Australian Politics Forum - Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 147632
Gender: male

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #15 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 9:21am

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

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

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

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.

And what substance would that be?

Oh look - he's gone. Poof!

I'm sure Frank will give us an answer.

Any minute now.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 54344
Gender: male

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #16 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 10:14am

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

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-indictment...

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.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 27866
Gender: male

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #17 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 10:39am

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

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

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-indictment...

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 147632
Gender: male

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #18 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 10:42am

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

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

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.

And what substance would that be?

Frank?

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 54344
Gender: male

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #19 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 11:07am

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

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

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

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-indictment...

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.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 27866
Gender: male

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #20 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 11:44am

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

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

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

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

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-indictment...

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 53974 Gender:	Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases Reply #21 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 11:56am Meanwhile. ANTIFA are preparing to make war. Here come the massacres
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 147632
Gender: male

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #22 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 11:58am

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

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

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

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

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-indictment...

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 60746
Here
Gender: male

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #23 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 12:18pm

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

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

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

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-indictment...

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 54344
Gender: male

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #24 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 12:51pm

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

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

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

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

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

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-indictment...

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-fo...

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

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 99648

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #25 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 12:52pm

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 99648

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #26 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 12:53pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-indictment...

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-fo...

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

Miam miam, no?

Back to top

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 27866
Gender: male

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #27 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 1:05pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-indictment...

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-fo...

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 99648

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #28 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 1:12pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-indictment...

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-fo...

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 147632
Gender: male

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #29 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 2:50pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-indictment...

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-fo...

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.

Back to top

IP Logged