The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :)

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed

Hopefully her legal career is over.

Takeaways from Lindsey Halligan’s disqualification and dismissal of the James Comey and Letitia James cases

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25^th, 2025 at 10:02am:

Hopefully her legal career is over. Takeaways from Lindsey Halligan’s disqualification and dismissal of the James Comey and Letitia James cases

Did she ever have one? Wasn't she once an insurance attorney?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25^th, 2025 at 9:40am:

The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed

The fat lady has not sung yet....


The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James.

Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets.

In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice.

No comment on Halligan's unlawful appointment and embarrassingly incompetent performance, Frank?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25^th, 2025 at 11:04am:

No comment on Halligan's unlawful appointment and embarrassingly incompetent performance, Frank?

technicality.

Has ZERO relevance to the substance of Comey's or James's charges.

Count 'em: ZERO.

Frank wrote on Nov 25^th, 2025 at 11:12am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:04am: No comment on Halligan's unlawful appointment and embarrassingly incompetent performance, Frank? technicality. Has ZERO relevance to the substance of Comey's or James's charges. Count 'em: ZERO.

And what substance would that be?

Frank wrote on Nov 25^th, 2025 at 11:12am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:04am: No comment on Halligan's unlawful appointment and embarrassingly incompetent performance, Frank? technicality. Has ZERO relevance to the substance of Comey's or James's charges. Count 'em: ZERO.

No - not a technicality. A legality. There's actually a big difference.

Frank wrote on Nov 25^th, 2025 at 10:14am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 9:40am: The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed The fat lady has not sung yet.... The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James. Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets. In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice.

without prejudice.

In the Comey case it makes no difference as the clock has expired.

This dismissal is on the claim that Halligan could never hold that job of interim US attorney which makes the without prejudice the correct ruling. Had it been the ruling on the non existing endictment it would be with prejudice and it still would make no difference. There are also about 4 other good reasons to have thrown the case out.

Oh look, she's gone - poof!

Back to where she came from.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25^th, 2025 at 11:13am:

Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:12am: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:04am: No comment on Halligan's unlawful appointment and embarrassingly incompetent performance, Frank? technicality. Has ZERO relevance to the substance of Comey's or James's charges. Count 'em: ZERO. And what substance would that be?

Oh look - he's gone. Poof!

We decide who comes to this country and the manner in which these people come, no?

Karnal wrote on Nov 25^th, 2025 at 10:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:13am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:12am: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:04am: No comment on Halligan's unlawful appointment and embarrassingly incompetent performance, Frank? technicality. Has ZERO relevance to the substance of Comey's or James's charges. Count 'em: ZERO. And what substance would that be? Oh look - he's gone. Poof! We decide who comes to this country and the manner in which these people come, no?

How do you explain ICE arresting and imprisoning American citizens?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 5:15am:

Karnal wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:13am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:12am: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:04am: No comment on Halligan's unlawful appointment and embarrassingly incompetent performance, Frank? technicality. Has ZERO relevance to the substance of Comey's or James's charges. Count 'em: ZERO. And what substance would that be? Oh look - he's gone. Poof! We decide who comes to this country and the manner in which these people come, no? How do you explain ICE arresting and imprisoning American citizens?

For example?

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 7:05am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 5:15am: Karnal wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:13am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:12am: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:04am: No comment on Halligan's unlawful appointment and embarrassingly incompetent performance, Frank? technicality. Has ZERO relevance to the substance of Comey's or James's charges. Count 'em: ZERO. And what substance would that be? Oh look - he's gone. Poof! We decide who comes to this country and the manner in which these people come, no? How do you explain ICE arresting and imprisoning American citizens? For example?

hows this 170 just for starters ::)
https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-citizens-arrested-detained-against-will

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 7:05am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 5:15am: Karnal wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:13am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:12am: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:04am: No comment on Halligan's unlawful appointment and embarrassingly incompetent performance, Frank? technicality. Has ZERO relevance to the substance of Comey's or James's charges. Count 'em: ZERO. And what substance would that be? Oh look - he's gone. Poof! We decide who comes to this country and the manner in which these people come, no? How do you explain ICE arresting and imprisoning American citizens? For example?

