NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
New York Attorney General Letitia James might want to “hold back” from celebrating after a Clinton-appointed federal judge dismissed bank fraud charges against her, constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said Monday.
“This is likely to be appealed by the Trump administration, which is arguing that the courts too narrowly construed a statute,” Turley explained on “Hannity.”
“There’s a statute that says when there’s a vacancy in the U.S. attorney, the president can appoint someone for 120 days as the interim U.S. attorney, but the predecessor to [Lindsey] Halligan had already used that period up. And, after 120 days goes by, it then becomes the power of the court to appoint a successor.”
Judge Cameron Currie threw out the indictments against James and former FBI Director James Comey on Monday, after finding they were illegitimate because they were brought by an unqualified U.S. attorney.
JAMES COMEY SEEKS TO DISMISS HIS CRIMINAL CASE, CITING ‘VINDICTIVE’ PROSECUTION
Both cases were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the charges could be brought again.
Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters Monday that the Department of Justice will be taking “all available legal action, including an immediate appeal, to hold Letitia James and James Comey accountable for their unlawful conduct.”
Moments after the dismissals were announced, James reacted with a statement:
“I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country,” she said.
FEDERAL JUDGE DISMISSES JAMES COMEY, LETITIA JAMES INDICTMENTS
“I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day.”
Turley warned James against taking a “victory lap” after the decision.
“I think she missed the two words that followed dismissal, and it was dismissal without prejudice. So the Trump administration, even if they lose on appeal, could seek out a new indictment. This is not over for James or Comey. The judge specifically said, ‘I am not going to grant your motion to dismiss with prejudice. I’m going to allow them to cure this problem.'”
Former Trump impeachment lawyer David Schoen agreed Monday that the development is not a “major setback” for the Trump administration.
“It was obviously going to happen, but I think they’re wrong in the arguments for a couple of reasons,” he told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“There are some pretty esteemed scholars, Steve Calabresi, Paul Cassell, who have explained why the courts just have it wrong with this. Professor Calabresi says this section of the law, 546, is unconstitutional. It invades the executive power, and he cites a couple of recent cases that talk about the exclusive executive power to appoint a representative of the executive branch,” he explained.
“Cassell says it’s constitutional, but that the president has the right to appoint successive interim U.S. attorneys, or in this case, she could act as acting U.S. attorney.”
Fox News’ Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.
Latest & Breaking News on Fox News
Read the full article .
