Judge says Comey evidence was wrongfully retained, creating hurdle for new charges, and it seems like we’re wading into some murky legal waters here. The situation, as I understand it, is that a judge has made a ruling that could throw a wrench into any future attempts to bring charges against James Comey. The core issue revolves around the way evidence was handled, and it’s creating a significant obstacle for those seeking to pursue a case. It really does sound like a frustrating situation for those involved.
Essentially, the judge’s decision suggests that the process of retaining the evidence was flawed.… Continue reading
In a recent ruling, a federal judge has temporarily barred prosecutors from accessing materials from Daniel Richman, a key associate of former FBI Director James Comey. Richman, who served as Comey’s attorney and is a Columbia University law professor, sued the government over their access to his computer data, arguing it was obtained unlawfully. Prosecutors sought access to these materials to support their case against Comey, who is accused of lying to Congress. This legal development adds to the challenges faced by the prosecution, particularly given previous setbacks and procedural issues in the case against Comey.
Read More
A federal judge invalidated the criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James due to the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that Halligan, appointed as interim US attorney by the Trump administration, lacked the authority to present the indictments, deeming her appointment invalid. The ruling was a major victory for both Comey and James, who faced charges of lying to Congress and mortgage fraud, respectively, with both denying any wrongdoing. The decision also highlighted concerns about potential political motivations behind the charges and questioned the proper procedures in obtaining the indictments.
Read More
The White House responded to the dismissal of criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James, asserting the Department of Justice (DOJ) will appeal the ruling. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the cases due to the disqualification of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, whose appointment was deemed legally invalid. White House officials maintain the indictments’ facts remain unchanged, emphasizing the president’s commitment to accountability and correcting alleged weaponization of the justice system. The DOJ is expected to consider an appeal, which would move the case to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, or it could refile the charges with new leadership.
Read More
A federal judge dismissed the indictments against James Comey and Letitia James due to the improper appointment of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan. Judge Currie agreed with Comey’s motion to dismiss, citing Halligan’s lack of lawful authority to present the indictments, as she lacked prosecutorial experience and was appointed without proper legal procedure. The dismissals were made without prejudice, but the statute of limitations may prevent the cases from being refiled. This decision, which stemmed from concerns about political motivations, may also affect other cases handled by Halligan’s office.
Read More
In a significant legal blow to the Trump administration, a federal judge dismissed criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James. The ruling stemmed from the judge’s conclusion that the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, who brought the charges at President Trump’s urging, was unlawfully appointed by the Justice Department. The dismissals centered on the appointment process of Halligan, a former White House aide, rather than the substance of the allegations against Comey and James. The judge determined that the Justice Department’s appointment of Halligan as interim U.S. attorney was invalid, thus invalidating all actions, including the indictments, that she secured.
Read More
A federal judge ruled to dismiss the criminal charges against James Comey and Letitia James, determining that the interim U.S. attorney who secured their indictments, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed. The judge found Halligan’s appointment violated federal law and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, concluding her service as interim U.S. attorney was invalid since September 22nd. Comey and James’ attorneys had argued Halligan’s appointment was flawed, which the judge agreed with. The Justice Department is expected to appeal the decisions.
Read More
The Trump administration is facing scrutiny over a case against former FBI director James Comey, revealing a pattern of individuals misleading Congress under oath. Numerous officials, including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, have made false promises during confirmation hearings that were later broken upon taking office. Additionally, key figures like FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi also made commitments to uphold justice and protect federal employees, which they subsequently failed to do. The prosecution against Comey is riddled with legal errors and potentially vindictive, highlighting a culture of deception and political theater within the administration.
Read More
Judge Michael Nachmanoff is expected to determine whether to release the full grand jury record in the case against James Comey, following a magistrate judge’s concerns about the prosecution’s conduct. The magistrate judge’s opinion highlighted potential issues with interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s actions, including concerns of presenting potentially mishandled evidence, misleading the grand jury on the law, and the possibility of unrecorded discussions. Comey’s defense team argues Halligan’s role was to secure an indictment at the behest of former President Donald Trump.
Read More
In a surprising turn of events, prosecutors in the James Comey case admitted the two-count indictment against the former FBI director was never presented to, nor voted on, by a grand jury. Judge Michael Nachmanoff pressed the prosecutors for details regarding the revised indictment after the grand jury rejected an initial count. The court found that the revised version was presented to a magistrate judge, instead of the grand jury. The discovery raises questions about the legitimacy of the indictment and has potentially significant consequences for the case, with the statute of limitations potentially preventing a refiling of charges if the current case is dismissed.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker