A federal judge has officially dismissed the criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. This significant ruling came after U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie determined that the prosecutor responsible for bringing the cases, former Trump attorney Lindsey Halligan, was not lawfully appointed. The judge's decision emphasizes the importance of proper legal authority in prosecutorial actions.
Judge Currie stated that she concurred with Comey’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on the illegal appointment of Halligan. “Because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment,” Currie wrote. She pointed out that Halligan’s actions, including securing and signing Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power.
In her findings, Currie described Halligan as a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, further questioning the legitimacy of her role. The judge issued a similar ruling regarding the indictment against James, indicating that Halligan's lack of authority was detrimental to both cases.
Judge Currie highlighted the unprecedented nature of the situation, noting that Halligan, an unconstitutionally appointed prosecutor, acted alone in conducting a grand jury proceeding and securing indictments. Halligan, who was appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia at the direction of former President Donald Trump, was the only prosecutor to present the cases and sign the indictments.
Both indictments were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they could potentially be refiled in the future. However, Comey and James have other motions pending in their cases, arguing that the charges stem from a “selective and vindictive” prosecution. They seek to have the cases dismissed with prejudice, which would prevent prosecutors from reviving them.
The invalidation of Halligan’s appointment has far-reaching implications, particularly concerning other cases handled under similar circumstances. For instance, a comparable ruling disqualified Alina Habba as the U.S. attorney in New Jersey, resulting in several criminal cases under her oversight being stalled while she appeals the decision.
During a joint hearing on the issue, which took place on November 13, Judge Currie appeared skeptical of the Justice Department's stance, as prosecutors attempted to downplay concerns regarding Halligan's appointment as merely a paperwork error. Comey’s attorney insisted that such a characterization was misleading and highlighted a fatal flaw in the prosecution.
James Comey faced charges of making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation, while Letitia James was indicted on charges of bank fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution. Both defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges. Notably, Halligan was the only prosecutor to present their cases to the grand jury, despite recommendations from other prosecutors against moving forward with charges due to insufficient evidence.
Trump announced Halligan’s appointment as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia shortly after he ousted his initial pick, Erik Siebert, who had resisted pressure to prosecute Comey and James. Legal experts flagged Halligan's appointment as problematic, citing federal statutes that dictate individuals in such positions can only serve for 120 days unless confirmed by the Senate.
Since the Senate had not confirmed Siebert, federal judges exercised their authority to retain him beyond the 120-day limit. Lawyers for Comey and James argued that the responsibility to appoint his replacement lay with the judges, not Attorney General Pam Bondi. They contended that allowing otherwise would undermine the legal framework established by Congress.
The Justice Department claimed that Halligan’s appointment was valid since the position was vacant following Siebert's departure. They maintained that the Senate had not formally rejected Halligan’s nomination, which remains pending. The department argued that the appointment process was lawful and sought to have motions to dismiss the charges denied.
The dismissal of the indictments against Comey and James not only highlights the significance of lawful appointments in the prosecutorial process but also raises questions about the validity of other cases under similar circumstances. As legal battles continue, the fallout from Halligan’s disqualification could have lasting consequences for various ongoing prosecutions.