A federal judge has dismissed the criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James after ruling that the prosecutor who brought the cases, former Trump attorney Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed.
U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie concluded that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid, rendering all actions taken by Halligan in that capacity void. Currie wrote that because Halligan lacked lawful authority to present the cases to a grand jury, the indictments “were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.”
A separate ruling was issued dismissing the case against James on the same grounds. The judge described the situation as “unique, if not unprecedented,” noting that Halligan had acted alone in grand jury proceedings despite being “unconstitutionally appointed.”
Halligan’s Appointment Central to Collapse of the Cases
Halligan, appointed at President Donald Trump’s direction after the ouster of the previous interim U.S. attorney Erik Siebert, had been the sole prosecutor to present evidence and sign the indictments against Comey and James.
Siebert’s removal created a dispute over who had the authority to choose his replacement. Lawyers for Comey and James argued that once Siebert exceeded the 120-day limit set by federal law, the responsibility to appoint a successor shifted to the judges of the Eastern District of Virginia—not the Attorney General. They said that allowing the Attorney General to circumvent that rule would nullify the statute’s intent.
The Justice Department, however, maintained that Halligan’s appointment was valid because the office was vacant after Siebert’s departure and Halligan’s nomination remained pending before the Senate.
Currie rejected that argument, finding the appointment invalid and concluding that everything flowing from it—including the indictments—must be dismissed.
Political Pressure and Unusual Circumstances
The ruling comes after reports that Siebert had resisted pressure to prosecute Comey and James. Trump announced Halligan’s appointment in a Truth Social post one day after Siebert was forced out and shortly after publicly urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue prosecutions of Comey, James, and Rep. Adam Schiff.
Five days later, Halligan—who had no prior prosecutorial experience—presented the Comey case to the grand jury just before the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations.
Comey had been charged with making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation, while James faced charges of bank fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution. Both pleaded not guilty and filed motions arguing the prosecutions were selective and vindictive.
Potential Ripple Effects
Currie’s ruling may influence other cases affected by similar disputes over interim U.S. attorney appointments. A comparable ruling has already disqualified Alina Habba as the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, leaving cases from her tenure in limbo. The 120-day appointment issue has also led to U.S. attorneys in California and Nevada being disqualified, with the Justice Department currently appealing those decisions.
Currie, who sits in South Carolina, heard the matter instead of an Eastern District of Virginia judge because local judges could be involved in selecting a lawful replacement for Halligan.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
READ NEXT: Justice Department Opens Grand Jury Investigation Into Letitia James
“Five days later, Halligan—who had no prior prosecutorial experience—presented the Comey case to the grand jury just before the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations.” – Four years old which had been covered up by Bidet’s Democrat administration.
I’m sorry to say this but out judicial system is all screwed up. If this were any other person they would already be headed to trial with pending jail time. How does this keep happening where judges are operating out of their zones and dismissing factual evidence that points to guilt of democrats but they skate on by?
Someone higher up on the Judicial line should reverse that judges politican decsion and reenstate the charges against her for her obvious infractions of the law.