This seems to be going the way a lot of us expected.

Time will tell!

will25u said:

---

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 But seems pretty outdated in today's instantaneous communications.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.

---

Telegraphs already existed before 1863 and were used for urgent communications.

Potus needs a real AG, complete embarrassment, DOJ cannot be seen as a feckless institution.

will25u said:

---

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 But seems pretty outdated in today's instantaneous communications.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.

---

Yeah...

It would be like if Congress wrote the legislation to say that if there's a vacancy, then the SENATE gets to fill it. So, the POTUS appoints someone, an adversarial Senate refuses to confirm, and then after X days they fill the vacancy. Article 1 usurping Article 2 powers of appointing Executive branch members...

It's essentially the same concept - which seems to me would be unconstitutional.

Some of you all are forgetting I'm Gipper's post on the previous page regarding the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution. Here it is in its entirety:

Quote:

---

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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.

---

Both parties in this lawsuit stipulated that Halligan's position is that of an inferior officer. Thus, courts appointing someone to fill a position is lawful, just as the Attorney General appointing someone to temporarily fill a vacancy is also permissible.

The bigger question in all of this is can the AG just keep naming different people to the same position over and over again for 120 days terms. I don't know that answer, and I don't think anyone does because it so rarely happens.

Burpelson said:

---

Potus needs a real AG, complete embarrassment, DOJ cannot be seen as a feckless institution.

---

You're assuming Bondi wanted to bring this case. After Trump's "DM that wasn't a DM," she didn't have much of a choice, other than resigning.

sandwich man, leticia james, james comey

in the arena of political persecutions, trump is batting zero for zero

jja79 said:

---

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

---

Trump admin incompetence. When you appoint a U.S. attorney, it has to be approved by the senate in 120 days. If not, then the courts decide whether the person is approved.

Trumps appointment ran out the 120 days and the courts approved him. But he resigned when he wouldnt indict Comey and the trump administration appointed the beauty queen.

The law is very clear that if one appointment has to be court approved b/c they weren't senate approved then the next appointment must be court appointed.

They didnt do that. The administration appointed her. Whoopsie.

Quote:

---

It would be like if Congress wrote the legislation to say that if there's a vacancy, then the SENATE gets to fill it. So, the POTUS appoints someone, an adversarial Senate refuses to confirm, and then after X days they fill the vacancy. Article 1 usurping Article 2 powers of appointing Executive branch members...

It's essentially the same concept - which seems to me would be unconstitutional.

---

Except the Constitution does not expressly allow for that, like it does to allow Courts to appoint inferior officers.

The thing about this is this could have all been avoided if another attorney would have signed onto the indictment. I believe there's a case in Nevada where the appointment of an attorney was ruled invalid, but the judge allowed the indictment to stand because someone else was also involved.
The repeated stepping on rakes in this case is just astounding.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1):

Quote:

---

The indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and must be signed by an attorney for the government.

---

As I have said since the start, ANY one there could have done this. Bondi, Sauer, Blanche, etc.

Could a junior attorney (I don't know that's the correct nomenclature, maybe AUSA is better?) signed onto it as well and satisfied that provision? Because it looks like she's had some others sign on for motions filed later in this case.

Quote:

---

They didnt do that. The administration appointed her. Whoopsie.

---

The number of skilled career AG bodies that were stacked in the Eastern District of Virginia to get this indictment in place is pretty crazy. It makes the eventual bungled lead balloon of an indictment all the more remarkable

US Attorney and head of Easter Virginia Erik Seibert resigns under pressure as he does not see a case to made for indictment.

Assistant AG Elizabeth Yusi - a 18 year vet of major crimes prosecution was fired after also resisting pressure to bring an indictment

Maggie Cleary, Seiberts temporary replacement before Halligan's appointment and a senior prosecutor is fired by Halligan

Michael Ben'Ary. who had nothing to do with the case, is fired by Halligan all because of the musings of internet MAGA backer Julie Kelley.

Maya Song - career prosecutor - fired by Halligan

There is Bennie Hill Yakkity Sax music playing in the background there.

