admin
A federal judge on November 24, 2025, threw out the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor who brought the charges was unlawfully appointed and therefore lacked the authority to indict. U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie concluded that the stopgap appointment violated the statutory framework for interim U.S. attorney appointments, so the indictments could not stand. This is a seismic rebuke to the Justice Department’s heavy-handed attempt to run roughshod over procedure in politically charged prosecutions.
The prosecutor at the center of the collapse, Lindsey Halligan, was installed after the prior interim U.S. attorney left under pressure, and she signed the indictments that followed shortly thereafter. Comey’s indictment came Sept. 25 and James was charged Oct. 9, actions that critics say came at breakneck speed and smelled of politics. These aren’t garden‑variety mistakes; this was a rushed, engineered prosecution sequence that was vulnerable precisely because it depended on an improvised staffing scheme.
Judge Currie’s ruling homed in on Section 546’s 120‑day limit for an attorney‑general appointment and held that once that clock ran out the authority to fill the vacancy shifts to the district court. The judge rejected the Justice Department’s claim that the attorney general can keep reissuing short interim appointments indefinitely, warning that such a practice would nullify the Senate’s confirmation role. The legal logic is simple: the rule of law exists to stop power plays and prevent administrations from manufacturing authority to pursue political targets.
Practically speaking, Currie dismissed the cases without prejudice, leaving a theoretical path for refiling, but she also noted that Comey’s case faces a real statute‑of‑limitations problem that could make refiling impossible. The Justice Department has already signaled it will appeal, which means this fight will move up the chain and could end up before higher courts. Conservatives should not celebrate a momentary victory without recognizing the uphill battle to hold the entire operation to account.
Let there be no doubt: this was political prosecution dressed up as law enforcement. A Clinton‑appointed judge was forced to correct an unprecedented power grab, and the public watched as a patchwork of partisan loyalty and procedural shortcuts imploded under scrutiny. If the left thinks they can weaponize the justice system and then hide behind legal gymnastics when the scheme collapses, they are sorely mistaken.
Lindsey Halligan’s résumé — an insurance lawyer with recent ties to the former president’s legal team — was never going to withstand intense scrutiny, especially after reports that her hiring followed heavy pressure from the White House and the attorney general’s office. The scene looks like a pattern: careers shoved aside, loyalists parachuted in, prosecutions fast‑tracked against political enemies. That is not justice; that is politicized theater, and it dishonors career prosecutors who do this job the right way.
Congress and state leaders must use this moment to demand reforms that restore integrity to U.S. attorney appointments and block the weaponization of justice for political revenge. Republicans should push for statutory fixes that close loopholes and for oversight hearings that expose who ordered this rushed, unlawful campaign. The rule of law must be defended by legislation and by voters, not hollow promises and partisan prosecutions.
This ruling is a temporary check, not the end of the story, and patriots should be ready for the next round as the Justice Department appeals and Washington’s power brokers regroup. Hold fast: Americans who love constitutional norms must keep pressure on elected officials to stop turning the Department of Justice into a political cudgel. The struggle for honest, impartial justice — and for accountability for those who abused the system — continues.
