Hoyt Ag said:

---

I dont believe we even have an A Team.

---

no, it does has a double agent though that is thwarting every attempt to secure indictments and draw these proceedings out as long as possible. His name is Todd Blanche

Serious Lee said:

---

Hoyt Ag said:

---

I dont believe we even have an A Team.

---

no, it does has a double agent though that is thwarting every attempt to secure indictments and draw these proceedings out as long as possible. His name is Todd Blanche

---

Have you considered letting President Trump know about this?

I guess we will see how serious the DOJ is about perusing this if they do or don't appeal this.

will25u said:

---

I guess we will see how serious the DOJ is about perusing this if they do or don't appeal this.

---

Well………. while the judge dismissed the charges w/o prejudice, she mentioned that the statute of limitations for Comey's charges had passed.

Im Gipper said:

---

I agree with Whelan's assessment. This Order does not preclude going that route.

---

I think the issue is going to turn on the fact about the indictment being valid or not.

Question I have is why did the district court refuse to name a replacement when the first guy stepped down? I mean if the statutory language uses a mandatory "shall" appoint the successor and AG is completely powerless to do anything, is that what the law intended?

I think not.

I am still confused on how the judiciary is able to "appoint" an AG into the executive branch and not violate separation of powers.

And what stops the Executive from firing that person and then having someone else fill the slot?

Obviously, no legal mind speaking right here. When I was asking about the appeal, I was asking if the ruling that Halligan is disqualify is that something that can be appealed? And if the appeal was successful, wouldn't the case just stay in place and move forward?

The court had already done that when they appointed Seibert, and probably felt it wasn't their call after he resigned. As I read the statute, they only get to appoint someone after the expiration of the 120-day interim term.

will25u said:

---

I am still confused on how the judiciary is able to "appoint" an AG into the executive branch and not violate separation of powers.

And what stops the Executive from firing that person and then having someone else fill the slot?

---

It is confusing how the statutory scheme appears to make dominos fall or not fall as the case may be. Which person can choose to be the fly in the ointment.

will25u said:

---

I am still confused on how the judiciary is able to "appoint" an AG into the executive branch and not violate separation of powers.

---

Because it is specifically stated in the Constitution that Congress can pass laws on who makes certain appointments.

Quote:

---

nd [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments

---

The Constitution cannot violate itself.

The argument from the Trump Admin. is that a US Attorney should not be considered an inferior officer such that appointment from a court is allowed.


To aggiehawg's point, I agree the point of the law is not to let a job remain open forever and hamstring a department. But that did not happen in this case.

Doesn't that open the door for activist judges(currently) appointing someone who acts against his boss(USAG/President).

Quote:

---

To aggiehawg's point, I agree the point of the law is not to let a job remain open forever and hamstring a department.

---

Comey, as a former FBI Director and defendant being prosecuted by his former superior AG, almost enough for a conflict of interest? Maybe a Special Prosecutor from another district that has already been confirmed?

ETA: Is that supposed to be a work around here, when the district court refuses to do their duty?

will25u said:

---

Doesn't that open the door for activist judges(currently) appointing someone who acts against his boss(USAG/President).

---

Yes, and they can be fired. Like Trump says happened here!



Whelen on potential "what now?"

An alternative: District court immediately appoints someone else as US Attorney pursuant to its authority under 18 USC 546. Seems unlikely to me. Trump would likely immediately remove that person from the position, and Bondi would instate Halligan as acting by appointing her as…

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) November 24, 2025

I'm not an attorney. Is this a case of DOJ incompetence?

Quote:

---

An alternative: District court immediately appoints someone else as US Attorney pursuant to its authority under 18 USC 546. Seems unlikely to me. Trump would likely immediately remove that person from the position, and Bondi would instate Halligan as acting by appointing her as first assistant.

---

A lot of hoops to jump through to play this game. And that is what it is, just a colossal game of gotcha.

NEW: Former FBI Director James Comey posts another hostage video in response to his indictment being dismissed:

"I'm innocent. The court ended the case. It was a prosecution based on malevolence. A reflection of what the DOJ has become under Trump."pic.twitter.com/qreSfghtHF

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) November 24, 2025

Comey is delusional. Judge did not acquit him but he implies that anyway.

Dude loves a close up video of himself! So weird.

Im Gipper said:

---

Dude loves a close up video of himself! So weird.

---

He is so egotistical, sanctimonious, slimy and an all around a-hole, IMO. But I'd wager if he were to be tried anytime in the future, he'd take the 5th.

🚨 BREAKING: Karoline Leavitt gives NUCLEAR response to James Comey taking a victory lap that his indictment was dismissed over "procedural issues"

"The DOJ WILL BE APPEALING this in VERY short order!"

"Maybe James Comey should pump the BRAKES on his victory lap!"

GOOD! 🔥 pic.twitter.com/Z5tYtzgcum

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 24, 2025

So listening to Robert Gouveia break it down, the Judge is saying(paraphrasing) in her ruling...

The President has 120 days to appoint someone and get them confirmed to a US Attorney slot. If 120 days elapses without a confirmation, the president loses all ability to appoint someone to that position and it is only the power of the District Judges in that district until a nominee gets approved by Senate.

28 U.S. Code 546 - Vacancies

...

(d)If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.

Siebert was appointed interim for this district. Was never confirmed, District Judges say he can stay.after 120 days. Then he quits because DOJ wants to prosecute Comey/James. Bondi/Trump appoint Halligan interim.