It isn't hard to do a search online, you know?

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/05/nx-s1-5598373/npr-fact-checks-kristi-noem-on-ice-detaining-us-citizens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_and_deportation_of_American_citizens_in_the_second_Trump_administration

https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-born-citizen-sues-after-arrested-immigration-agents/story?id=126129734

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2025-11-19/ice-citizens-immigration-enforcement-constitution

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-citizens-ice-arrests-detentions-9.6960504

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ice-deported-3-children-who-are-u-s-citizens-their-families-lawyers-say

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/17/us/lopez-gomez-citizen-detained-ice-florida

Karnal wrote on Nov 25^th, 2025 at 10:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:13am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:12am: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:04am: No comment on Halligan's unlawful appointment and embarrassingly incompetent performance, Frank? technicality. Has ZERO relevance to the substance of Comey's or James's charges. Count 'em: ZERO. And what substance would that be? Oh look - he's gone. Poof!

I'm sure Frank will give us an answer.

Any minute now.

Frank wrote on Nov 25^th, 2025 at 10:14am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 9:40am: The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed The fat lady has not sung yet.... The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James. Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets. In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice.

Former FBI director James Comey has been indicted by a grand jury on two charges: one count of making false statements and one of obstruction of justice.


The US Justice Department has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a lending institution.




Without prejudice = these charges were NOT dismissed by the judge.

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 10:14am:

Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:14am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 9:40am: The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed The fat lady has not sung yet.... The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James. Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets. In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice. Former FBI director James Comey has been indicted by a grand jury on two charges: one count of making false statements and one of obstruction of justice. The US Justice Department has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a lending institution. Without prejudice = these charges were NOT dismissed by the judge.

WRONG. The charges WERE dismissed by the Judge. What "without prejudice" means is that the case can be tried again. If the Judge had said "with prejudice", then that would mean it was final and could not ever be raised in Court again. But yes - the Judge actually did dismiss those charges, so you are wrong.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25^th, 2025 at 11:13am:

Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:12am: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:04am: No comment on Halligan's unlawful appointment and embarrassingly incompetent performance, Frank? technicality. Has ZERO relevance to the substance of Comey's or James's charges. Count 'em: ZERO. And what substance would that be?

Frank?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 10:39am:

Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:14am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:14am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 9:40am: The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed The fat lady has not sung yet.... The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James. Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets. In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice. Former FBI director James Comey has been indicted by a grand jury on two charges: one count of making false statements and one of obstruction of justice. The US Justice Department has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a lending institution. Without prejudice = these charges were NOT dismissed by the judge. WRONG. The charges WERE dismissed by the Judge. What "without prejudice" means is that the case can be tried again. If the Judge had said "with prejudice", then that would mean it was final and could not ever be raised in Court again. But yes - the Judge actually did dismiss those charges, so you are wrong.

The charges were not dismissed. The cases were dismissed form proceeding further IN THEIR PRESENT submission because of the authority of the judicial officer who brought them was ruled unlawful - a temporary appointment immediately after anther temporary appointment.

Without prejudice means that the charges themselves were not disputed by the judge aither way and she made no ruling on them. Only in the technical aspect inwhich the case s were brought.




It's bad enough that you only read the lefty agit prop news - but you dont comprehend even what they are saying.

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 11:07am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:39am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:14am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:14am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 9:40am: The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed The fat lady has not sung yet.... The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James. Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets. In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice. Former FBI director James Comey has been indicted by a grand jury on two charges: one count of making false statements and one of obstruction of justice. The US Justice Department has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a lending institution. Without prejudice = these charges were NOT dismissed by the judge. WRONG. The charges WERE dismissed by the Judge. What "without prejudice" means is that the case can be tried again. If the Judge had said "with prejudice", then that would mean it was final and could not ever be raised in Court again. But yes - the Judge actually did dismiss those charges, so you are wrong. The charges were not dismissed. The cases were dismissed form proceeding further IN THEIR PRESENT submission because of the authority of the judicial officer who brought them was ruled unlawful - a temporary appointment immediately after anther temporary appointment. Without prejudice means that the charges themselves were not disputed by the judge aither way and she made no ruling on them. Only in the technical aspect inwhich the case s were brought. It's bad enough that you only read the lefty agit prop news - but you dont comprehend even what they are saying.

Sorry, but the Judge did dismiss the indictments against James Comey and Leticia James without prejudice. It's just a fact. Not that I expect a rusted on MAGA cult member like you to think for yourself - only whatever your Dear Leader tells you to think.

Meanwhile. ANTIFA are preparing to make war.
Here come the massacres

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 11:07am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:39am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:14am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:14am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 9:40am: The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed The fat lady has not sung yet.... The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James. Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets. In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice. Former FBI director James Comey has been indicted by a grand jury on two charges: one count of making false statements and one of obstruction of justice. The US Justice Department has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a lending institution. Without prejudice = these charges were NOT dismissed by the judge. WRONG. The charges WERE dismissed by the Judge. What "without prejudice" means is that the case can be tried again. If the Judge had said "with prejudice", then that would mean it was final and could not ever be raised in Court again. But yes - the Judge actually did dismiss those charges, so you are wrong. The charges were not dismissed. The cases were dismissed form proceeding further IN THEIR PRESENT submission because of the authority of the judicial officer who brought them was ruled unlawful - a temporary appointment immediately after anther temporary appointment. Without prejudice means that the charges themselves were not disputed by the judge aither way and she made no ruling on them. Only in the technical aspect inwhich the case s were brought. It's bad enough that you only read the lefty agit prop news - but you dont comprehend even what they are saying.

Incorrect.

The indictment was dismissed.

4. Ms. James’s motion to dismiss the indictment (ECF No. 22) is granted in accordance with this order.
5. The indictment is dismissed without prejudice.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 10:39am:

Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:14am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:14am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 9:40am: The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed The fat lady has not sung yet.... The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James. Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets. In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice. Former FBI director James Comey has been indicted by a grand jury on two charges: one count of making false statements and one of obstruction of justice. The US Justice Department has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a lending institution. Without prejudice = these charges were NOT dismissed by the judge. WRONG. The charges WERE dismissed by the Judge. What "without prejudice" means is that the case can be tried again. If the Judge had said "with prejudice", then that would mean it was final and could not ever be raised in Court again. But yes - the Judge actually did dismiss those charges, so you are wrong.

Considering the clock ran down the day after these charges were laid there is likely no opportunity to re file charges with the statute of limitations expired.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 11:58am:

Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 11:07am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:39am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:14am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:14am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 9:40am: The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed The fat lady has not sung yet.... The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James. Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets. In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice. Former FBI director James Comey has been indicted by a grand jury on two charges: one count of making false statements and one of obstruction of justice. The US Justice Department has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a lending institution. Without prejudice = these charges were NOT dismissed by the judge. WRONG. The charges WERE dismissed by the Judge. What "without prejudice" means is that the case can be tried again. If the Judge had said "with prejudice", then that would mean it was final and could not ever be raised in Court again. But yes - the Judge actually did dismiss those charges, so you are wrong. The charges were not dismissed. The cases were dismissed form proceeding further IN THEIR PRESENT submission because of the authority of the judicial officer who brought them was ruled unlawful - a temporary appointment immediately after anther temporary appointment. Without prejudice means that the charges themselves were not disputed by the judge aither way and she made no ruling on them. Only in the technical aspect inwhich the case s were brought. It's bad enough that you only read the lefty agit prop news - but you dont comprehend even what they are saying. Incorrect. The indictment was dismissed. 4. Ms. James’s motion to dismiss the indictment (ECF No. 22) is granted in accordance with this order. 5. The indictment is dismissed without prejudice.

Currie’s “without prejudice” reference means the dismissal did not address what legal scholars like me call the merits or substance of the underlying criminal charges.

