That progressive liberal judge doesn't know the facts. She made a political decision instead of a lawful decision.
And what "facts" does she not know?
Now, in response to the above post I just quoted, someone else responded with "Bold of you to assume a judge doesn’t know how the law applies to these cases". Now, the proper thing to respond to that would be to explain the facts you claim the judge doesn't know and explain why the decision was wrong. Instead of doing that, you responded with:
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday responded to the dismissal of criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James by a far-left Judge on the basis of US Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s appointment.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
But this offers no actual rebuttal. Let's look at what the article quotes Leavitt as saying:
Well, what I will say, is that everybody knows that James Comey lied to Congress. 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, and the administration disagrees with that 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 offers no explanation as to why the appointment was legal; she simply asserts it. That's not a counterargument at all. So what you are apparently holding up as a counterargument is someone who makes no actual counterargument whatsoever. Maybe if Leavitt was some kind of super lawyer she could work as an appeal to authority, but she's not a lawyer at all. Further, she's an extraordinarily biased source--her
job more or less is to defend whatever the position of the administration is, so her defending something they did is to be expected; one might as well say "the defense lawyer for someone said they weren't guilty? Well, case closed, then!" Leavitt incidentally does not make herself look credible when she she claims Halligan is "extremely qualified" for the position when Halligan has little if any experience in criminal law and had never prosecuted a case before.
To return to the complaint that the decision came because it was by a "progressive liberal judge", here's Andrew C. McCarthy, a conservative former prosecutor, agreeing that the appointment was improper:
Comey’s pending motions could be key.
www.nationalreview.com
It is behind a metered paywall so it might not be possible to view if you've read too many other articles there recently, but to quote the most important part which serves as a good summary of the problems with Halligan's appointment:
Not to toot my flute here, but back on November 15, I told you this would happen (“Expect the Comey and James Indictments to Be Dismissed Without Prejudice”). The problem is twofold.
First, the statute that governs interim U.S. attorney appointments, Section 546 (of Title 28, U.S. Code), provides for a single 120-day interim period. Prior to Halligan’s being installed by Attorney General Pamela Bondi on September 22, 2025, at the direction of President Trump, her predecessor, Erik Siebert, had served a 120-day interim term. Siebert was banished by Trump over his refusal to charge Comey and James, concluding there was insufficient evidence.
As I’ve also previously explained, Bondi tried to cure this patent problem by naming Halligan a “special attorney” and backdating that designation to the start of her tenure. But she didn’t do that until October 31. By then, Halligan had indicted Comey on September 25 and James on October 9. The backdating couldn’t work because, at the time of the indictments, Halligan did not formally have the “special” status and the accompanying delegation of prosecutorial authority from Bondi.
Second (and as further explained here), Bondi’s status might not have required dismissal if she had assigned properly commissioned subordinates — “line prosecutors” known as assistant U.S. attorneys — to present the cases and sign the indictments. Authority to prosecute comes from the attorney general, not the district U.S. attorney. Halligan decided, however, to handle the grand jury presentations and sign the indictments herself, acting unilaterally with no assistance from subordinates. Hence, since she lacked prosecutorial authority at the time, the indictments were not legitimate.
Whatever one thinks of Andrew C. McCarthy, he isn't a "progressive liberal"; he's a pretty staunch conservative. His most recent book, published in 2019, was
"Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency" (asserting that the Clinton campaign and Obama administration tried to rig the 2016 election against Trump). And yeah, sure, he's become a lot more critical of Trump in recent years, but he's given various defenses of Trump too (for example, he was
extremely critical of Alvin Bragg's prosecution of Trump, see
here for one of the many articles he wrote criticizing that case). Also note that unlike Leavitt, the non-lawyer who simply asserted with no explanation that the appointment was legitimate, McCarthy actually did explain his points (as did the judge in question for that matter; the opinion is available
here if anyone wants to read it).
