Lindsey Halligan, and the dog that ate the transcript.

[JSRG]

James isn’t out of the woods yet. They can indict her again. She might have a separate case requesting dismissal over malicious prosecution pending though. If so, I don't know what happens with that since this is currently dismissed.

Comey can be indicted again despite this dismissal if it's done by someone properly appointed. This article discusses the issue:

The James Comey and Letitia James Cases Go Away, for Now | National Review

Comey’s pending motions could be key.

www.nationalreview.com

We're now past the statute of limitations for Comey, it is true, but if an indictment is filed within the statute of limitations but dismissed after the statute runs out, the government normally gets another 6 months to bring the case; see US Code Title 18 Part II Chapter 213 Section 3288. Here's the full thing:

Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information, or, in the event of an appeal, within 60 days of the date the dismissal of the indictment or information becomes final, or, if no regular grand jury is in session in the appropriate jurisdiction when the indictment or information is dismissed, within six calendar months of the date when the next regular grand jury is convened, which new indictment shall not be barred by any statute of limitations. This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution.

The key points are the bolded. It was dismissed, and thus they get another 6 months to bring a new one. Unless the dismissal was failure to file the indictment within the period prescribed or something else that would bar a new prosecution. That is not the case for this dismissal; all they have to do is have a properly appointed prosecutor bring the case and they can do it again.

That said, there were other motions to to dismiss Comey filed that aren't in front of the same judge that did this dismissal, and some of those might end up triggering the second bolded section by virtue of "failure to file the indictment" due to grand jury shenanigans, or the conclusion it's a vindictive and selective prosecution (which wouldn't be any less vindictive or selective six months from now). Despite Halligan doing a bad job with the grand jury, no doubt due to her inexperience, from my understanding it doesn't seem like the issues are enough to conclude that it was actually a failure to file, but they might. In regards to the vindictive and selective prosecution, the fact it's vindictive is easy (if this can't be ruled vindictive, what prosecution can?) but as I understand it, you need more than just that--you need to also prove it's selective, meaning other people aren't getting prosecuted for similar alleged crimes, which is where things get more murky. If the case is also dismissed on those grounds, then it seems like it would prevent another indictment for coming to Comey on this... but this current dismissal doesn't preclude another indictment.

 

[camille70]

I posted this in the other thread, but putting it here also.

Grand Jury Said to Decline to Re-Indict Letitia James
After a judge dismissed the Trump administration’s first attempt to indict the attorney general of New York State, a new grand jury effort failed, according to people familiar with the matter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/04/us/politics/letitia-james-indict-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.6E8.UMPd.1PRnDujXoT27&smid=url-share


A grand jury in Norfolk, Va., declined on Thursday to re-indict Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, rejecting efforts to revive a criminal case that had been sought by President Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.
The unsuccessful attempt to revive the case against Ms. James does not necessarily end the administration’s efforts to put her on trial, even after a federal judge dismissed an earlier indictment last month in ruling that the prosecutor who brought the case was unlawfully appointed by Mr. Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Nothing in the law prevents the Justice Department from trying a third time to indict her.

 

[Say it aint so]

I posted this in the other thread, but putting it here also.

Grand Jury Said to Decline to Re-Indict Letitia James
After a judge dismissed the Trump administration’s first attempt to indict the attorney general of New York State, a new grand jury effort failed, according to people familiar with the matter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/04/us/politics/letitia-james-indict-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.6E8.UMPd.1PRnDujXoT27&smid=url-share


A grand jury in Norfolk, Va., declined on Thursday to re-indict Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, rejecting efforts to revive a criminal case that had been sought by President Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.
The unsuccessful attempt to revive the case against Ms. James does not necessarily end the administration’s efforts to put her on trial, even after a federal judge dismissed an earlier indictment last month in ruling that the prosecutor who brought the case was unlawfully appointed by Mr. Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Nothing in the law prevents the Justice Department from trying a third time to indict her.

True. Nothing prevents them from going after James for ten more times if they get denied again. What it does do however, is bolster James's malicious prosecution charges. That and the AG posing in front of her house taking pictures.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Judges lash out at Justice Department for still listing Lindsey Halligan on court documents​

One of those judges, Magistrate William Fitzpatrick, said at a criminal case hearing Tuesday that filing criminal charging papers “under Ms. Halligan’s name” at this time “is simply not acceptable,” according to a transcript obtained by CNN.

