Trump can change the CotUS by EO?? Is there anything that Trump does that you recognize as wrong?
It seems that the SCOTUS agrees with me:
"The Supreme Court decisively ended lower courts’ ability to block policies issued by the Trump administration using nationwide injunctions on Friday.
In a 6-3 ruling, the majority found that lower courts exceeded their authority by issuing a nationwide block on President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship restrictions."
“The injunctions before us today reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. “These injunctions—known as ‘universal injunctions’—likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts. We therefore grant the Government’s applications to partially stay the injunctions entered below.”
Supreme Court Ends Unelected District Court Judges’ Abuses Of Power
You think Trump can change the CotUS by EO??
No, I don't. What I think is going to happen is that the SCOTUS is going to finally look at what congress in 1868 meant by:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Did they mean the newly freed slaves, or did they mean anyone who would one day enter the US by any means and give birth on US soil? That is what I mean by it will be closer than you and others might think.
The SCotUS did NOT rule that an EO can eliminate Jus Soli. So, no, Vic, you are again totally misrepresenting what happened.
The SCotUS ruled on procedure and on scope of authority (ability to issue injunctions) for lower courts; it did not say that Trump can eliminate Jus Soli!
In short, the SCotUS did not say that Trump can change our Constitution with an EO.
They did, however, yet again give more power to the presidency by reducing the power of the courts to curtail illegal/unconstitutional acts by a rogue PotUS. They are out of control.
I have it right. I'm not sure you understand what happened. You are partially correct in saying (the same thing that I did) that the Court only ruled on a serious side issue: District Court justices exceeding their authority in imposing nationwide injunctions, but if you recall, the Court said it would return to whether Trump's EO was valid. And they don't view it as Trump trying to change anything. The language of the 14th Amendment has led many legal experts to question the intent of the post-Civil War congress with the clause regarding "birthright citizenship."
That time is here TiG, whether you know it or not:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is meeting in private Friday with a key issue on its agenda — President Donald Trump ’s birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.
While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.
But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or most likely violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship."
Supreme Court weighs Trump's birthright citizenship order | AP News
So, TiG, if the Court were to determine that the original intent of congress in 1868 was simply to ensure that black slaves and their children became US citizens, it would not only mean that Trump's EO was valid it would finally clarify an important part of the Constitution and it would put an end to anchor babies. It is likely to be a close vote, and we can expect the decision in the spring.
The current SCotUS did not rule on Trump’s attempt to change the CotUS. And if this court does change the CotUS, that would not change the fact that Trump has no authority to change the accepted meaning of jus soli. A PotUS has no authority to change or reinterpret the CotUS.
Trump is an irresponsible and reckless asshole, why do you constantly defend him?
Time to sum up:
First: Neither you nor the 6 democrats telling military personnel to ignore "illegal orders" were able to cite a single illegal order that Trump gave to the military.
You tried to use EOs as illegal orders as a substitute. Yet Trump has obeyed and appealed every injunction aimed at his policies and as Sean pointed out, he has won most of those appeals.
The issue of Birthright Citizenship is only now being discussed by the SCOTUS. In an earlier ruling the Court said that District Judges had exceeded their authority with nationwide injunctions.
I never claimed that Trump made an illegal order to the military. I spoke of illegal EOs in general. Pay attention.
But since you apparently are unaware of illegal military orders, ChatGPT provides this summary:
Two is two too many and there are others that are currently being adjudicated. And unless Trump's appeals (as always) prevail, these are illegal orders. Trump is out of control. Now, regarding illegal orders, do you NOT support the military refusing to obey illegal orders?? You support a rogue PotUS issuing illegal orders?
I did no such thing. You are yet again trying to twist and turn.
That is an unsupported claim. See the Google AI summary below. Get your facts straight. And the point is that Trump is issuing illegal EOs. He continues to issue EOs that are unconstitutional or illegal. It does not even matter if he prevails on some of the challenges because that does not change the fact that he is issuing illegal/unconstitutional EOs.
Google AI gives this immediately:
Yeah Vic, that is what I stated. So pay attention and note that the SCotUS did NOT uphold Trump's attempt to change the CotUS regarding Jus Soli. No PotUS has the power to reinterpret the CotUS or to change it.
Again, focus on what we are actually talking about instead of inventing facts and strawman arguments in a feeble attempt to make it seem as though you are right. That is intellectually dishonest.
From his arguments, it seems he does prefer, because he agrees, that illegal orders do not matter as long as it is pursuant to his and Trumps' unconstitutional goals, it is okay.
Everyone can read what we both said.
Let me end this little conversation by saying that this is just the beginning. It is the beginning of the end for the radical left.
Correct, so stop pretending that Trump is NOT issuing illegal/unconstitutional EOs.
Here is a technique to help. Pretend that the current PotUS is a D and is doing what Trump is doing. Then what would you be posting?
He would be exploding, and rightfully so
Stop pretending that having a trial court issue a ruling that an Eo is illegal (as has happened to every President for decades) is evidence that Trump is "out of control."
What a stupid comment. Trump's EOs alone are not the reason I stated he is out of control. The illegal EOs are yet another example of how out of control he is.
It is Trump supporters and defenders who are (necessarily) pretending so as to prop up an alternate reality.
What a stupid comment. I wrote:
"Stop pretending that having a trial court issue a ruling that an Eo is illegal (as has happened to every President for decades) is evidence that Trump is "out of control."
and then you literally admit you are arguing "illegal EOs are yet another example of how out of control he is."
There is a difference between evidence and example. The illegal EO's on their own may not rise to the level of 'out of control', but they in concert with everything else he's doing are an example of how this administration is out of control. But this is really moving goal posts, the original question asked for examples of how Trump was being a "wannabe King" and TiG gave them. Just because those who are desperately groveling at the feet of the rapist-in-chief refuse to acknowledge the facts he posted doesn't mean it's not happening and doesn't mean that in many peoples opinion, Trump's illegal EO's are evidence of an out of control executive.
Your post again pretends the inability to distinguish an example from the only reason.
Stooping low, yet again, in a feeble attempt to defend Trump.
Your post is still premised on a dishonest framing of what I wrote.
Play your pathetic little game with someone else.
I truly hope so. They are definitely a scourge on this country.
The media which once gaslighted for them has lost all of its credibility. People now fact check everything. Their days are numbered.
Do you recognize the incompetence of the Trump administration? How about the corruption?
This case illustrates, yet again, the incompetence and the corrupt abuse of the DoJ by Trump and his administration.
Imagine what you would think if this were D PotUS directing the AG to prosecute political enemies and the AG in turn stupidly and illegally appointed an incompetent prosecutor to do so.
Why, given the same facts, do you support Trump when we all know you would be condemning a D PotUS if he had done even a fraction of this?
It isn't incompetence. Blue state Senators refuse to approve Trump's US Attorney's. They prefer to maintain local authority. Trump tried to get around them.
It doesn't matter. Comey and James may avoid legal accountability, but they will be judged by historians. That is where the accounting will be.
And there you have it.
It is obvious incompetence. It was illegal for Bondi to make the appointment. And Halligan is clearly not qualified in terms of experience to operate in her appointed capacity.
Here is an explanation:
A great test for critical thinking is to determine how you would respond if this were a D administration under identical circumstances. Would you come to their defense as you are doing here?
And ChatGPT offers this explanation for why Bondi did not have a valid replacement. In short, she refused to follow protocol and have a court appointment.
Arrogant Incompetence!
But you try to blame the Ds (of course).
And legally can't.
As will Trump, his Admins and his enablers.
That would not have been appropriate at that stage of the proceedings. However, if it were so easy to demonstrate guilt, the prosecution wouldn’t have had to violate the law to get an indictment.
This infamous meme is so apropos, again!
MAGA be like...
I wonder what meme you will use when charges are refiled.
The second one seems appropriate for a response to leftists.
What with Trump's dismal record of appointments, bring it on.
LOL!
This is how mafia kingpins win right? Shouldn’t Comey and James be ashamed? Or did that talking point expire too?
What the fuck did Comey do that was "mafia kingpin"ish? That's fucking insane. He did his job and because that job included oversight of a fat greasy pig fucker named Donald Trump he's being attacked. I have no love for Comey, he's the fucker who was most at fault for us getting stuck with mushroom dick in the first place, but he's certainly not guilty of some crime while investigating Trump. It's ridiculous on the face of it.
To them the very fact that Trump was investigated is "lawfare". Their claim IS ridiculous on the face of it.
Only mafia kingpins get cases dismissed on technicalities. That's what I was told last year.
The New York prosecution is the very definition of lawfare. If that case isn't lawfare, the term has no meaning. FFS Hillary Clinton committed the same crime at the same time (and it actually was a crime per the FEC) and she wasn't prosecuted.
Donald Trump tried to overthrow the US government. THAT is why Leticia James said she would concentrate on him. If Trump was a man he would have faced the charges about Jan 6th, instead he had his lawyers run out the clock as he brainwashed his cult into voting him back in power. There is not a single bad thing that has ever happened to Trump legally that he did not deserve ten times over.
As long as Trump does shit like this, which will be forever by the way, he doesnt deserve the slightest consideration about anything. This is the same conspiracy theory that cost Fox News $787 million.
hmm. That's a serious crime. Yet he wasn't charged with that. Instead Leticia James came up with such a bogus charge that her governor had to hold a press conference to assure businesses that no one else would be treated like that.
Trump was found liable by a jury, wasnt he? I couldnt care less whether Hillary Clinton or anyone else should have been charged with the same crime. Donald Trump is and was a menace to our society and James wanted to get him out of politics.
And this phony indictment of Comey isn't lawfare? Going after Senator Kelly isn't lawfare?
You and I both know it is but they won't admit it
Thank you for admitting it was nothing but political, as any thinking person already knew that.
Then you would agree that the Biden admin going after Trump officials for THE EXACT SAME THING would also be considered lawfare.
Thanks for admitting.
"Going after Senator Kelly isn't lawfare?"
If Kelly were not retired military, he would be in the same situation as the other seditious five, but because he still is under the UCMJ, it is justified that he be investigated and held accountable for any wrongdoing.
No one is above the law, right?
He was guilty.
lol
[✘]
So nothing.
Once again......
not surprised
lol
When Trump loses, America wins.