Justice Dept. Will Appeal Dismissal of Comey and James Indictments

[DonGlock26]

It seems this particular issue has done perfectly fine

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-appeals-court-disqualifies-trump-ally-habba-us-attorney-2025-12-01/

So what legal rationale do you think this appellate court will decide on that they didn't in New Yersey

The interpretation of the law the court used is open to appeal.

 

[forkup]

The interpretation of the law the court used is open to appeal.

Ah. You mean the law that plainly states that a US attorney can only serve for 100 hundred days by order of the President. After which it's the district courts who decide the replacement if there's no Senate confirmation. That law?

The law that's been applied now on 4 different occasions with 4 different people by the district courts and upheld on appeal once so far. That law?

 

[DonGlock26]

Ah. You mean the law that plainly states that a US attorney can only serve for 100 hundred days by order of the President. After which it's the district courts who decide the replacement if there's no Senate confirmation. That law?

The law that's been applied now on 4 different occasions with 4 different people by the district courts and upheld on appeal once so far. That law?

That's the law. If the appeals fail, then a different US attorney can indict the dirty duo.

 

[forkup]

That's the law. If the appeals fail, then a different US attorney can indict the dirty duo.

They've been trying... a lot. Seems when you have different US attorneys presenting the case, getting an indictment appears... challenging.

If I have to guess, it's because when a professional US attorney presents a case to the Grand Jury they won't say stuff like that they can consider evidence not presented. Or that they won't use tainted material as evidence.

But it sure is entertaining to watch people insisting that crimes were committed when they can't even get a majority in a Grand Jury to agree that a crime even MIGHT have been committed.

 

[DonGlock26]

They've been trying... a lot. Seems when you have different US attorneys presenting the case, getting an indictment appears... challenging.

If I have to guess, it's because when a professional US attorney presents a case to the Grand Jury they won't say stuff like that they can consider evidence not presented. Or that they won't use tainted material as evidence.

But it sure is entertaining to watch people insisting that crimes were committed when they can't even get a majority in a Grand Jury to agree that a crime even MIGHT have been committed.

Didn’t a grand jury indict them both?

 

[forkup]

Didn’t a grand jury indict them both?

Yes they did. James was indicted and I'll admit I don't know the specifics. For Comey I do. He was indicted by a majority of 14 out of 23 jurors. Which is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

But what struck me was not so much the low number relatively speaking but the fact that a judge decided to release the Grand Jury material to the defense. This because of significant irregularities. Including, and this is key, a suspicion that Halligan didn't just make procedural errors. But actual misstatements of the law.

This leads me to believe that Halligan who.also got James indicted purposefully misled the jury to get it.

Something that would explain why now, when Halligan is no longer acting without supervision, they can't secure an indictment anymore.

 

[DonGlock26]

Yes they did. James was indicted and I'll admit I don't know the specifics. For Comey I do. He was indicted by a majority of 14 out of 23 jurors. Which is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

But what struck me was not so much the low number relatively speaking but the fact that a judge decided to release the Grand Jury material to the defense. This because of significant irregularities. Including, and this is key, a suspicion that Halligan didn't just make procedural errors. But actual misstatements of the law.

This leads me to believe that Halligan who.also got James indicted purposefully misled the jury to get it.

Something that would explain why now, when Halligan is no longer acting without supervision, they can't secure an indictment anymore.

We’ll see how the appeals go.

 

[forkup]

We’ll see how the appeals go.

Sure. Don't hold your breath though.

 

[citygator]

Trump's Chief of Staff is on AUDIO TAPE admitting the prosecution is personal and vindictive. This wont make it passed even the most corrupt Trump judges.

 

[Zincwarrior]

They are appealing.

That is legally acceptable. However, it will be difficult to find appealable error on the finding that the DA was improperly installed.