U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the case against Comey, which accused him of making a false statement and obstructing Congress, in a 29-page ruling:
Mr. Comey now moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Ms. Halligan, the sole prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury, was unlawfully appointed in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. As explained below, I agree with Mr. Comey that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid. And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.
Former Justice Department Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle said the ruling was incorrect “for many reasons,” including “that dismissal of these indictments is the WRONG remedy.”
“Both indictments were ratified by senior DOJ leadership, including the AG,” he added. “This may delay justice, but it won’t stop it. An appeal is coming. Comey and James are not off the hook.”
Currie sided with Comey’s defense attorneys, who argued, per the ruling, that the code “‘limits the total tenure of the Attorney General’s interim appointments to 120 days’ and therefore ‘precludes an additional appointment by the Attorney General after the expiration of that 120-day period.’”
While subsection (a) of the code grants the attorney general the authority to appoint an interim attorney for 120 days, Currie finds that the code is “unambiguous,” and subsection (d) provides judges in the district the authority to appoint a new interim U.S. attorney to head up the district.
“If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court,” subsection d reads, according to Cornell Law.
“The text and structure of subsection (d) in particular make clear the appointment power (1) shifts to the district court after the 120-day period and (2) does not revert to the Attorney General if a court-appointed U.S. Attorney leaves office before a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney is installed,” Currie ruled.
Prosecutors had contended that “the law does not explicitly prevent successive appointments of interim U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department, and that even if Halligan’s appointment is deemed invalid, the proper fix is not the dismissal of the indictment,” the Associated Press reported.
The case against New York Attorney General Letitia James was also brought under Halligan in the Eastern District, and James’s and Comey’s attorneys had worked together to ask Currie to dismiss the indictments, as the New York Times reported.
Erik Siebert had served as the interim attorney for the district, and after his 120 days in the post expired, district judges agreed that he should remain until his Senate confirmation. While the Associated Press reported that Siebert resigned ahead of his confirmation, Trump contended he fired him in a Truth Social post directed toward Attorney General Pam Bondi, adding there is a “GREAT” mortgage fraud case against the New York attorney general, who made it a core component of her campaign to prosecute Trump.
“A Woke RINO, who was never going to do his job. That’s why two of the worst Dem Senators PUSHED him so hard. He even lied to the media and said he quit, and that we had no case. No, I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so,” Trump wrote, while plugging Halligan for the position.
The case is the United States v. Comey, No. 1:25-cr-00272-MSN-WEF in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s Alexandria Division.
Breitbart News
Read the full article .
