Comey and James Cases being dismissed

[mystery-ak]

Just breaking...

https://twitter.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/1993012837112025253

[mystery-ak]

The Comey case was dismissed without prejudice which means it can be filed again.

[mystery-ak]

Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
·
10m
BREAKING:

A judge has dismissed the criminal case against James Comey without prejudice. Rules Lindsey Halligan has been invalidly appointed.

[mystery-ak]

Bill G
@Bill_Gro
·
13m
What a bunch of bozo's this administration and Lindsey Halligan in particular are...  Comey and James cases BOTH dismissed.

[libertybele]

Gee, this just made my day.   

[libertybele]

The Comey case was dismissed without prejudice which means it can be filed again.

Doubtful that if they are filed again, that the outcome will be any different.

[mystery-ak]

WTG Bondi.....sheeesh! 

[mystery-ak]

Jonathan Turley says this is NOT the end of Comey's and Jame's prosecutions..

[mystery-ak]

Turley said James is celebrating too early...the Judge says this does not mean both are innocent of these crimes.

Can go back to the Grand Jury

[rustynail]

Now Bondi will step up and bring this case to trial.  Right?

[cato potatoe]

I can’t wait to learn the nickname Trump assigns to Pam Bondi.  Then, and only then will we get the unredacted Epstein files. 

[Kamaji]

What’s the statute of limitation?

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/prettyp4547/status/1993016824632680552

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1993016699822461218

[mystery-ak]

Jammles
@jammles9
·
27m
A judge tossing the cases against Comey and Letitia James over a “bad appointment” ruling says everything. The facts didn’t matter. Their conduct didn’t matter. The political weight behind them did. Two officials who used their offices for raw power just got cleared on a paperwork technicality, and the system is acting like that’s enough to excuse all of it.

This is is the deep state protecting its own and shutting the door on accountability before it even starts.

[Kamaji]

https://twitter.com/prettyp4547/status/1993016824632680552

Trump always appoints the best and brightest.

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1993016114188611936

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/C__Herridge/status/1992732402339209421

[andy58-in-nh]

It is frustrating that a 77-year old, Bill Clinton-appointed judge is willing to dismiss serious felony charges against former government employees on the basis of a procedural technicality.

But in truth, the judge had the right to do it and did so "without prejudice", meaning the charges can once again be brought by the Justice Department.   

If you want to be angry about this mess, recognize that it is the primary fault of the same Justice Department, whose leadership has not exactly covered itself in glory in recent weeks.

[mystery-ak]

More here

Federal judge dismisses James Comey, Letitia James indictments

Judge Cameron Currie found that Lindsey Halligan could not charge James Comey and Letitia James because she was an invalid U.S. attorney

 By Ashley Oliver Fox News
Published November 24, 2025 12:55pm EST

A federal judge threw out the indictments against James Comey and Letitia James on Monday, finding they were illegitimate because they were brought by an unqualified U.S. attorney.

Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the false statements charges against Comey and bank fraud charges against James without prejudice, meaning the charges could be brought again.

"I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025," Currie wrote.

The Department of Justice could appeal the decision or attempt to bring the charges again with a different U.S. attorney. Fox News Digital has reached out to the DOJ for comment.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-dismisses-james-comey-letitia-james-indictments

[Canuck Conservative]

meaning the charges can once again be brought by the Justice Department

Not any more.

Comey made his false statements to Congress end of September 2020 ... and there's a 5-year statute of limitations on prosecuting false testimony

That's why they were in such a hurry to indict Comey back in September

And now that deadline has conveniently run out

Why, it's almost like they wanted Comey to skate free! ...

[andy58-in-nh]

Not any more.

Comey made his false statements to Congress end of September 2020 ... and there's a 5-year statute of limitations on prosecuting false testimony

That's why they were in such a hurry to indict Comey back in September

And now that deadline has conveniently run out

Why, it's almost like they wanted Comey to skate free! ...

Yeah... that's such a .... "coincidence" ...

We'll have to see how it plays out in court. It's complicated, but there's still a potential opening.

There's a long-standing rule in U.S. jurisprudence that one should not let a criminal go free because the constable blundered.

But that may not matter anymore in this mixed-up, crazy world.

[Kamaji]

Yeah... that's such a .... "coincidence" ...

We'll have to see how it plays out in court. It's complicated, but there's still a potential opening.

There's a long-standing rule in U.S. jurisprudence that one should not let a criminal go free because the constable blundered.

But that may not matter anymore in this mixed-up, crazy world.

Where is that rule?

[andy58-in-nh]

Where is that rule?

I heard (back in my law school days) that the concept goes back to common law practice in England.

