“This case presents the unique, if not unprecedented, situation where an unconstitutionally appointed prosecutor, 'exercising power [she] did not lawfully possess,’… acted alone in conducting a grand jury proceeding and securing an indictment,” the ruling said.

Because Halligan, who was appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia at President Donald Trump's direction, was the only prosecutor to present the cases and sign the indictments, the indictments should be voided, the judge found.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

James praised the ruling in a statement.

“I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country. I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day,” James said.

Both indictments were dismissed "without prejudice," meaning they could be brought again at a later time.

Comey and James have other motions pending before the judges presiding over their cases, contending the charges should be dismissed because they are the result of a “selective and vindictive” prosecution. Those motions seek to have the cases tossed "with prejudice," meaning prosecutors could not revive them.

The invalidation of Halligan’s appointment was fatal to the Comey and James indictments because of the unique role Halligan played in the cases against two of Trump’s political enemies, but it could have ripple effects on other cases that were handled under more typical processes.

A similar ruling disqualifying Alina Habba as the U.S. attorney in New Jersey has resulted in a number of criminal cases brought under her leadership being stuck in legal limbo while she appeals the decision.

Currie seemed largely skeptical of the Justice Department's position at a rare joint hearing on the issue with lawyers for Comey and James on Nov. 13, where a prosecutor portrayed questions about Halligan's appointment as "a paperwork error."

Comey's attorney said it was much more than that, and a "fatal flaw" in the prosecution of his client.

Comey was indicted on charges of making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation, while James was indicted on charges of bank fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution. Both had pleaded not guilty.

In a highly unusual move, Halligan was the lone prosecutor to present their cases to the grand jury and the lone prosecutor to sign their indictments. Other prosecutors in her office had recommended against charging Comey and James because they didn't believe there was enough evidence to secure convictions, NBC News previously reported.

Trump said he was naming Halligan U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia on Sept. 20 — the day after he forced out his initial pick, Erik Siebert. Siebert had resisted pressure to prosecute Comey and James.

Halligan's appointment was immediately viewed as problematic because, according to federal statute, people in that post may serve for only 120 days after being appointed U.S. attorney, unless confirmed by the Senate before then.

The Senate had not confirmed Siebert, so federal judges of the Eastern District of Virginia exercised their independent appointment authority to keep him on beyond the 120-day limit.

Lawyers for Comey and James contended that after Siebert was forced out, the responsibility for naming his replacement belonged to the judges, not Attorney General Pam Bondi. To rule otherwise, Comey's attorney said in a filing, would render the 120-day period "meaningless, and the Attorney General could indefinitely evade the alternate procedures that Congress mandated."

The Justice Department maintained that Halligan's appointment was valid since the office was vacant after Siebert's departure. The "Senate has not refused advice and consent to Ms. Halligan — her nomination remains pending. The Attorney General therefore lawfully appointed Ms. Halligan as interim U.S. Attorney" and "the motions to dismiss should be denied," the Justice Department said in a filing.

Trump's Truth Social post naming Halligan to the position came the day after Siebert was forced out — and shortly after another social media post where he publicly urged Bondi to push ahead with prosecutions of Comey, James and another perceived political adversary, Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California.

"Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, 'same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,'” said the post, which a source previously confirmed to NBC News had been intended as a direct message to Bondi, not a public post.

"We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility," Trump continued, while praising Halligan as "a really good lawyer."

Five days after the post, Halligan, who had no prosecutorial experience, presented the Comey case to a grand jury. The presentation came days before a five-year statute of limitations on the charges was set to expire.

Currie, a Bill Clinton appointee who is based in South Carolina, heard the arguments on the disqualification issue instead of a judge from the Eastern District of Virginia since local judges would be involved in selecting Halligan's replacement.

The Trump administration's stance on the 120-day rule has led to U.S. attorneys in California and Nevada being disqualified as well. The Justice Department is appealing those rulings.

