Hold onto your hats, folks— a federal judge just dropped a bombshell by dismissing criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James over what some call a bureaucratic technicality.
According to Newsmax, in a stunning turn of events, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton appointee, ruled that the interim U.S. Attorney who brought the charges was improperly appointed, leading to the dismissal of these high-profile cases, though the Department of Justice has vowed to appeal.
Let’s rewind a bit to understand how we got here. Back in 2013, Comey was appointed FBI Director under former President Obama, overseeing a contentious probe into alleged ties between President Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. Trump, frustrated by what he’s dubbed the “Russia hoax,” fired Comey in 2017, setting off years of public sparring between the two.
Fast forward to more recent times, and the Trump administration faced pressure to hold Comey and James accountable. Comey was indicted for allegedly making false statements and obstructing Congress, while James faced charges tied to a mortgage fraud inquiry. These cases, however, hit a wall when interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert was pushed out under administration pressure.
Enter Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with zero prosecutorial experience, tapped by the Trump administration to fill the vacancy. President Trump even took to Truth Social to push Attorney General Pam Bondi to act swiftly. But Comey’s legal team argued that federal court judges, not the administration, should have chosen the replacement.
Judge Currie agreed, ruling that Halligan’s appointment by the Justice Department violated proper protocol. The dismissals were issued “without prejudice,” meaning the cases could potentially be refiled with a properly appointed prosecutor. Still, the Department of Justice isn’t backing down and plans to challenge this decision.
Speaking of pushback, the White House didn’t mince words on the ruling. “This judge took an unprecedented action to throw these cases out to shield James Comey and Letitia James from accountability based on a technical ruling, and the administration disagrees with that technical ruling,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. If that’s not a polite way of saying “we’re not happy,” then what is?
Leavitt didn’t stop there, adding a bit of spice to the mix. “I know the Department of Justice will be appealing this in very short order, so maybe James Comey should pump the brakes on his victory lap,” she remarked. It’s a sharp jab, reminding us that this legal saga is far from over.
Meanwhile, both Comey and James had hoped for a dismissal “with prejudice,” which would have barred the Justice Department from reviving the charges. Judge Currie, however, declined that request, leaving the door ajar for future action. It’s a small win for the administration, even if it stings right now.
The challenge to Halligan’s appointment wasn’t the only issue raised by the defense. Comey’s attorneys pointed to alleged irregularities in the grand jury process, with those matters still pending before the court. James and Comey both called the prosecutions vindictive, a claim that resonates with critics of overzealous legal maneuvers. Adding to the complexity, lawyers for both defendants argued that since Halligan was the sole force behind the indictments, the dismissal should have been more sweeping. Judge Currie’s order, however, focused narrowly on the appointment mechanism used by the Trump administration. It’s a technical knockout, but not the full dismissal punch they wanted.
Interestingly, other federal judges in places like New Jersey, Los Angeles, and Nevada have disqualified interim U.S. attorneys under similar circumstances but allowed cases to move forward. That inconsistency raises questions about whether justice is being served uniformly or if political winds are swaying the scales. It’s a fair concern for those skeptical of judicial overreach.
Time is also a factor, at least for Comey, whose case faces a five-year statute of limitations, unlike the charges against James. If the Justice Department can’t resolve the appeal or refile swiftly, they might lose their shot at holding him accountable. That’s a ticking clock that the administration surely hears loud and clear.
For now, the path forward remains murky beyond the planned appeal. The White House has long decried what it sees as obstruction through political bias and legal loopholes, and this ruling only fuels that narrative. Yet, even critics of Comey and James might wonder if justice is being delayed by procedural gamesmanship rather than substance.
Ultimately, this case underscores a deeper clash between accountability and the mechanisms of power in Washington. While the administration fights to reverse this setback, many Americans are left questioning whether the system prioritizes process over principle. It’s a debate that won’t be settled in a courtroom alone, but for now, the gavel has spoken—until the appeal, that is.