A “without prejudice” dismissal is legalese for “you can try again if you can fix the problems with your case.” Had the judge ruled that the dismissals were “with prejudice,” that would have meant the government could not have brought the cases again.
https://theconversation.com/without-prejudice-what-this-2-word-legalese-means-for-the-dismissed-charges-against-james-comey-and-letitia-james-270559

The statute of limitations iss also arguable. Not for the James case, though.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 5:15am:

Karnal wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:13am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:12am: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 11:04am: No comment on Halligan's unlawful appointment and embarrassingly incompetent performance, Frank? technicality. Has ZERO relevance to the substance of Comey's or James's charges. Count 'em: ZERO. And what substance would that be? Oh look - he's gone. Poof! We decide who comes to this country and the manner in which these people come, no? How do you explain ICE arresting and imprisoning American citizens?

Oh, that's easy. ICE are the big fella's shock troops, a kind of personal guard.

What does citizenship have to do with it? They're tinted.

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 12:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 11:58am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 11:07am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:39am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:14am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:14am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 9:40am: The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed The fat lady has not sung yet.... The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James. Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets. In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice. Former FBI director James Comey has been indicted by a grand jury on two charges: one count of making false statements and one of obstruction of justice. The US Justice Department has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a lending institution. Without prejudice = these charges were NOT dismissed by the judge. WRONG. The charges WERE dismissed by the Judge. What "without prejudice" means is that the case can be tried again. If the Judge had said "with prejudice", then that would mean it was final and could not ever be raised in Court again. But yes - the Judge actually did dismiss those charges, so you are wrong. The charges were not dismissed. The cases were dismissed form proceeding further IN THEIR PRESENT submission because of the authority of the judicial officer who brought them was ruled unlawful - a temporary appointment immediately after anther temporary appointment. Without prejudice means that the charges themselves were not disputed by the judge aither way and she made no ruling on them. Only in the technical aspect inwhich the case s were brought. It's bad enough that you only read the lefty agit prop news - but you dont comprehend even what they are saying. Incorrect. The indictment was dismissed. 4. Ms. James’s motion to dismiss the indictment (ECF No. 22) is granted in accordance with this order. 5. The indictment is dismissed without prejudice. Currie’s “without prejudice” reference means the dismissal did not address what legal scholars like me call the merits or substance of the underlying criminal charges. A “without prejudice” dismissal is legalese for “you can try again if you can fix the problems with your case.” Had the judge ruled that the dismissals were “with prejudice,” that would have meant the government could not have brought the cases again. https://theconversation.com/without-prejudice-what-this-2-word-legalese-means-for-the-dismissed-charges-against-james-comey-and-letitia-james-270559 The statute of limitations iss also arguable. Not for the James case, though.

Miam miam, no?

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 12:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 11:58am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 11:07am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:39am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:14am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:14am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 9:40am: The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed The fat lady has not sung yet.... The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James. Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets. In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice. Former FBI director James Comey has been indicted by a grand jury on two charges: one count of making false statements and one of obstruction of justice. The US Justice Department has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a lending institution. Without prejudice = these charges were NOT dismissed by the judge. WRONG. The charges WERE dismissed by the Judge. What "without prejudice" means is that the case can be tried again. If the Judge had said "with prejudice", then that would mean it was final and could not ever be raised in Court again. But yes - the Judge actually did dismiss those charges, so you are wrong. The charges were not dismissed. The cases were dismissed form proceeding further IN THEIR PRESENT submission because of the authority of the judicial officer who brought them was ruled unlawful - a temporary appointment immediately after anther temporary appointment. Without prejudice means that the charges themselves were not disputed by the judge aither way and she made no ruling on them. Only in the technical aspect inwhich the case s were brought. It's bad enough that you only read the lefty agit prop news - but you dont comprehend even what they are saying. Incorrect. The indictment was dismissed. 4. Ms. James’s motion to dismiss the indictment (ECF No. 22) is granted in accordance with this order. 5. The indictment is dismissed without prejudice. Currie’s “without prejudice” reference means the dismissal did not address what legal scholars like me call the merits or substance of the underlying criminal charges. A “without prejudice” dismissal is legalese for “you can try again if you can fix the problems with your case.” Had the judge ruled that the dismissals were “with prejudice,” that would have meant the government could not have brought the cases again. https://theconversation.com/without-prejudice-what-this-2-word-legalese-means-for-the-dismissed-charges-against-james-comey-and-letitia-james-270559 The statute of limitations iss also arguable. Not for the James case, though.