HTownAg98 said:

---

The thing about this is this could have all been avoided if another attorney would have signed onto the indictment. I believe there's a case in Nevada where the appointment of an attorney was ruled invalid, but the judge allowed the indictment to stand because someone else was also involved.
The repeated stepping on rakes in this case is just astounding.

---

With a looming statute of limitations issue, mistakes happen when rushing to beat the clock. We saw that in 2020 after the election. Deadlines all over the place. And when there's that Catch-22 wherein can't file cases before the election due to lack of proof of irreparable harm and then the (improper IMO) use of an equitable doctrine of laches after the election have to factor in appeals to the timeline. Impossible legal task.

Our election laws are a mess and SCOTUS abdicated their responsibility when given the chance to address the inequities of the Catch-22.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

jja79 said:

---

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

---

Trump admin incompetence. When you appoint a U.S. attorney, it has to be approved by the senate in 120 days. If not, then the courts decide whether the person is approved.

Trumps appointment ran out the 120 days and the courts approved him. But he resigned when he wouldnt indict Comey and the trump administration appointed the beauty queen.

The law is very clear that if one appointment has to be court approved b/c they weren't senate approved then the next appointment must be court appointed.

They didnt do that. The administration appointed her. Whoopsie.

---

So after 120 days the president/DOJ lose all ability to appoint a new acting USA?

What is the person in the acting position quits, dies at 119 days... Does the president then have 1 day to get someone nominated and into that position?

Hypothetical...

President appoints WILL25U for Eastern District of Virginia. WILL25U is not confirmed by opposing party Senate. 120 days goes by. Judges of EDVA appoint HULLABALOONATIC as acting USA who HATES the President and has vastly different views from the President.

The Senate knowing they have an activist USA in EDVA refuses to confirm any of Presidents USA nominees for EDVA.

So now the President has no control over a pretty important position in Article 2 with no recourse.

Seems pretty cut and dry separation of powers issue. Also, what is to stop this from happening in multiple districts around the country? As noted below, does a Republican President lose control of 52 district courts, or Democrat President lose control of 28 district courts?

52 District Courts are Democrat nominated majority
28 District Courts are Republican nominated majority
9 District Courts are Even.

ANY attorney for the US could sign the indictment. Halligan is the only person that signed it in this case.

Im Gipper said:

---

Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1):

Quote:

---

The indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and must be signed by an attorney for the government.

---

As I have said since the start, ANY one there could have done this. Bondi, Sauer, Blanche, etc.

---

Let's say it is true that she was not appointed as acting USA correctly. Isn't she still an attorney for the government even if denied the position of Acting USA for EDVA?

Quote:

---

Judges of EDVA appoint HULLABALOONATIC as acting USA who HATES the President and has vastly different views from the President.

The Senate knowing they have an activist USA in EDVA refuses to confirm any of Presidents USA nominees for EDVA.

---

The President then fires HULLABALOONATIC.


Lets stick to what happened here. Trump appoints Seibert as Interim USA in January. Before his term expires in May, Trump nominates him for the USA job. The Eastern District then appoints Seibert interim after the 120 days expires. This was not a Trump hater. This was Trump's nominee. Trump then fires him or he resigns, and before the Court can appoint someone new, he appoints Halligan.


So to use your scenario, the Court would have appointed YOU to interim.

Your separation of powers argument is a valid one, don't get me wrong. But the statute is in place to prevent a president from just stringing out 120 day appointments to get around having to ever actually get the Senate to confirm someone.

Quote:

---

Let's say it is true that she was not appointed as acting USA correctly. Isn't she still an attorney for the government even if denied the position of Acting USA for EDVA?

---

No because the appointment was invalid. They could have just hired her as a deputy and trotted her down as a deputy USA and this wouldn't be an issue. Or (again) Bondi, etc. could have done it. Why didn't they? Takes me back to my thought this was sabotaged by design.

I dont think POTUS wants to take another bite at this apple, leave it alone and focus on affordability.

