here is the ruling in comey’s case:
gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.213.0_1.pdf
and in the james case:
Any reaction from Der Oranger on this? An all caps missive? Maybe it’s too early in the day. (May the record reflect that it is currently 4:24 pm central)
Perhaps we’ll hear something around 2 or 3 am.
You’re absolutely right.
Yet they are going to continue to file bogus charges and will have an easier path to do it next time, if the AG is not dumb. It’s an end around having to use a DOJ prosecutor with the oversight mostly being the AG. I would keep my eye out on what type of prosecutor brings the next set of charges in the next case.
On the one had, you want them dumb so the vindictiveness fails quickly in court. On the other hand, it’s just shameful since it’s a really important job and there are actual criminals that need attention and focus.
Disappointment for me. Judge took the easy way out. I’d much rather him dismiss the charges with prejudice citing prosecutorial misconduct and blatant political meddling - naming Trump’s influence as a major factor.
Those claims are still out there, of course. If this decision gets overturned or the DOJ tries to come back with a different prosecution team (ya know, one that is legal), then there is still every chance that the Comey case gets dismissed for one of the other reasons.
There are two Judge’s involved in Comey’s case. Judge Nachmanoff is the main Judge in the Comey case overseeing all the motions to dismiss except for Halligan’s unlawful appointment which is the dismissal just granted.
That motion (and James) was referred to Judge Currie who is not in the same district that Halligan practices. It would have been awkward had the motion been granted by the main Judge and for Halligan to still have to appear in front that same Judge in other cases. This is a typical thing that is done.
I’m not sure of the coordination or anything between these two Judges, but the Judge who dismissed only had one motion to decide and granted.
I agree. We’ve discussed this in the past, judges issuing limited decisions, seeming to go the extra mile to give this lawless administration every benefit under the law. When it is clear that they are acting with utter disregard of the law. I’m not sure such pragmatism will render appeals/reversals more or less likely.
Well, they have to act in the best interests of the people involved, they can only deal with the best interests of society if those are aligned.
But I can see this being a good thing. We know Trump will continue this bullshit for as long as he can. So, they lost on this case, “Don’t use illegal appointees!” Fine, next time they make sure they appoint the person properly. Firstly, that’s a win, because we know doing things the correct way is difficult, Trump hates it, and they’re running out of qualified people anyways.
But, secondly, this means the next person targeted can then litigate on all the other, more substantial bullshit. Seeing Trump’s crap knocked down piece by piece, over several cases, by multiple judges, will be sweet.
I’m just happy any time Trump loses at something.
As I understand it, this judge’s sole task was whether Halligan was illegally appointed. She had no input in any other motions before the court regarding the James or Comey cases. Those justices still have the discretion to dismiss the charges for vindictive prosecution or other reasons, should the cases be revived.
ETA: I am not a lawyer. I may not have the exact details correct.
Thanks, makes sense now.
re: unlawful appointment
It might turn out to be the best long-term reason for dismissal. DOJ has several interim appointments just like Halligan (eg, Alina Habba) to avoid being properly nominated and confirmed by Senate. Hopefully these all culminate to the Supreme Court who can make a broad ruling that you can’t use this loophole to get around nomination/confirmation process.
With that said, it looks like the DOJ is going to just start getting a friendly Judge in Cannon rather than worry about prosecutors. This is where they are pushing the Russia stuff. No idea how that would be a proper venue but never doubt the conspiracy theory mind to come up with something.
FWIW, here’s Anna Bower, with LegalEagle, covering what she saw happen in court. I believe this was made before the dismissal.
FWIW, here’s how Anna Bower found herself mixed up in all this.
alina habba, sigal chattah, bill essayli, and now lindsey halligan have been found to be unlawfully appointed.
with the comey and james indictment, halligan was the only prosecutor on the case, so those get dismissed.
yes, i did enjoy watching that last night. as the various filings went flying many youtube videos are being made. some are highly entertaining.
Factual question- has DJT ever officially nominated Halligan to be confirmed by the Senate? I’m having trouble finding a definitive answer.
Trump never did nominate Halligan for Senate review. Jay Kuo’s piece today goes over the shenanigans in some detail. The relevant section is probably too long to post in this thread, but it’s the ten paragraphs starting with:
“Siebert had already decided not to bring charges against Comey and James due to insufficient evidence”
… and ending with:
“Why would Congress give district courts the power to appoint if the AG could simply override them forever?”
as far as i can tell. no.
there was a social media thing, but nothing official.
Trump says he is appointing Lindsey Halligan, one of his former attorneys, to lead key prosecutor’s office - ABC News
The post went on to say: “What we don’t need is a Democrat Endorsed ‘Republican.’ I will be nominating Lindsey Halligan to be the United States Attorney in this very important part of our Great Country. She will be Fair, Smart, and will provide, desperately needed, JUSTICE FOR ALL!”
rather like the indictment, it appears to be all talk with nothing to back it up.
bondi appointed halligan (failed), then bondi tried to back date halligan as a special prosecutor (failed) , now bondi is stating that halligan is now a special prosecutor (‘We have made Lindsay Halligan a special US attorney so she is in court, she can fight in court just like she was, and we believe we will be successful on appeal,’ Bondi said.) press conference yesterday.
no proper nomination is even mentioned for halligan.
Yes. She was formally nominated on Sep 30, 2025. Nothing was ever done in the Senate.
-
09/30/2025 - [Presidential Nomination] Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
For context, Halligan was appointed “interim” US attorney by Bondi on Sep 22 and she indicted Comey on Sep 25.
Late: I didn’t know this until about 5mins ago. And I’ve been following this case pretty close.