Lindsey Halligan was appointed after President Donald Trump urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute the former FBI director and New York attorney general.
"And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Ms. James’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.
That’s a big issue. It should certainly be with prejudice, especially for Comey, because the statute of limitations has run on his actions. A fake prosecutor can’t reset the clock on the statute, can it? That’s not a reasonable legal position.
… However, later language leaves the statute of limitations question open. “I will invalidate the ultra vires acts performed by Ms. Halligan and dismiss the indictment without prejudice, returning Ms. James to the status she occupied before being indicted.” … If that is taken at face value, then the statute wouldn’t get reset.
Disagree. The answer is to dismiss without prejudice. The issue before the judge was, at its heart, whether the prosecutor had the legal authority to bring the indictment. The answer was no. As such, it’s not up to the court to tell the government they cannot bring the case again in a proper manner from qualified prosecutor.
The beauty of the decision is that – by issuing the order in this manner – the government is screwed anyway because (unless they successfully appeal this decision) the statute of limitations has tolled on Comey’s case,so even if Halligan or some other prosecutor were able to bring charges, the window to do so has closed. Case dismissed.
This is essentially dismissing with prejudice without prejudice. The case is over, at least for Comey, unless government is successful on appeal.
Fair. But even though this is clearly a politically motivated prosecution, I’d rather see the system operate the way it’s supposed to. The prosecutor shouldn’t be able to cut corners, and the judge shouldn’t take liberties.
If Halligan is the caliber of lawyer that Trump can get to bring these cases, then I think James will be fine.
"And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Ms. James’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.
That’s a big issue. It should certainly be with prejudice, especially for Comey, because the statute of limitations has run on his actions. A fake prosecutor can’t reset the clock on the statute, can it? That’s not a reasonable legal position.
… However, later language leaves the statute of limitations question open. “I will invalidate the ultra vires acts performed by Ms. Halligan and dismiss the indictment without prejudice, returning Ms. James to the status she occupied before being indicted.” … If that is taken at face value, then the statute wouldn’t get reset.
Disagree. The answer is to dismiss without prejudice. The issue before the judge was, at its heart, whether the prosecutor had the legal authority to bring the indictment. The answer was no. As such, it’s not up to the court to tell the government they cannot bring the case again in a proper manner from qualified prosecutor.
The beauty of the decision is that – by issuing the order in this manner – the government is screwed anyway because (unless they successfully appeal this decision) the statute of limitations has tolled on Comey’s case,so even if Halligan or some other prosecutor were able to bring charges, the window to do so has closed. Case dismissed.
This is essentially dismissing with prejudice without prejudice. The case is over, at least for Comey, unless government is successful on appeal.
Thats great for comey and all, but the concern was for Ms James.
Fair. But even though this is clearly a politically motivated prosecution, I’d rather see the system operate the way it’s supposed to. The prosecutor shouldn’t be able to cut corners, and the judge shouldn’t take liberties.
If Halligan is the caliber of lawyer that Trump can get to bring these cases, then I think James will be fine.