Bondi takes action after judge dismisses Comey, James cases: ‘IMMEDIATE APPEAL’
.
.
đ° The Retribution Roadblock: Pam Bondi Launches “Immediate Appeal” as Judge Dismisses Cases Against Comey and James
The legal campaign to hold prominent Democratic figures accountable has hit a significant procedural wall. Federal Judge Curry, a Clinton appointee, dismissed the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Lindsay Halligan, was not legally appointed.
However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the current administration, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has vowed an aggressive counter-move, announcing an “immediate appeal” to reverse the ruling. The political stakes are immense, as the outcome will determine whether a procedural technicality can shield two high-profile Trump adversaries from accountability for charges related to lying to Congress and mortgage fraud.
I. The Judge’s Rationale: A Technicality Shields the Defendants
The dismissal of the cases against James Comey (related to lying to Congress) and Letitia James (related to mortgage fraud) was based purely on a legal technicality concerning the validity of the prosecutorâs authority.
The Appointment Dispute:
The Prosecutor: The indictment was signed by Lindsay Halligan, who was appointed as U.S. Attorney by Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The Judgeâs Interpretation: Judge Curry argued that Halligan was “unlawfully appointed.” The ruling hinges on interpreting 28 USC § 546, which governs the appointment of U.S. Attorneys.
Section 546(d): The law states that a District Court may appoint a U.S. Attorney in the absence of the Attorney General doing so. The defense successfully argued that Halligan’s appointment circumvented the proper process, rendering the indictment invalid.
The defense, led by Jamesâs lawyer Abby Lowell, immediately seized on this, filing a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds of an “invalid” indictment and also accusing key figures in the investigation of “vindictive and selective prosecution.”
II. Pam Bondiâs Immediate Appeal: Fighting the Clock
Attorney General Pam Bondi was unequivocal in her response, stating the DOJ will take “all available legal action, including an immediate appeal” to hold both James and Comey accountable.
The Legal Argument:
Clarity of Law: Bondi and her team argue that the language in 28 USC § 546 is vague concerning the authority of the Attorney General to appoint a U.S. Attorney for a specific purpose, and that she did follow procedure in appointing Halligan as a special attorney.
Confidence in Victory: Strategists close to the DOJ believe they will win on appeal, arguing that the District Court judge (Judge Curry, a Clinton appointee) was clearly attempting to “run statute of limitations and protect Comey and James” rather than enforce a clear legal precedent.
The Comey Time Bomb: The appeal is critical for the James Comey case. Legal experts point out that the Statute of Limitations for the charges against Comey is hanging over the case. Even if the DOJ wins on appeal, the time window for legally bringing charges against Comey may be past.
Dismissed Without Prejudice: However, since the cases were dismissed without prejudice, the DOJ has options. They can argue that Halliganâs appointment was legitimate, or they could try to get a properly appointed U.S. Attorney to sign off on a refiled case.
III. The Victims of Weaponization: A Hypocrisy Claim
The legal wrangling has exposed a perceived hypocrisy in the political application of “due process.”
The Hypocrisy of the Defense: Critics, observing the proceedings, argue that it is difficult to watch the political system “continue to protect these people” who themselves operated a “weaponized system.”
The argument is that Comey and James are demanding due process and procedural protectionârights that they themselves arguably did not afford to President Trump during his impeachments and investigations.
Comeyâs Statement: James Comey fueled this political fire by immediately releasing a statement celebrating the dismissal:
Comey: “Iâm grateful that the court ended the case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence and a reflection of what the Department of Justice has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking.”
The White House quickly responded to Comeyâs victory lap, stating that he should “pump the brakes on his victory lap” because “everybody knows that James Comey lied to Congress.” They argue the judge’s ruling was a technical shield, not a finding of innocence.
IV. The Path Forward: Bifurcation and Accountability
The consensus among analysts is that Attorney General Pam Bondi’s best immediate course of action is to appeal both cases simultaneously.
The James Case Advantage: The DOJ has stronger leverage in the Letitia James case, as there is no statute of limitations issue concerning her mortgage fraud charges. Strategists suggest that even if the Comey case is lost on the grounds of timing, the DOJ can still “bifurcate or separate them and go after Leticia James separately.”
The Decision on Appeal: The most likely strategy is to fight the core legal issue of the appointment process. If the Appeals Court upholds the ruling that Bondi had the right to appoint Halligan, the charges against both Comey and James would be immediately reinstated, confirming the administrationâs dedication to long-overdue accountability.
The battle is viewed not merely as a legal one, but as a political fight over whether the system that protected and empowered these figures will ultimately allow them to be held to the same legal standards they imposed on others.
.
