Apologies. Thanks for pointing that out because I don’t actually feel to good about posting that and I kinda knew it when I did it.
[ mod hat on ]
Thank you for the reflection, that’s always appreciated, and glad it was taken as constructive criticism rather than an attack on you and your otherwise fine posting.
[ mod hat off ]
A note brought up in a different article and addressing Halligan’s complaint in the Yahoo News cited above:
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/21/nx-s1-5684189/lindsey-halligan-trump-justice-us-attorney
Federal judges repeatedly stated that Halligan, who once worked as a personal attorney for Trump, had no valid basis to identify herself as the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, ruling that her predecessor, Siebert, had already exhausted the 120-day period for an acting federal prosecutor.
To legally occupy the job now, federal judges said, Halligan or any other potential prosecutor must be either Senate confirmed or appointed by a District Court.
IE, the judge specifically called out on the Trump’s administration of bypassing the Senate or other normal review process to put in his own people. Of course, it is clear that this is NOT the end of the practice, considering the multiplicity of claims of judicial over-reach.
For Comey’s specific case though, I’ll ask the more astute legal members of the board to weigh in. I suspect that even though these indictments have been set aside, that Trump and Co. will take it to the SCOTUS. I suspect that the SCOTUS will let the dismissal stand in a narrow legal ruling for this specific instance or refuse to hear it, but they won’t say anything else to interfere with the current imperial executive stance that the conservative judges have embraced.
I was really ticked off about Pam Bondi’s comments, as seen in the above-linked Yahoo News article.
“The circumstances that led to this outcome are deeply misguided,” Bondi said in a social media post on X announcing Halligan’s exit. “We are living in a time when a democratically elected President’s ability to staff key law enforcement positions faces serious obstacles. The Department of Justice will continue to seek review of decisions like this that hinder our ability to keep the American people safe.”
She’s acting like the POTUS requiring Senate approval for appointments is some kind of new restriction being aimed at Trump as an unprecedented attack, rather than the way that checks and balances work in this country, and a process that the Trump administration is trying to illegally subvert. And she’s the freaking Attorney General for this country.
On a related note:
KUOW - Sidelining Trump appointee, federal judges in Seattle will name new US attorney
Wonderful!
The judges in the Western District of Washington have also used their authority to appoint a U.S. attorney recently. In May 2024 they issued an order to retain Tessa Gorman as U.S. Attorney after Biden’s Senate-confirmed candidate Nick Brown left the office to run successfully for state attorney general.
Gorman was/is a great choice, and a stellar human. I hope she gets her spot back.
Not that I agree or anything, but Bondi is probably talking about why Halligan’s nomination never got voted on. It stalled right away because the Senators from VA didn’t approve it. If no approval from the Senators from the state she is trying to become a prosecutor in, the nomination process requires extra steps and time.
All legit politics, but I suppose frustrating for a President to not have his nominee go through the nomination process. And consistent with what Bondi is saying about a President facing obstacles to staffing key positions.
The other issue would be why this Judge even made this ruling in the first place. Nobody asked him to (ie, filed a motion), which is unusual, and the ruling in the Comey case is not binding on a different district. So…
I’m just the messenger here.
And Trump didn’t want to wait, because he wanted to get Comey and had to scramble to get someone in to do it.
Days before a five-year window closed on September 30 for Comey to face charges over congressional testimony in 2020, then-US Attorney Erik Siebert was pushed out of the position. Siebert had hesitated on bringing the cases against Comey and James, after career prosecutors in the US attorney’s office pushed back against the viability of doing so.
Shortly after Siebert’s ouster, Trump posted a stunning public message addressed to “Pam” on his Truth Social account. In it, he told Bondi they couldn’t “delay any longer” when it came to bringing charges against his political enemies — specifically citing Sen. Adam Schiff, Comey and James. Trump also suggested that Halligan, a White House adviser who was currently working on reviewing exhibits in Smithsonian museums, take over the Virginia office and the cases he wanted to see prosecuted.
“Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot,” Trump wrote. Later, he posted that he intended to nominate Halligan, a former insurance lawyer, to the post.
And the Senate has a right to not approve an appointee. They aren’t obligated to; in fact, they are obligated not to if they feel an appointment isn’t up to the task, and Halligan didn’t have anywhere near the experience for the job. “Trump likes her” isn’t a valid qualification.
Next time he should nominate someone qualified, not just because he personally likes a person. And the only reason why things were urgent was because he wanted to maliciously prosecute someone he had a personal grudge against. I don’t see why anyone should have even the tiniest shred of sympathy for Trump in this situation; it’s solely and entirely a problem of his own making. (I might have a bit of sympathy for Halligan, as she was not prepared at all to do this job and seemed to get no support from DOJ lawyers who did have experience, and I’m not sure if she felt pressured to go along against her own better judgement.)
The POTUS absolutely should face obstacles when he tries to break the rules to enable malicious prosecutions. That’s the system actually working to protect us against him for once, even if only a tiny bit.
I don’t believe she was actually nominated, only plopped in place by Bondi. I could be I corrected.
She couldn’t resign if she never legally held the office.
As a taxpayer, how was she paid and will she have salary clawed back?
Here’s a timeline. Can’t cite now but appointments on congress.gov
She was appointed interim prosecutor for Eastern Virginia by AG on Sep 22, 2025. This last 120 days
She was nominated by Trump for Eastern VIrginia on Sep 30. (Nothing ever happened).
A Judge in North Carolina ruled she was unlawful in Nov 2025.
Trump nominates Halligan again in the Senate. Early Jan 2026
This week, Judge in Eastern district VA rules Halligan unlawful, and, Halligan retires because 120 interim appointment runs out.
And if those DOJ lawyers declined to help because they judged it a misuse of the prosecutorial power, should they be blamed for the resulting clusterfuck?
Which has never ever happened before in the history of the Republic. It’s only Trump who gets screwed that way.
Wah! Wah! Wah!
God, give the crybaby his soother.
SOP for anyone in this administration. Trump is a poor victim of all these concerted attempts to prevent him from doing his job (translation: Trump is not being allowed to do anything and everything he wants, and some people want him to follow established legal rules. Wah.)
Confused. It sounds like she was going through the (you said nomination, I think you meant confirmation?) process and didn’t make it.
What a bunch of snowflakes.
Good catch. Yes, I meant the nominee did not go through the confirmation process. She got nominated and nothing happened after that (until it expired and she got nominated again).
But right, that all sums up to she didn’t make it. I just meant it didn’t make it to a vote. Thankfully.