Federal appeals judges have questioned the Justice Department’s attempt to revive criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The central problem is not a dramatic secret witness. It is whether the Trump-aligned prosecutor who obtained the indictments legally held her job.
Lindsey Halligan, a former Trump personal lawyer with no prior prosecutorial experience, was appointed interim U.S. attorney after her predecessor reportedly resisted pressure to bring charges. Lower courts dismissed the cases after finding appointment problems.
Prosecutorial authority is not optional paperwork
The government argues that former Attorney General Pam Bondi had authority to install Halligan and that any defect can be corrected. The defendants contend that allowing serial temporary appointments would let an administration bypass constitutional and statutory limits until it finds somebody willing to produce the desired indictment.
Comey was accused of making false statements to Congress. Letitia James faced bank-fraud allegations. Both deny wrongdoing and say the prosecutions were retaliation against prominent Trump opponents.
The merits cannot outrun the process
A court can take allegations seriously while demanding that the prosecutor possess lawful authority. Rules governing appointments exist partly to prevent criminal enforcement from becoming a president’s personal grievance department.
Reuters reported on the Fourth Circuit arguments and the judges’ skepticism.
The appeals court has not yet issued its final decision. Until then, every claim remains subject to evidence, defenses and due process—the tedious constitutional machinery that keeps “lock them up” from becoming an official charging standard.
Facts first. Side-eye included.
DJF separates what is confirmed from what is claimed—and tells you why this particular mess is worth your time.
Dana Side-Eye
Receipts, Rumors & Internet NonsenseDana reads the fine print, checks the timeline, and keeps one eyebrow permanently raised. She covers viral claims, internet pile-ons, and suspiciously convenient explanations.
“Screenshots are forever. So is the side-eye.”