Federal Judges to Weigh in on Trump-Era Indictments Against High-Profile Targets
In a high-stakes hearing set to take place at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James are set to ask a judge to drop the criminal charges against them. The case centers around allegations that Lindsey Halligan, Trump's personal attorney, was unlawfully appointed as interim US Attorney for the eastern district of Virginia.
The appointment, which was made at Trump's request in September, has been criticized by Comey and James as a blatant attempt to interfere with their investigations into Trump himself. According to prosecutors, Halligan's sole role was to present evidence to grand juries in both cases, raising questions about whether his appointment is truly legitimate.
At the heart of the dispute is a federal law that limits the appointment of an interim US attorney to 120-day stints. Comey and James argue that Halligan's repeated appointments bypass the Senate confirmation process and allow him to serve indefinitely. They claim this would be in direct contravention of the law, which they say was clearly intended to prevent such abuse of power.
The Justice Department, however, argues that nothing in the law "explicitly or implicitly precludes the Attorney General from making additional appointments." In a last-ditch effort to bolster their case, Bondi recently gave Halligan a second title and claimed she was authorized to supervise both prosecutions.
However, outside experts say this attempt to legitimize Halligan's appointment could backfire. Three federal judges have already ruled against the Justice Department on similar issues in other cases, finding that the department's actions were unlawful. Even a 1986 memo written by future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito appears to support Comey and James' interpretation of the law.
Thursday's hearing is a crucial moment for both Comey and James, who face serious charges including bank fraud and obstruction of Congress. The outcome will have significant implications not only for their cases but also for the broader investigation into Trump's dealings with the Justice Department.
In a high-stakes hearing set to take place at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James are set to ask a judge to drop the criminal charges against them. The case centers around allegations that Lindsey Halligan, Trump's personal attorney, was unlawfully appointed as interim US Attorney for the eastern district of Virginia.
The appointment, which was made at Trump's request in September, has been criticized by Comey and James as a blatant attempt to interfere with their investigations into Trump himself. According to prosecutors, Halligan's sole role was to present evidence to grand juries in both cases, raising questions about whether his appointment is truly legitimate.
At the heart of the dispute is a federal law that limits the appointment of an interim US attorney to 120-day stints. Comey and James argue that Halligan's repeated appointments bypass the Senate confirmation process and allow him to serve indefinitely. They claim this would be in direct contravention of the law, which they say was clearly intended to prevent such abuse of power.
The Justice Department, however, argues that nothing in the law "explicitly or implicitly precludes the Attorney General from making additional appointments." In a last-ditch effort to bolster their case, Bondi recently gave Halligan a second title and claimed she was authorized to supervise both prosecutions.
However, outside experts say this attempt to legitimize Halligan's appointment could backfire. Three federal judges have already ruled against the Justice Department on similar issues in other cases, finding that the department's actions were unlawful. Even a 1986 memo written by future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito appears to support Comey and James' interpretation of the law.
Thursday's hearing is a crucial moment for both Comey and James, who face serious charges including bank fraud and obstruction of Congress. The outcome will have significant implications not only for their cases but also for the broader investigation into Trump's dealings with the Justice Department.
so like if you think about it like this:
. and i don't think just because Bondi says something doesn't make it true. 
. I mean, come on, if there's even a smidgeon of a chance they can claim Halligan's appointments were legit, why not just let the Senate do its job and confirm him already? It's like they're more interested in getting out of the hot seat than in serving justice 
. And don't even get me started on Bondi's last-minute power grab - sounds like a total desperate attempt to save face 
. If I were betting, I'd put my money on the federal judges ruling in favor of Comey and James 
I'm not sure what's more shocking - that someone thought they could just appoint themselves interim US Attorney and get away with it or that they actually tried 
And what's up with the Justice Department trying to make this whole thing legit by giving him a second title? seems like they're just trying to cover their tracks... 
Comey and James seem like they've got some solid grounds for their claims, though. I'm keeping an eye on this one 
. And what's with all these backroom deals and second titles 
. I'm not saying Trump didn't do anything wrong, but this whole thing reeks of corruption and it needs to be taken seriously 
.
I'm literally on the edge of my seat thinking about James Comey and Letitia James going up against the Justice Dept in court. They're fighting for their freedom, which is like, totally understandable given all the drama that's gone down with Trump. I'm rooting for them, tbh! 
This whole thing just highlights how crazy it's getting with Trump's administration, right? The law, the Senate confirmation process... it's all so complicated. Can't wait to see what Thursday's hearing brings 
. These high-profile targets, Comey and James, are fightin' to drop the charges against 'em and I can see why. The whole situation just seems fishy 
. It's gonna be a long road for these two to get through this, but I'm rootin' for 'em 
.
. The fact that Trump himself requested Halligan's appointment is like, the icing on the cake - it's just so blatant and manipulative 
. I'm all for accountability but this is ridiculous! 
Like, I know they think Halligan's appointment was shady, but maybe it wasn't actually unlawful? 
And honestly, isn't the Justice Department just trying to cover their own butt here? 
On the other hand, what if Bondi's attempt to legitimize Halligan's appointment actually works? 
That would totally mess with everything we thought we knew about this case! 