Trump and his cronies have been using this same play for years
1. Make grand, explosive accusations and offer zero evidence.
2. Declare they're taking the case to court and revealing everything for all the world to see (this is known as the "muh discovery" phase)
3. Put in absolute bare minimum effort into the filing, fuck up the case from the very beginning, make mistakes that a first year law student wouldn't make.
4. Case gets dismissed on procedural grounds
5. Run to the right wing media bubble and howl to the sky about how the court is biased against them and part of the deep state and cry crocodile tears about how the case was dismissed on a technicality so it doesn't count or something
6. Drop the subject entirely. If it's brought up again, whine about how they tried to reveal the truth to the world but the bad old courts blocked them from doing so. At all costs, they will go out of their way to avoid the fact that they could still reveal this evidence to the world right now or refile the case

>without prejudice
lmao

>>1459809
>Case gets dismissed on procedural grounds
Judges are just wikipedia fact-checkers on steroids
>sorry, your case is deboonked

Comey's statute of limitations expired on 30th September

>>1459811
Yes, this is what I mean. They do this for lemmings like you.
If they had actually tried to present this case like professionals, the inevitable dismissal based on the laughable lack of evidence would be humiliating
But if they deliberately fuck up the case from the get go before it can even get into the substance of the accusation, the base can squawk about how the (non-existent) merits of the case were never actually ruled on
The case never mattered. The narrative is all that matters

Hopefully, Lindsey Halligan & Pam Bondi will be disbarred
Unless Trump does some kind of pardon

>>1459814
>lack of evidence
Did you read your own article? It was dismissed on procedural grounds.
This is like writing a school report and having it turned away because you used the wrong font. The actual substance of the lawsuit isn't being considered.
Tripping people up on technicalities is democrat lawfare 101.

>>1459816
So this is a bot that just looks for keywords and replies based on them, right?
Because you're doing exactly what I described in the comment you're responding to and you seem blissfully unaware of it

>>1459817
My point being, what the judge is alleging isn't actually true and purely partisan.
Hill was a Recess Appointment which is explicitly allowed in the US Constitution under Article II Section 2.

>>1459816
Actually it is a little like being asked to write a school report and then you type it in wingdings, get an F, then whine about it while the class laughs at your retardation. Rare migatard good point.

>>1459818
>Hill was a Recess Appointment which is explicitly allowed in the US Constitution under Article II Section 2.
Fix your bot, Ranjesh. It's pulling random names out of the ether and randomly capitalizing words.

>>1459815
Given he uses an autopen for his pardons, you can just claim all of trump's pardons are invalid because it's not his signature and prosecute away.

>purely partisan
>The GOP justices in the SCOTUS must remove the block and ruin the Republicans' chances: >>1459782
>The judge in this instance can hurt your fee-fees and rightists only have the right to like it
Pick one

>>1459818
They only got one pick, and their pick was Seibert. Then they fired him, but they don't get a second pick.

>>1459811
>>1459816
>>1459818
So, the problem here is actually unrelated to the MAJOR fuckery involving Comey's indictment and more to do with Trump trying to bypass having to confirm his picks. Halligan is an INTERIM appointee; she's supposed to only be there until a proper attorney is confirmed. But Trump just decided to never actually do so, so she was effectively there without needing to be confirmed. The problem is, the interim is only supposed to stay on for 120 days at max to specifically prevent this, but when Halligan hit the 120 days they just didn't make her leave, effectively giving her the position again like you're exploiting a free trial bug.

Except, you know, that's insanely illegal and effectively makes Halligan an illegitimate appointee, so any decisions and cases she brings or makes are effectively invalid because she isn't really in the position legally.

>>1459838
More telling that OP of that thread is a trump shill and uses the reddit frog

Genuine question. If Comey is clearly guilty beyond any reasonable doubt why is the best of the best legal representation the government can offer unable to follow simple procedure? Wouldn’t this be a cakewalk?

>>1459885
>why is the best of the best legal representation the government can offer unable to follow simple procedure?
Because the best of the best legal representation the government can offer all took one look what Trump wanted, saw how meritless it was, and told Trump to fuck off. So he had to go with the bimbo he hired for his personal law team a few years ago, who has never prosecuted a case in her life, to present the charges.

Can we all just appreciate the irony of Trump not even being able to file charges against someone without breaking the law?

>>1459894
He's a criminal at heart and it shows how corrupt the system is that he's still not in prison.

>>1459818
I think SCOTUS already decided (unanimously) that the recess appointments clause isn't to be interpreted strongly, or it would defeat advise and consent and the whole "separation of powers" thing.

>>1459885
Federal judges have established a long track record of objecting to the Trump admin on flimsy grounds and then getting smacked by SCOTUS. This is a continuation of that trend.

>>1459904
So in your opinion, is established procedure too difficult for federal prosecution to follow or are they actually just suggestions not meant to be taken seriously?