Im Gipper said:

---

ANY attorney for the US could sign the indictment. Halligan is the only person that signed it in this case.

---

Not just "ANY" attorney off of the street. I know that's not how you meant it but that is how it sounds.

I liked this Turley article. It is light on substance, but has some great lines in it:

Quote:

---

If we are living in an age of lawfare, it is fast becoming a war of attrition. The dismissal of the indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and current New York Attorney General Letitia James is the latest twist in the controversial prosecutions of Trump antagonists.

---

Quote:

---

Law seems to have become entirely improvisational in the age of Trump. James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg adopted highly novel legal theories to pursue Trump in New York, including Bragg's revival of a dead misdemeanor charge and its conversion into a multi-count felony indictment. Both cases were denounced by experts across the political spectrum as the raw weaponization of the legal process.

---

Quote:

---

However, James is entitled to every bit of the due process and procedural protection that she denied Trump. Rushed to completion in the final days before the statute of limitations expired, these indictments proved a target-rich environment for defense counsel.

---

Quote:

---

District courts are unlikely to agree that presidents can daisy-chain appointments indefinitely, with each acting U.S. attorney serving for 120 days like a rotating prosecutorial timeshare. That is particularly true when the authority to appoint under federal law rests with the district courts.

In other words, while the president and many others may view these three as "guilty as hell," hell knows no fury like a court scorned.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

ANY attorney for the US could sign the indictment. Halligan is the only person that signed it in this case.

---

Not just "ANY" attorney off of the street. I know that's not how you meant it but that is how it sounds.

---

ANY attorney for the US

Burpelson said:

---

I dont think POTUS wants to take another bite at this apple, leave it alone and focus on affordability.

---

I'll take the opposite side of that bet.

What's good for the goose if good for the gander. The "process is the punishment" as was said when the roles were reversed. Trump is going to string this along for as long as he can.

Do you blame him?

Process last a few days and then the DOJ looks foolish and feckless. The DOJ typically has a 99% closing on any case they bring to the docket, this looks foolishly handled.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

sandwich man, leticia james, james comey

in the arena of political persecutions, trump is batting zero for zero

---

Standing up for three very overt criminals isn't really a good look.

Quote:

---

Process last a few days

---

You think the appeals on this "last a few days"?

Burpelson said:

---

Process last a few days and then the DOJ looks foolish and feckless. The DOJ typically has a 99% closing on any case they bring to the docket, this looks foolishly handled.

---

Stats to back up your 99% claim please?

Comey all ready knows the outcome, it just looks ham handed, a judge is waiting to throw it out, just think his DOJ could take on cases that have real legal standings.

Burpelson said:

---

a judge is waiting to throw it out, just think his DOJ could take on cases that have real legal standings.

---

Two systems of justice. Yea!

jt2hunt said:

---

Burpelson said:

---

Process last a few days and then the DOJ looks foolish and feckless. The DOJ typically has a 99% closing on any case they bring to the docket, this looks foolishly handled.

---

Stats to back up your 99% claim please?

---

It's more nuanced than that. Roughly 10% of the cases get dismissed. Of those that don't, about 90% result in guilty pleas, with less than 1% resulting in acquittals. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/14/fewer-than-1-of-defendants-in-federal-criminal-cases-were-acquitted-in-2022/

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

sandwich man, leticia james, james comey

in the arena of political persecutions, trump is batting zero for zero

---

Standing up for three very overt criminals isn't really a good look.

---

What about standing up for a very convicted criminal?

lol I love that Comey is hated by Republicans when he basically handed the 2016 election to Trump with the way he handled Hilary's investigation.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

sandwich man, leticia james, james comey

in the arena of political persecutions, trump is batting zero for zero

---

Standing up for three very overt criminals isn't really a good look.

---

What about standing up for a very convicted criminal?

---

Keep plucking that chicken, I guess

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

sandwich man, leticia james, james comey

in the arena of political persecutions, trump is batting zero for zero

---

Standing up for three very overt criminals isn't really a good look.

---

What about standing up for a very convicted criminal?

---

The guy New York had to invent crimes to convict?