James Comey, Letitia James Cases Dismissed

A federal judge dismissed the Virginia criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday, finding that interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan was improperly appointed to her position and “had no lawful authority” to secure indictments of either of President Trump’s longtime adversaries.

The defeat for the administration came 11 days after attorneys for both Comey and James had argued that Halligan had to be confirmed by the Senate after Attorney General Pam Bondi used up her allotted 120-day interim appointment on Erik Siebert, who resigned Sept. 19 after Trump publicly criticized him for not bringing charges against the former head of the FBI.

After Siebert’s departure, Comey’s attorneys argued, the judges of the federal court district should have had exclusive say over who got to fill the vacancy. Instead, Trump nominated Halligan while publicly imploring Bondi in a social media post to take action against Comey, James and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), saying in a Sept. 20 Truth Social post that “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

Both indictments were dismissed without prejudice, which typically means that the cases can be brought again. Both defendants had asked that the cases be thrown out with prejudice, preventing them from being reopened.

However, the ruling by senior US District Judge Cameron Currie comes after the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations against Comey, likely meaning the case against him cannot be reopened.

Bondi vowed to appeal and praised Halligan as “an excellent US attorney.”

“We’ll be taking all available legal action, including an immediate appeal to hold Letitia James and James Comey accountable for their unlawful conduct,” Bondi said Monday at a press conference in Memphis.

The feds can try to argue on appeal that they qualify for a 6-month grace period to refile the indictment after dismissal. Though Currie addressed this in her decision, saying in a footnote that Comey’s case wouldn’t qualify for such a grace period, former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told The Post.

Halligan’s office can seek a new indictment against James since the statute of limitations hasn’t run out in her case — rendering Monday’s ruling a “temporary procedural win” for the Empire State’s top lawyer, Rahmani said..

“I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country,” said James, who faced up to 60 years in prison on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

“I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day.”’

Comey’s lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said the ex-FBI boss was “gratified” by the bombshell ruling.

“The decision recognizes that the case was brought by someone who had no authority whatsoever to be the United States Attorney,” Fitzgerald said. “The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment.

“The day when Mr. Comey was indicted was a sad day for our government. Honest prosecutors were fired to clear the path for an unlawful prosecution,” the defense attorney said.

Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in an interview with Fox News Monday, downplayed the two “technical” dismissals.

“Everybody knows that James Comey lied to Congress,” Leavitt alleged. “It’s as clear as day, and 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.”

“We believe the attorney in this case, Lindsay Halligan, is not only extremely qualified for this position, but she was, in fact, legally appointed, and 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,” Leavitt said.

Currie, a former South Carolina federal judge appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, heard arguments in the case Nov. 13 and indicated she was sympathetic to the defendants.

James’ defense attorney Abbe Lowell argued that the government’s position on appointments would give the Trump administration the “perpetual ability” to appoint prosecutors without the Senate having to fulfill its “advise and consent” function.

Under that theory, “even a person like Steve Bannon or Elon Musk” could have overseen the grand jury proceedings against Comey and James as Halligan did, Lowell contended.

At one point in the hearing, Currie asked prosecutor Henry Whitaker whether a Florida judge had erred in dismissing charges against Trump of hoarding national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort — on the grounds that then-special counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed by then-US Attorney General Merrick Garland.

“Do you believe that US v. Trump was wrongly decided?” Currie demanded, to excited whispers from some in the courtroom gallery.

Halligan, a former pageant queen, had worked in the White House before her appointment as interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Monday’s order will likely prompt an appeal process that could lead to three other prominent acting US attorneys — New Jersey’s Alina Habba, Sigal Chattah of Nevada and Bill Essayli of Los Angeles — leaving their posts.

All three have been in the job for more than 120 days, and have not been confirmed.

However, while judges have allowed cases brought under that trio’s watch to move forward, lawyers for Comey and James had argued that Currie’s ruling needed to go even further because Halligan was the sole signer of the indictments and the driving force behind them.

Rahmani explained that the US attorney’s office could dispatch another prosecutor to convene a grand jury and secure a new indictment of James, or Bondi could appoint Halligan as special counsel.

Halligan’s office also could appeal Currie’s ruling, but that will likely lead to months of delays while the case moves up the appellate ladder.

“My mind is blown,” Rahmani said of the decision. “This is why you don’t have people without any experience handling these types of cases.”

“From the very beginning, especially with the Comey case, the DOJ has been on the defense because they waited until the 11th hour and they appointed a prosecutor who has no prosecution experience,” Rahmani added. “This is not how you’re supposed to prosecute a case. You leave yourself vulnerable to these sorts of attacks.”

Another expert, Jonathan Turley, said on Fox News’ “America Reports” that James was celebrating prematurely since the office can simply seek to get a new indictment against her.

“The court is not saying that she was innocent of these charges,” Turley said. “The court is simply saying that the person who signed off on the charges did not have authority to do that.”

James, 67, was accused of buying a three-bedroom, one-bathroom home in Norfolk, Va. on Aug. 17, 2020, using a $109,600 loan.

James allegedly said she would be the “sole borrower to occupy and use the property,” when in reality her grandniece lived there and paid rent, the feds claimed.

Comey, 64, was charged with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice for statements in a Sept. 30, 2020, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about leaks to the press involving high-profile FBI probes.

Both Comey and James had pleaded not guilty and claimed they have been targeted by Trump because of their past investigations into him.