>>1459909
The highest court in the land recently roasted federal courts for not only ignoring caselaw, but ignoring the rulings of SCOTUS for partisan reasons. So I don't know what you expect me to say.

>>1459809
wtf are you talking about? Case got thrown out on a technicality, not on the merits, and the DOJ is free to bring the charges again.

>>1459910
I’m asking a genuine question to understand where you are coming from and you’re going off on a tangent about the SCOTUS. If a case is being thrown out for not following established procedure, is it because the prosecution is unable to follow it or do you think these procedures are actually unimportant and it is unfair to hold the government to these standards?

>>1459885
Because Senate Democrats at that time were stonewalling Trump appointments, hence they famously had to nuke the filibuster for executive appointments.

>>1459912
Its not a question of "the prosecution" being "unable to follow procedure". Its a question about political appointments.

No point in even talking about it because they can refile the charges against both parties tomorrow morning.

>>1459914
>they can refile the charges against both parties tomorrow morning.
Can they? It's my understanding that that statute of limitation has run out for the charges against Comey.

>>1459912
>I’m asking a genuine question to understand where you are coming from
Federal judges are trying to waylay the Trump admin's policy decisions by way of judicial activism. The reason I know this is because the majority of cases like these have been brought before SCOTUS, immediately overturned, and the associated judge being excoriated by Alito et al.
You're operating off of the assumption that these rulings are anything other than partisan, which isn't only a mistake, but also a failure to recognize patterns.

>>1459885
Because most lawyers know the things Trump asks them to do are insane illegal and will get them disbarred eventually. So he has to go with the dumbasses who think everything they're doing is fine, which also means they have no idea what they're doing.

>>1459917
>The reason I know this is because the majority of cases like these have been brought before SCOTUS, immediately overturned, and the associated judge being excoriated by Alito et al.
Yeah no. If anything SCOTUS has to keep reevaluating and rewriting existing law to fit the Trump admins version of it, and that's starting to fail because there's only so much they can change before they start arguing "yes the constitution explicitly says X but uh, it actually means Y."

The conservative majority of the court is also, you know, openly corrupt, so.

>>1459919
>Because most lawyers know the things Trump asks them to do are insane illegal and will get them disbarred eventually.
Name those specific things.
>>1459916
SOL may have run but that's a separate issue. The merits of the case are/were solid and the prosecution did their job as the law required.

Super cool that Comey gets off on a technicality though.

>>1459922
Cite specific examples.

>>1459924
>Name those specific things.
Well, if you insist
>Openly political prosecutions
>Lying about communications under oath
>Lying about the actions of the defendant under oath
>Just a lot of lying under oath actually
Why do you think so many of his former lawyers are disbarred now? lmao

>Super cool that Comey gets off on a technicality though.
It's actually better the case ends because of a technicality, because the stunt they pulled with the grand jury could've (and probably still can) get Bondi and company fucking disbarred. Submitting a version of the Grand Jury indictment the majority of that Grand Jury didn't actually see is a MASSIVE no-no. Admitting it and then turning around to lie that you didn't do it after the judge points out how illegal it is is an even bigger one.

>>1459926
you know he cant. hes just repeating talking points from plebbit and dean withers

>>1459928
I asked for specific examples, please name the cases and rulings.

>>1459926
>President has immunity
>ICE can racially profile for arrests
>Hatch Act basically doesn't exist

>>1459924
The fact that Trump's team waited until five days before SOL ran out to file charges against Comey just adds more fuel to the theory that everyone on Trump's team knows there's no merit to this case and are just going through the motions so he'll stop crying about it

>>1459932
I'm asking for specifics. Not things you heard someone say on twitter.

>>1459931
Look up why:
>Kenneth Chesebro
>John Eastman
>Rudy Giuliani
were disbarred. It all relates back to shit they did for Trump.

>>1459934
In your opinion.

>>1459935
>Uh I'm asking for specifics
>No not those specifics
Keep acting like these aren't absolutely insane from

>>1459936
I am asking for specific examples where SCOTUS has ruled in a manner that is inconsistent with the constitution.
>but these guys got disbarred!
By their state bar associations.

>>1459937
They were fucked the moment their fuckery with the grand jury was found out. You don't lie about indictments to secure additional charges as a lawyer anon. That shit gets you disbarred real fucking fast.

>>1459938
President has immunity, obviously. Court did not rule that ICE can racially profile. I have no idea what you're talking about RE: Hatch Act.

Post specific examples please.

>>1459939
No you aren't retard. Pay attention to what posts you're replying to.
>>Because most lawyers know the things Trump asks them to do are insane illegal and will get them disbarred eventually.

>>1459940
In your opinion
>spoiler: not an attorney

>>1459943
Nope. They falsified court documents. This is objective fact. It is also objective fact that is grounds for losing your license and being disbarred from practicing.

>>1459944
>This is objective fact
At this point its not, it an argument that the Defense has made.

>>1459922
>The conservative majority of the court is also, you know, openly corrupt, so.
In your opinion.
Legally, they literally tell us what the law is via judicial review. That's in the US Constitution.
If that makes you upset then that's not my fault. Democrats had the opportunity to stack the courts but they didn't, so now you get to enjoy a majority lifetime appointment of constitutional conservatives.

>>1459945
Wrong again.
>Did the entire Grand Jury see the final indictment?
No. This was testified and admitted to by the prosecution.
>Did the prosecution submit an altered version of the indictment to the Grand Jury foreperson?
Yes. This was testified and admitted to by the prosecution.
>Did the final indictment that was submitted include charges the Grand Jury had decline?
Yes. This was testified and admitted to by the prosecution.

You don't get to play the "Well the DEFENSE is arguing that" card when the prosecution admitted to it in court.

>>1459946
>In your opinion.
Nope. Thomas openly admits to accepting bribes and not reporting it.

I really hope you are at least getting paid to run defense for the Trump admin 24/7 in every single thread.

>>1459957
Personally I admire the MIGA shills ITT
They've put more effort into running damage control here than anyone on Trump's team put into the charges against Comey

>>1459941
The Hatch Act says the regular functionaries of the government should avoid politicized actions and speech because having an openly partisan bureaucracy is hell. During the shutdown, many if not all random department websites that should only be used to give objective information had extremely partisan banners on them.

If the rightards ITT think they know so much about the law, that they make the SCOTUS obsolete, why haven't thet passed the bar exam, thus wouldn't need to post in /news/?
Checkmate, Christains.

>>1459935
He just cited 3 specific examples of judicial activism by the Republican supreme court.
The founding fathers would be aghast at the Republican judges declaring the president is a defacto king who's above the law.

>>1459911
>Case got thrown out on a technicality, not on the merits,
What do you think procedural grounds are?

>DOJ is free to bring the charges again.
But they won't. This has happened literally dozens of times now, just as Anon said.

>>1460049
This, look at all the prosecutions trump's goons brought against innocent people during trump's illegal occupation of DC where they tried to lock of people for years for crimes they didn't commit to the point grand juries refused to indite or juries gave not guilty verdicts.

>>1459924
>The merits of the case are/were solid and the prosecution did their job as the law required.
Setting aside the other reasons this shitshow was gonna get thrown out before this happened like the prosecution's only witness using attorney-client privileged information from an old case they didn't have a particularized warrant for or the prosecutor lying to the grand jury that Comey would be forced to testify and they can assume the state has more information than has been presented, or the missing grand jury minutes, or the shitshow with the indictment not even being properly presented to the grand jury in the first fucking place, or the obvious malicious prosecution.

Also, Comey was accused of lying about authorizing someone to leak at the FBI, but the accused leaker wasn't working at the FBI during the leak or during any of the times Comey talked to the guy about what ended up leaking and also none of the communications show Comey actually fucking authorizing the guy to leak jack fucking shit. As in the entire fucking factual fucking basis of the case is impossible to be fucking true.

>Super cool that Comey gets off on a technicality though.
Motherfucker, you should be thanking your lucky fucking stars that this shit got thrown out the way it fucking did cause it might delay the embarrassing lawsuits and disbarment by a few weeks/months.

>>1459811
And they damned well ought to be.

Comey is cleared. No onstruction! No collusion! The crooked Trump DOJ tried to smear him, but they, they’re very very bad people, terrible people, I say that all the time. I’ve always said it. I’m the first to have said it.

>>1460446
This is the first I've heard of it.

>>1459809
>democrats did it first but go on about giving credit to trump for copying democrat behaviors

>>1460446
wasn't dismissed with prejudice retard, basically the judge just said yeah your case isn't good enough try again.

>>1460496
>try again
Statute of limitations.

>>1460496
Im making fun of Trump saying that the Muller report cleared him