Lindsey Halligan, and the dog that ate the transcript.

camille70 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.