I guess it’s all academic since Halligan’s misconduct took place before this nomination. I am a little surprised Kuo didn’t mention this … but I guess since her nomination never got out of committee, it’s essentially the same as never having been nominated.
US Attorney - Nominated/Confirmed
To be a lawful US attorney, Halligan needs to be confirmed by the Senate. That never happened. The nomination on its own is meaningless to whether she was lawful or not. It is odd that no one has ever mentioned it before - like to the point I doubted whether it was true or not, but the cite is the actual source of info for that.
Interim US Attorney
The other way is to be lawfully appointed interim attorney until the Senate confirms you which is the source of debate/dismissal/appeal. Here, the interim period was used up so Halligan needed to wait for confirmation.
Special Attorney
The other other way to bypass all of that is to be appointed a special prosecutor. That was tried on Oct 31 in this case. Didn’t work because it tried to be retroactive to before the Indictment, and Bondi had already tried to appoint Halligan to be an interim at that time - can’t say Halligan is both. AG Bondi has broad discretion here, but I doubt she can appoint Halligan special prosecutor for the sole purpose of getting around being a valid US attorney.
In the future on Trump’s retribution tour, I imagine if DOJ can’t find a willing appointed US prosecutor (which do exist), they will go the special prosecutor route.
Yet another — albeit temporary — roadblock*, this time regarding admissibility of evidence, which strikes me as more substantial than an illegal prosecutor.
A federal judge dealt a setback Saturday to the Justice Department’s effort to re-indict former FBI Director James Comey, blocking prosecutors’ access to key evidence from email accounts and a computer belonging to close Comey friend and attorney Daniel Richman.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted a temporary restraining order sought by Richman’s lawyers, requiring that the evidence be sequestered pending a ruling on Richman’s claim that the government illegally retained his emails and other data.
“The Court concludes that Petitioner Richman is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that the Government has violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures by retaining a complete copy of all files on his personal computer (an ‘image’ of the computer) and searching that image without a warrant,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in a four-page order filed Saturday, one day after Richman’s attorneys requested the emergency order.
--------------------------------Richman’s attorneys have argued that prosecutors and investigators were obliged to return or destroy the data once the initial investigations concluded and that the FBI appears to have examined data not within the scope of the warrants.
It’s unclear just how significant a lack of access to Richman’s records would be for the Justice Department’s efforts to re-indict Comey. Investigators would likely have access to some of the emails from other sources. However, Comey’s lawyers have already argued that access to Richman’s data tainted the investigation that led to Comey’s indictment in September on charges of lying to and obstructing a Senate committee.
And U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick, who helped manage the Comey case, said the lone grand jury witness — an FBI case agent — may have viewed material that should have been protected, threatening the entire case.
No comment from the InJustice Department yet, though they will certainly argue otherwise. According to the article, they have till Tuesday to respond.
* Sorry, Discourse refused a preview. Something about a missing image.
Related.
Grand jury declines to indict N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James, less than two weeks after the first case was dismissed
Federal officials failed to secure the new indictment against James, whom Trump has targeted, after a judge said the previous one was secured by an unlawfully appointed prosecutor.
Multiple sources.
Revenge tour going as well as 2020 election cases.
Interesting nugget of information in the NBC News story:
So the Prez doesn’t know the difference between sending a secure private e-mail to the Attorney General, and posting on Truth Social.
I’m surprised. This is my surprised face 
It certainly provides support for a defence of politically motivated prosecution.
Well, this is the same guy that tried to declassify things the same way Michael Scott tried to declare bankruptcy.
At least he hasn’t appointed Michael Scott to the Cabinet. Yet.
Michael Scott is a Democrat so that would be weird.
He was recently amazed and angry that a Democrat he pardoned didn’t immediately switch political parties so…maybe not so weird.
Aaaaaaaand Lindsey’s outta here!
Every time I see that photo of Lindsey, the theme music to Charlie’s Angels( 70s tv show, not modern movie) plays in my head.
I may get censured for objectification of women, but 70s Charlie’s Angels were both more beautiful and effective in fighting crime than Ms. Halligan ever was.
gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.23.0.pdf
from the above ruling:
The Court recognizes that Ms. Halligan lacks the prosecutorial experience that has long
been the norm for those nominated to the position of United States Attorney in this District.
Consequently, and in light of her inexperience, the Court grants Ms. Halligan the benefit of the
doubt and refrains from referring her for further investigation and disciplinary action regarding
her misrepresentations to this Court at this time. However, this Memorandum Order provides
notice that, should Ms. Halligan persist in ignoring Judge Currie’s Orders and this Memorandum
Order in any matter before the undersigned, the Court will initiate disciplinary proceedings
against Ms. Halligan and any other signatory to an offending pleading pursuant to Federal Rule
of Disciplinary Enforcement V(A).
i was kinda hoping they would touch the hot stove again, and bondi, blanche, and haligan would end up in disciplinary proceedings.
Good heavens, that was some fun reading. While the whole 18 pages were worth reading, pretty much all of you should read at least the conclusion. Not sure I can readily think of seeing a judicial opinion that quite so blatantly smacks down an attorney - not to mention a government prosecutor. And I’ve read one or 2 decisions in my day. 
The Eastern District of Virginia has long enjoyed the service of experienced prosecutors
with unquestioned integrity from both political parties serving as the United States Attorney.
Despite coming from different political backgrounds and holding very different ideological
views, they all shared an unwavering commitment to the Rule of Law, putting the interests of the
citizens of the District before their own personal ambitions, as true public servants do.
Unfortunately, it appears that this ethos has come to an end. A district judge acting at the
direction of the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit has ruled on behalf of the district judges of this
District that Ms. Halligan was invalidly appointed as the United States Attorney. No matter all of
her machinations, Ms. Halligan has no legal basis to represent to this Court that she holds the
position. And any such representation going forward can only be described as a false statement
made in direct defiance of valid court orders. In short, this charade of Ms. Halligan
masquerading as the United States Attorney for this District in direct defiance of binding court
orders must come to an end.
the above from pg. 17 is my favourite. charade and masquerade. brilliant!
Yeah - that is a fucking hoot! If you do not regularly read DCt opinions, you might not appreciate how “in your face” this language is.
So much winning! 
Inappropriate Post Hidden
I’ll just pile on. Here is Halligan in a reality TV show “South Beach Tow” in a skimpy swimsuit. Being on TV is a requirement to be in the Trump Administration, apparently.
Moderating:
@CoolHandCox, we’re really trying hard to avoid the whole objectifying female (and male if it comes up) public figures based on their appearance. It’s bad enough if you were to do it in the Pit, but really out of line for P&E. There’s plenty to discuss about the political figure in question’s qualifications or lack thereof without this. No warning but please do not do this again. I’ve hidden the post.