A federal judge in the United States has dismissed the case against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor overseeing the indictment was unlawfully appointed. The decision, issued by Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, stated that all actions resulting from the invalid appointment of Lindsey Halligan, President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, as interim attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia must be set aside. This ruling effectively ends the legal proceedings against both Comey and James, who had been accused of participating in politically motivated investigations.
The judge’s order highlighted that the installation of Halligan as the interim attorney was an unlawful act, meaning any actions taken under her appointment, including the indictment of Comey and James, were deemed invalid. In a statement, Comey expressed gratitude for the court’s decision, stating that the case against him was based on ‘malevolence and incompetence.’ James also expressed relief, calling the outcome ‘a victory’ and thanking supporters for their prayers and support.
Former President Trump had long accused both Comey and James of engaging in a politically motivated ‘witch hunt,’ with Trump claiming that Comey spearheaded a ‘Russiagate hoax’ and that James unjustly prosecuted the Trump Organization for fraud. The judge’s ruling has further complicated the legal landscape, as the White House maintains that the facts of the cases against Comey and James have not changed, and the administration is unlikely to accept this outcome as final.
According to CNN, the dismissal of the indictment opens the possibility of re-prosecuting Comey and James in the future. However, the White House remains defiant, with White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt asserting that Halligan was ‘legally appointed.’ Attorney General Pam Bondi also defended Halligan, calling her ‘an excellent lawyer.’ This disagreement highlights the ongoing legal battle and the potential for future litigation, as the administration continues to challenge the validity of the court’s ruling.