Doesn't matter anymore now because of statute of limitations expiry.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 1:05pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 12:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 11:58am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 11:07am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:39am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:14am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:14am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 9:40am: The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed The fat lady has not sung yet.... The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James. Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets. In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice. Former FBI director James Comey has been indicted by a grand jury on two charges: one count of making false statements and one of obstruction of justice. The US Justice Department has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a lending institution. Without prejudice = these charges were NOT dismissed by the judge. WRONG. The charges WERE dismissed by the Judge. What "without prejudice" means is that the case can be tried again. If the Judge had said "with prejudice", then that would mean it was final and could not ever be raised in Court again. But yes - the Judge actually did dismiss those charges, so you are wrong. The charges were not dismissed. The cases were dismissed form proceeding further IN THEIR PRESENT submission because of the authority of the judicial officer who brought them was ruled unlawful - a temporary appointment immediately after anther temporary appointment. Without prejudice means that the charges themselves were not disputed by the judge aither way and she made no ruling on them. Only in the technical aspect inwhich the case s were brought. It's bad enough that you only read the lefty agit prop news - but you dont comprehend even what they are saying. Incorrect. The indictment was dismissed. 4. Ms. James’s motion to dismiss the indictment (ECF No. 22) is granted in accordance with this order. 5. The indictment is dismissed without prejudice. Currie’s “without prejudice” reference means the dismissal did not address what legal scholars like me call the merits or substance of the underlying criminal charges. A “without prejudice” dismissal is legalese for “you can try again if you can fix the problems with your case.” Had the judge ruled that the dismissals were “with prejudice,” that would have meant the government could not have brought the cases again. https://theconversation.com/without-prejudice-what-this-2-word-legalese-means-for-the-dismissed-charges-against-james-comey-and-letitia-james-270559 The statute of limitations iss also arguable. Not for the James case, though. Doesn't matter anymore now because of statute of limitations expiry.

That's unfair, Armchair. Why should Comey evade justice because of some silly rule?

The old boy's always been big on holding powerful Republicans like Comey to account, you know. He's always stood for the rule of law.

Despicable stuff.

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 12:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 11:58am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 11:07am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:39am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:14am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:14am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 9:40am: The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed The fat lady has not sung yet.... The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James. Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets. In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice. Former FBI director James Comey has been indicted by a grand jury on two charges: one count of making false statements and one of obstruction of justice. The US Justice Department has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a lending institution. Without prejudice = these charges were NOT dismissed by the judge. WRONG. The charges WERE dismissed by the Judge. What "without prejudice" means is that the case can be tried again. If the Judge had said "with prejudice", then that would mean it was final and could not ever be raised in Court again. But yes - the Judge actually did dismiss those charges, so you are wrong. The charges were not dismissed. The cases were dismissed form proceeding further IN THEIR PRESENT submission because of the authority of the judicial officer who brought them was ruled unlawful - a temporary appointment immediately after anther temporary appointment. Without prejudice means that the charges themselves were not disputed by the judge aither way and she made no ruling on them. Only in the technical aspect inwhich the case s were brought. It's bad enough that you only read the lefty agit prop news - but you dont comprehend even what they are saying. Incorrect. The indictment was dismissed. 4. Ms. James’s motion to dismiss the indictment (ECF No. 22) is granted in accordance with this order. 5. The indictment is dismissed without prejudice. Currie’s “without prejudice” reference means the dismissal did not address what legal scholars like me call the merits or substance of the underlying criminal charges. A “without prejudice” dismissal is legalese for “you can try again if you can fix the problems with your case.” Had the judge ruled that the dismissals were “with prejudice,” that would have meant the government could not have brought the cases again. https://theconversation.com/without-prejudice-what-this-2-word-legalese-means-for-the-dismissed-charges-against-james-comey-and-letitia-james-270559 The statute of limitations iss also arguable. Not for the James case, though.

You were wrong, just own it.