But in more recent times, Benjamin Cardozo, then seated on the New York Court of Appeals and later an associate Supreme Court justice, commented critically on the federal exclusionary rule, which had not yet been applied to the States. 

He suggested that in at least some cases the rule exacted too high a price from the criminal justice system. People v. Defore, 242 N. Y. 13 (1926). Cardozo questioned whether the criminal should “go free because the constable has blundered.”

That said, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Justice screwed the proverbial pooch on this one.

[Timber Rattler]

What’s the statute of limitation?

5 years, and we're past it for Comey.

[Kamaji]

I heard (back in my law school days) that the concept goes back to common law practice in England.

But in more recent times, Benjamin Cardozo, then seated on the New York Court of Appeals and later an associate Supreme Court justice, commented critically on the federal exclusionary rule, which had not yet been applied to the States. 

He suggested that in at least some cases the rule exacted too high a price from the criminal justice system. People v. Defore, 242 N. Y. 13 (1926). Cardozo questioned whether the criminal should “go free because the constable has blundered.”

That said, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Justice screwed the proverbial pooch on this one.

Interesting.  I’ll have to look it up some time.

[Timber Rattler]

If you want to be angry about this mess, recognize that it is the primary fault of the same Justice Department, whose leadership has not exactly covered itself in glory in recent weeks.

Yep, Bondi and Halligan are totally incompetent, but they were acting under direct orders (implied threats) by Trump.

Then again, Bondi might not have known about those indictments before they Halligan got them.

Flashback:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMhk5gkII5c

[Right_in_Virginia]

We know this drill by now .... Let the appeals begin.

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1993032234199400598

[Canuck Conservative]

"Important white pill re: Comey"

So DOJ has 6 months to re-file the charges ... now that IS interesting!!

[Hoodat]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

This footnote from Judge Currie's ruling could be crucial.

She writes that the statute of limitations was never tolled by the invalid indictment. If that's the case, Comey's statute of limitations has lapsed.



12:53 PM · Nov 24, 2025  ·  37.6K Views

https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1993015216909828397

[mystery-ak]

JONATHAN TURLEY: From lawfare to lawflop: Trump case dies, but could rise again

Trump indictments against James Comey and Letitia James were dismissed Monday 'without prejudice' with judge citing president's social media demands

 By Jonathan Turley Fox News
Published November 24, 2025 5:46pm EST

If we are living in an age of lawfare, it is fast becoming a war of attrition. The dismissal of the indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and current New York Attorney General Letitia James is the latest twist in the controversial prosecutions of Trump antagonists.

James immediately posted a message celebrating the decision, but she may want to focus on the prepositional phrase following the word "dismissal": "without prejudice." The administration may still be able to revive these cases.

James’ victory lap on social media is a fitting addition to the opinion, which emphasized President Donald Trump’s social media postings about these cases. U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie noted that Trump had demanded the indictment of these and other individuals shortly before the charges were handed down.

Law seems to have become entirely improvisational in the age of Trump. James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg adopted highly novel legal theories to pursue Trump in New York, including Bragg’s revival of a dead misdemeanor charge and its conversion into a multi-count felony indictment. Both cases were denounced by experts across the political spectrum as the raw weaponization of the legal process.

However, James is entitled to every bit of the due process and procedural protection that she denied Trump. Rushed to completion in the final days before the statute of limitations expired, these indictments proved a target-rich environment for defense counsel.

When the Comey and James indictments were filed, many of us in the legal profession noted a couple of problems. First, the James indictment seemed disjointed after the denial of a key charge. With time running out, Acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan quickly stitched the remaining counts together and filed the indictment. It was ad hoc and hardly ideal.

The main problem we identified was Halligan herself. The former private counsel for Trump was appointed acting U.S. attorney after the removal of her predecessor, Erik Siebert, who reportedly resigned after expressing reservations about the legal basis for the indictment.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jonathan-turley-from-lawfare-lawflop-trump-case-dies-could-rise-again

[massadvj]

These indictments should never have been brought in the first place. A true leader, especially one who was unfairly prosecuted himself, would be above revenge and vendettas. But, unfortunately, striking back is the only instinct Trump has.

Neither party should be using the federal government to attack political enemies. Yes, I realize the other party did it. But it cost them all their power. As it should have.

[DCPatriot]

These indictments should never have been brought in the first place. A true leader, especially one who was unfairly prosecuted himself, would be above revenge and vendettas. But, unfortunately, striking back is the only instinct Trump has.

Total unadulterated BS.

Neither party should be using the federal government to attack political enemies. Yes, I realize the other party did it. But it cost them all their power. As it should have.

It only "cost" them because President Trump had the receipts.  IOW, being innocent.