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 #30 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 3:11pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78131 Gender:	Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases Reply #31 - Nov 26^th, 2025 at 4:30pm 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
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 27866
Gender: male

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #32 - Yesterday at 8:26am

Karnal wrote on 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.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 54339
Gender: male

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #33 - Yesterday at 12:39pm

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.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 147632 Gender:	Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases Reply #34 - Yesterday at 2:26pm Frank wrote Yesterday 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 99648

Re: Federal Judge throws out Comey/James cases
Reply #35 - Yesterday at 9:50pm

Armchair_Politician wrote Yesterday at 8:26am: