Hearing today in Comey, James fight vs. Trump prosecutor
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Lindsey Halligan looks on during an executive order signing in the Oval Office on March 31. Photo: Al Drago/Getty Images
Lawyers for James Comey and Letitia James will urge a federal judge to toss their indictments, arguing President Trump's hand-picked prosecutor was illegally appointed.
The big picture: The ruling could test how far the Trump administration can go in reshaping the Justice Department in his quest for retribution against political foes.
- Trump has exerted public pressure on the department to target his political enemies and reportedly ousted the previous U.S. attorney who declined to do so.
- Lindsey Halligan, Trump's personal attorney who had no prior prosecutorial experience, was tapped to replace Erik Siebert. Days after, she indicted Comey and, later, James.
Driving the news: Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie will hear Comey's and James' bids to dismiss their cases Thursday morning in a Virginia courtroom.
- The defendants argue Halligan's appointment violated the Constitution's Appointments Clause. U.S. attorneys are typically nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
- While the attorney general may choose an interim U.S. attorney to serve for 120 days, James' and Comey's attorneys argued that window already expired.
- The defendants say that means the district court, not Attorney General Pam Bondi, should have appointed an interim U.S. attorney.
What they're saying: "News reports and the President's own public statements indicate that the grand jury proceeding would not have occurred absent Ms. Halligan's unlawful appointment," James' legal team wrote in an October motion to dismiss. "The only proper remedy is dismissal."
- Comey's team similarly argued, "Dismissal of the indictment is warranted because Ms. Halligan was not lawfully exercising governmental authority when she secured and signed that indictment."
- They argue the clock would run out after 120 days from the attorney general's initial appointment (in this case, Siebert), rather than starting over with a new pick.
- If she could instead make "back-to-back sequential appointments of interim U.S. Attorneys, the 120-day period would be rendered meaningless," Comey's team argued.
The other side: The government argued her appointment was legal, and even if it weren't, the indictments should still stand.
- In their filing, prosecutors wrote, "any defect in Ms. Halligan's role does not taint the indictments themselves." They argue she was at least a "de facto officer," and Bondi could have installed her in another role.
- The prosecution also said if the indictments are dismissed, it should be done "without prejudice," so prosecutors can "swiftly seek reindictment."
- The White House referred Axios to the DOJ, which declined to comment.
State of play: Comey has pleaded not guilty to charges of lying to and obstructing Congress, and James has pleaded not guilty to federal bank fraud charges.
- In a head-turning Truth Social post in September, Trump publicly implored Bondi to go after Comey, James and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), another Trump foe. The president claimed they were all "guilty as hell" and that "Woke RINO" Siebert "was never going to do his job."
- The cases have become a proxy for Trump's broader push to wield the Justice Department against his rivals. To critics, the charges represent a crumbling of prosecutorial independence — but to Trump's base, they've been received as vindication.
Go deeper: Comey accuses Trump of "personal spite" as he seeks to dismiss case