Both Fitzpatrick and another judge in the district, Michael Nachmanoff, told prosecutors this week they believed the ruling was clear that Halligan wasn’t the US attorney for all cases. They both noted, in separate hearings this week, according to court transcripts, that the Justice Department hadn’t appealed the ruling about Halligan, nor asked any court to pause it for a possible appeal.

The Justice Department’s reasoning for keeping Halligan’s name on criminal filings has been thin, from the perspective of prosecutors appearing in court.

“The Office of Legal Counsel told us to put the name as is as it has been presented on these indictments. That’s what we are going on at this point,” Roberts said in court on Tuesday, according to court records obtained by CNN.

Can the United States Government defraud itself?

 

[Factotum]

I think you mean incompetence drives the bus. (Because, generally, competence has a lot to lose signing on to this corrupt clown show.)

This was all strategic by the Trump DOJ, in order to beat the statute of limitations deadline on charging Comey. Kalligan beat it by 36 hours I heard.
Now that Kalligan is disqualified, the Court gives them several weeks to replace her and reinstate the charges.

It was very clever, by Bondi.

 

[Say it aint so]

Court rules Trump DOJ violated fourth amendment and orders return seized data.​

Someone put a tent around this circus Everyday, it's something new.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

This was all strategic by the Trump DOJ, in order to beat the statute of limitations deadline on charging Comey. Kalligan beat it by 36 hours I heard.
Now that Kalligan is disqualified, the Court gives them several weeks to replace her and reinstate the charges.

It was very clever, by Bondi.

Not exactly - if Halligan was never legally the AG, and if (as alleged) she misstated things to the grand jury and ultimately never presented the final indictment to them for approval, then there may never have been an indictment in the first place, in which case, the SoL has expired already.

Furthermore, if they want a re-do, they'll first need to replace Halligan (which they've not done - in fact the DoJ is maintaining that she is still the US Attorney for the Eastern District and continuing to put her name on filings in all the district's cases), and then they'll need to get the charges through a new grand jury. And they've already exhausted half of their 6-month window.

 

[Belk]

This was all strategic by the Trump DOJ, in order to beat the statute of limitations deadline on charging Comey. Kalligan beat it by 36 hours I heard.
Now that Kalligan is disqualified, the Court gives them several weeks to replace her and reinstate the charges.

It was very clever, by Bondi.

Yes, that must be why all those professional lawyers are praising this 300d chess move by the Trump DOJ instead of pointing out how it is the result of extreme incompetence.



/s

 

[JSRG]

Yes, that must be why all those professional lawyers are praising this 300d chess move by the Trump DOJ instead of pointing out how it is the result of extreme incompetence.



/s

There actually was some strategy to this. If they didn't indict in time, then that was it; it was over due to the statute of limitations. By indicting in time, even if it was rushed and sloppy (hence the dismissal), they'd have an extra 6 months to bring a new indictment (probably--there is an argument that the initial indictment might have been botched so badly it doesn't actually count as an indictment, and that it therefore wouldn't fall under the statute that grants the 6-month extension for re-indictment after a dismissal if it's now past the statute of limitations).

Granted, the case against Comey is by all appearances so weak I have doubts they can even bring it to trial, and I'd be absolutely amazed if they could actually convict; it would've made more sense to just not bring it at all, hence why they notoriously had to fire the prosecutor who didn't want to bring it in and bring in someone who had no experience prosecuting to do it instead. Still, if your goal is to convict, however slim your odds are, and your choices are "do a rushed and sloppy indictment and keep the case alive or don't indict at all and you lose it forever" the former is obviously the better one.

 

[Belk]

There actually was some strategy to this. If they didn't indict in time, then that was it; it was over due to the statute of limitations. By indicting in time, even if it was rushed and sloppy (hence the dismissal), they'd have an extra 6 months to bring a new indictment (probably--there is an argument that the initial indictment might have been botched so badly it doesn't actually count as an indictment, and that it therefore wouldn't fall under the statute that grants the 6-month extension for re-indictment after a dismissal if it's now past the statute of limitations).

Granted, the case against Comey is by all appearances so weak I have doubts they can even bring it to trial, and I'd be absolutely amazed if they could actually convict; it would've made more sense to just not bring it at all, hence why they notoriously had to fire the prosecutor who didn't want to bring it in and bring in someone who had no experience prosecuting to do it instead. Still, if your goal is to convict, however slim your odds are, and your choices are "do a rushed and sloppy indictment and keep the case alive or don't indict at all and you lose it forever" the former is obviously the better one.

There is also the issue that they botched this one so badly they now have to throw out a lot of the evidence. I don't think they were planning on using the six month extension, I think they lucked into that.