Judge says that it is not valid and only the district judges can appoint seibert successor.

The president has 120 days to get someone appointed and approved by the Senate or you lose all ability to appoint somebody to that position.

Doesn't seem right to me, but what do I know.

Quote:

---

28 U.S. Code 546 - Vacancies

...

(d)If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.

---

"May" is not mandatory, it is permissive. If only the court could do it under those circumstances, the statute would read "shall." There's a difference.

jja79 said:

---

I'm not an attorney. Is this a case of DOJ incompetence?

---

More like flopping. I think they set this up to fail on procedural grounds so it wouldn't go to trial.

He's a lying sack of ***** Typical democrat.

jja79 said:

---

I'm not an attorney. Is this a case of DOJ incompetence?

---

Yes. However you could see early on there was going to be an intellectual mismatch.

esteban said:

---

jja79 said:

---

I'm not an attorney. Is this a case of DOJ incompetence?

---

More like flopping. I think they set this up to fail on procedural grounds so it wouldn't go to trial.

---

I'm not sure they did that, but it's definitely possible. I feel like they gave this case to Halligan and said "**** it, let's see what happens." The problem is no one who had any kind of competency signed onto the case until it was too late. So she was left twisting in the wind.

biased captured tds-infected justice protects the deep state so deep state can proclaim innocence.

even the TDS-infected that only want the opposite of anything Trump's admin does without a care in the world for sanity or logic or what is right and those that are happy there were treasonous bureaucrats trying to undermine a POTUS should know he's not "innocent".

HTownAg98 said:

---

esteban said:

---

jja79 said:

---

I'm not an attorney. Is this a case of DOJ incompetence?

---

More like flopping. I think they set this up to fail on procedural grounds so it wouldn't go to trial.

---

I'm not sure they did that, but it's definitely possible. I feel like they gave this case to Halligan and said "**** it, let's see what happens." The problem is no one who had any kind of competency signed onto the case until it was too late. So she was left twisting in the wind.

---

I don't think anyone competent has touched that case for some time. The political appointees at the DOJ are never going to prosecute other political appointees for lying to congress. They might as well sign their own arrest warrants and leave them on their desks for their successors.

they should just have all the congressional leaders they own take perjury off the books for certain "officials" then. why is it a crime if it can never be used?

As this administration continues the long march of losing credibility, I'll summarize what happened today with two words.

Quiet piggy!

oh no said:

---

they should just have all the congressional leaders they own take perjury off the books for certain "officials" then. why is it a crime if it can never be used?

---

This book is more about corporate executives, but it's the same theme we see with government officials. The DOJ still enforces some laws, but its primary role is that of a protection racket. They prevent corporate America's many cans of worms from being opened. They also protect the elected officials who appoint and confirm their leaders. People who do that aren't going to suddenly grow a spine when it's time to investigate the former occupants of their current jobs. The culture at the DOJ has been rotten for a very, very long time.

https://www.amazon.com/Chicken****-Club-Department-Prosecute-Executives/dp/1501121367

will25u said:

---

So listening to Robert Gouveia break it down, the Judge is saying(paraphrasing) in her ruling...

The President has 120 days to appoint someone and get them confirmed to a US Attorney slot. If 120 days elapses without a confirmation, the president loses all ability to appoint someone to that position and it is only the power of the District Judges in that district until a nominee gets approved by Senate.

28 U.S. Code 546 - Vacancies

...

(d)If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.

Siebert was appointed interim for this district. Was never confirmed, District Judges say he can stay.after 120 days. Then he quits because DOJ wants to prosecute Comey/James. Bondi/Trump appoint Halligan interim.

Judge says that it is not valid and only the district judges can appoint seibert successor.

The president has 120 days to get someone appointed and approved by the Senate or you lose all ability to appoint somebody to that position.

Doesn't seem right to me, but what do I know.

---

It might make sense from the potential for a President to refuse to appoint an interim US Attorney or for when Congress refuses to confirm any choice of the President.

Or... It sounds like when enacted in 1863 it was because of a lack of speedy communication.

Original 1863 language.

"If there is any vacancy in the office of the attorney of the United States for any district, the district court for that district may appoint some fit person to discharge the duties of the office until the vacancy is filled."

This seems really similar to what is being used today after updates. But seems pretty outdated in today's instantaneous communications.

But still seems a huge separation of powers issues to me...

1. Like hawg pointed out... The District Court MAY appoint a US Atty. Not shall.
2. The Executive loses all control of a vital Executive branch function if the judges appoint someone adversarial to the President who the US Attys powers are derived.
3. Activist Judges.
4. Article 3 usurping Article 2 powers of appointing Executive branch members.

oh no said:

---

they should just have all the congressional leaders they own take perjury off the books for certain "officials" then. why is it a crime if it can never be used?

---

We already know leftists can ignore congressional subpoenas without consequence. We already know leftists can trespass on federal property without consequence. We already know leftists can have cocaine in the White House without consequence. We know they can kidnap and human traffic without consequence. Just add perjury to the list of crimes they can commit without penalty.

America has two systems of "justice."

Bondi: “We'll be taking all available legal action, including an immediate appeal to hold Letitia James and James Comey accountable for their unlawful conduct.” pic.twitter.com/IBPxO451em

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) November 24, 2025