4. Ms. James’s motion to dismiss the indictment (ECF No. 22) is granted in accordance with this order.

5. The indictment is dismissed without prejudice.

Having been appointed Interim U.S. Attorney by the Attorney General just two weeks before, Ms. Halligan secured a two-count indictment charging New York Attorney General Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Ms. James 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 Ms. James 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 Ms. James’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 2:50pm:

You were wrong, just own it.

Frank has been proven wrong on almost every topic he gets excited about, and he's never owned his mistakes. Why start now

Karnal wrote on Nov 26^th, 2025 at 1:12pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 1:05pm: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 12:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 11:58am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 11:07am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:39am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:14am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:14am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 9:40am: The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed The fat lady has not sung yet.... The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James. Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets. In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice. Former FBI director James Comey has been indicted by a grand jury on two charges: one count of making false statements and one of obstruction of justice. The US Justice Department has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a lending institution. Without prejudice = these charges were NOT dismissed by the judge. WRONG. The charges WERE dismissed by the Judge. What "without prejudice" means is that the case can be tried again. If the Judge had said "with prejudice", then that would mean it was final and could not ever be raised in Court again. But yes - the Judge actually did dismiss those charges, so you are wrong. The charges were not dismissed. The cases were dismissed form proceeding further IN THEIR PRESENT submission because of the authority of the judicial officer who brought them was ruled unlawful - a temporary appointment immediately after anther temporary appointment. Without prejudice means that the charges themselves were not disputed by the judge aither way and she made no ruling on them. Only in the technical aspect inwhich the case s were brought. It's bad enough that you only read the lefty agit prop news - but you dont comprehend even what they are saying. Incorrect. The indictment was dismissed. 4. Ms. James’s motion to dismiss the indictment (ECF No. 22) is granted in accordance with this order. 5. The indictment is dismissed without prejudice. Currie’s “without prejudice” reference means the dismissal did not address what legal scholars like me call the merits or substance of the underlying criminal charges. A “without prejudice” dismissal is legalese for “you can try again if you can fix the problems with your case.” Had the judge ruled that the dismissals were “with prejudice,” that would have meant the government could not have brought the cases again. https://theconversation.com/without-prejudice-what-this-2-word-legalese-means-for-the-dismissed-charges-against-james-comey-and-letitia-james-270559 The statute of limitations iss also arguable. Not for the James case, though. Doesn't matter anymore now because of statute of limitations expiry. That's unfair, Armchair. Why should Comey evade justice because of some silly rule? The old boy's always been big on holding powerful Republicans like Comey to account, you know. He's always stood for the rule of law. Despicable stuff.

Why did Trump leave it until literally the last minute if he felt so strongly about it?

Trump's Strategy Of Hiring Lawyers Based On Bust Size Not Working As Well As Anticipated


WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Trump's seemingly bulletproof strategy of choosing lawyers exclusively based on bust size has not worked out nearly as well as anticipated.

Trump was left befuddled this week as the administration suffered a string of legal setbacks despite all of his lawyers having large bra sizes.

"How could she lose, she's so hot," wondered Trump. "It doesn't make any sense. Our lawyer clearly has a much larger bust than their lawyer. It's not even close. It's embarrassing, frankly, the bust comparison. We should have won easily. Maybe the judge is gay, or blind. There's no other way to explain it."

White House aides reportedly tried suggesting to Trump that perhaps he should consider other factors besides bust size when choosing a lawyer. "That is so dumb," responded Trump. "It could be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Do you think Sydney Sweeney has lost any arguments lately? Have you ever seen a woman with a large bust lose an argument? No, you haven't. It's ridiculous."

At publishing time, Trump had hired a plastic surgeon to help ensure his lawyers didn't lose any more cases.

Frank wrote on Nov 27^th, 2025 at 12:39pm:

Trump's Strategy Of Hiring Lawyers Based On Bust Size Not Working As Well As Anticipated

So true.

