Former FBI director James Comey and current New York State Attorney General Letitia James have alleged that the recent charges brought against them are politically motivated, driven by Donald Trump’s personal vendetta. They are contesting the validity of their indictments by claiming that the attorney, hand-picked by Trump to lead the prosecution in Virginia, is unlawfully appointed. Additionally, they are referring to a Justice Department memo authored by a current Supreme Court justice, suggesting it supports their argument.
A hearing took place in Alexandria, Va., on Thursday, but a final decision is not expected immediately. The Trump administration has faced similar legal challenges this year in New Jersey, Nevada, and California regarding appointments.
The foundation of the argument lies in the early days of Trump’s second term, where new officials were appointed. Erik Siebert was sworn in as the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia without Senate confirmation, a step typically required for such appointments. Siebert resigned shortly before Comey and James were indicted on separate charges.
James and Comey’s attorneys are asserting that the law limits an interim U.S. attorney to a 120-day term, preventing repeated appointments without Senate confirmation. Meanwhile, the Justice Department contends that the appointments were lawful, with Bondi retroactively granting additional authority to Halligan to oversee the prosecutions.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s past memo, dating back to the Reagan administration, is cited to support the argument that the Attorney General’s power for interim appointments is restricted. The case is being heard by Judge Cameron McGowan Currie due to potential conflicts with Virginia judges.
In other state rulings, challenges to federal indictments have been raised over the validity of the U.S. Attorney appointments. Judges have ruled against appointments in California, Nevada, and New Jersey, with legal battles ongoing. The outcome of Halligan’s case will determine the administration’s next steps in pursuing charges against Comey and James, with varying statute of limitations for each case.
Ultimately, the legal battle surrounding the appointments and indictments of Comey and James continues, raising questions about the administration’s legal maneuvers and the future of the criminal cases.