Maybe he should try hiring ones who are competent.

https://static.politico.com/09/0e/a35f8e64447aba70682205c9c719/180615-rudy-giuliani-gty-1160.jpg

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 27^th, 2025 at 8:26am:

Karnal wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 1:12pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 1:05pm: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 12:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 11:58am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 11:07am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:39am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2025 at 10:14am: Frank wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 10:14am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 25th, 2025 at 9:40am: The cases against Letitia James and James Comey should never have happened and now the Federal Judge has thrown out both cases in a huge rebuke to Trump! Well done, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.  :) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed The fat lady has not sung yet.... The dismissals, while embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are unlikely to be the last word on an issue of constitutional authority that many legal experts expect could be appealed to the Supreme Court. And the way Judge Currie rendered her decision left open the possibility that another prosecutor could refile the charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James. Judg Currie’s orders center on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox decision to appoint Ms. Halligan to her prosecutorial position in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Within days after assuming her new post, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of the career prosecutors in her new office and moved single-handedly to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most reviled targets. In her rulings on Monday, Judge Currie said that it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession, and dismissed the charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice. Former FBI director James Comey has been indicted by a grand jury on two charges: one count of making false statements and one of obstruction of justice. The US Justice Department has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a lending institution. Without prejudice = these charges were NOT dismissed by the judge. WRONG. The charges WERE dismissed by the Judge. What "without prejudice" means is that the case can be tried again. If the Judge had said "with prejudice", then that would mean it was final and could not ever be raised in Court again. But yes - the Judge actually did dismiss those charges, so you are wrong. The charges were not dismissed. The cases were dismissed form proceeding further IN THEIR PRESENT submission because of the authority of the judicial officer who brought them was ruled unlawful - a temporary appointment immediately after anther temporary appointment. Without prejudice means that the charges themselves were not disputed by the judge aither way and she made no ruling on them. Only in the technical aspect inwhich the case s were brought. It's bad enough that you only read the lefty agit prop news - but you dont comprehend even what they are saying. Incorrect. The indictment was dismissed. 4. Ms. James’s motion to dismiss the indictment (ECF No. 22) is granted in accordance with this order. 5. The indictment is dismissed without prejudice. Currie’s “without prejudice” reference means the dismissal did not address what legal scholars like me call the merits or substance of the underlying criminal charges. A “without prejudice” dismissal is legalese for “you can try again if you can fix the problems with your case.” Had the judge ruled that the dismissals were “with prejudice,” that would have meant the government could not have brought the cases again. https://theconversation.com/without-prejudice-what-this-2-word-legalese-means-for-the-dismissed-charges-against-james-comey-and-letitia-james-270559 The statute of limitations iss also arguable. Not for the James case, though. Doesn't matter anymore now because of statute of limitations expiry. That's unfair, Armchair. Why should Comey evade justice because of some silly rule? The old boy's always been big on holding powerful Republicans like Comey to account, you know. He's always stood for the rule of law. Despicable stuff. Why did Trump leave it until literally the last minute if he felt so strongly about it?

He wanted to keep Comey on his toes. Four dimensional chess, innit.

The judge said DL can literally appoint anyone he wants as a federal prosecutor. He can pull someone off the street if he wants. That's his right in a free country.

If the leftards don't like it, they can go back to where they came from.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 27^th, 2025 at 8:26am:

Why did Trump leave it until literally the last minute if he felt so strongly about it?

It took Trump till the last minute to find another Lawyer willing to get herself debarred for his petty unsupported prosecutions.

This dumb B1tch was never a valid appointment and she endicted Comey on one charge that the grand Jury had not even seen. How do you get an endictment with no charge ?

Had the case not been thrown out for this reason the non existant charges would have been the next finding to throw the case out.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 27^th, 2025 at 10:14pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 27th, 2025 at 8:26am: Why did Trump leave it until literally the last minute if he felt so strongly about it? It took Trump till the last minute to find another Lawyer willing to get herself debarred for his petty unsupported prosecutions. This dumb B1tch was never a valid appointment and she endicted Comey on one charge that the grand Jury had not even seen. How do you get an endictment with no charge ? Had the case not been thrown out for this reason the non existant charges would have been the next finding to throw the case out.

That's it too. As DL always says, he may not have the smartest lawyers, but boy, does he have the hottest lawyers.

I mean, who cares? He got there in the end, no?